Twitter once again proved that it is more of a publisher than an open platform. They stripped Christopher Rufo, who has 222k followers, of his blue checkmark.
Over the past few years, Twitter has gradually transformed the blue checkmark from confirming the user’s identity to endorsing the user’s content. By awarding users with blue checkmarks and retracting existing blue checkmarks from others, Twitter supports specific kinds of content over others.
Rufo appears to have been stripped of his blue checkmark for a series of tweets attacking Critical Race Theory. This is a derivative of Marxist Critical Theory that seeks to radicalize non-Whites by encouraging them to blames all their shortcomings on White people.
Critics of Twitter argue that the use of blue checkmarks to endorse content is a direct violation of Section 230 legal protections they currently enjoy. There have been unsuccessful lawsuits against Twitter over BLM, Antifa, and Jihadist violence that was promoted on their platform. Imagine the tidal wave of new lawsuits if judges begin ruling that Twitter no longer constitutes an open platform. Since Twitter censors some accounts, are they not negligent for not censoring accounts that openly advocate violence?