I understand and can work with Twitter very well, thank you. But there's multiple free options that are much better than Twitter for this type of content: twitlongers, blog sites like medium, etc. And no, if I write my novel on a napkin I'm not going to hold it against others when they tell me "well, reading your novel on a napkin is certainly not the best way to read it". Twitter was not designed and is not the primary vessel for denunciations (or any long message) of the sort. Seeing a link to a twitlonger or to a medium article is much more common and a better way to do things. No matter the platform you're using, no matter what year you're writing something, if you want to be heard and your message to come across, you make it accessible, well formatted and well presented.1) Unless I'm mistaken, Price is not a journalist. There's no reason to hold her to journalistic standards (which are, themselves, fluid and largely meaningless, since they're really just norms that change over time and are routinely broken, often in good faith). She was essentially talking about something she heard. I will always be more charitable to the person who gets information out, even if it's not 100% correct, than to the institution they're trying to expose. They have resources and can even sue, if they really feel like it's worth it. She has...a Twitter account. And this isn't about you, but people in this thread complaining about not being able to grok Twitter's interface....I mean, imagine a skywriter gradually spelling out the words OK and BOOMER. Twitter is how a ton of news is generated and distributed in 20201. If you can't work out what to click, that's fully on you.
I'm not going to engage in a talk about juridical insitutions. My point was that getting cancelled is not something new and limited to social medias. It happened before social medias and is a normal process.2) Courts are almost never going to surface or settle these kinds of issues. Even if these matters do wind up in front of a judge and/or jury, do courts have a perfect track record? And what happens when a suit ends with a settlement that doesn't involve an admission of guilt and where all parties are barred from discussing it further? Unless you're talking about the most heinous abuses, ala Harvey Weinstein, the courts aren't going to solve this for you. The only thing most of us can base any decisions or opinions on are the info we have available to us, however we can get it. That'll never be perfect and we'll all make tons of mistakes based on necessarily incomplete evidence (the "truth" being about as relative as anything can be), but that's the best we can do.