Let's review the history of the Twitter fact checker:
On 11 May, Twitter announced a new Fact Checker that would flag any posts that were spreading misinformation about Covid-19. This is the very first time that they used it. The purpose of the Fact Checker is to flag a tweet that seems to carry harmful misinformation or claims, where that tweet is spreading rapidly.
Between 12 and 26 May, Trump repeatedly tweets that Joe Scarborough murdered his intern. Despite overwhelming evidence that this is wrong, he continually attacks their family on Twitter and in public speeches, prompting the intern's husband to publicly beg Twitter to do something.
On 26 May, Twitter refuses to delete Trump's comments but promise to expand existing product features to address it.
On the evening of 26 May, Trump tweets that mail-in ballots are substantially fraudulent. Twitter identifies the tweets as containing "potentially misleading information about voting processes and have been labelled to provide additional context".
At no point was Trump censored. At no point were his tweets deleted or edited. The Fact Checker is not just for Trump. But he is the one that forced it to be used. Some of you may see the fact checker as evil. I see it as a necessary tool in a world where Trump believes that his voice is the only voice that should be heard.
This is how Twitter is choosing to combat misinformation. Facebook is choosing to do so by verifying the users. Time will tell if either of these are effective. The US lacks a solid method of reporting news in an unbiased way, so we are left with the efforts of the individual companies to be the judges of the news stories they allow on their platforms.
Personally, I prefer to read the BBC's fact checking articles on Trump's regular statements. The BBC has their own bias issues but at least they are not American.
Also, in case you don't know, Trump makes sensationalist tweets to draw your fickle attention spans off the areas that he is hurting in, such as Covid and the upcoming election, because every crazy thing he says is responded to with an internet explosion. If his advisors tell him that he will suffer in elections if mail-in voting is used in certain counties or states, then he will try to get that method shut down. It is vitally important that the president's reasons for making a claim are made known and open to critique. If he is shown to be in the wrong, he should publicly apologise (but he never has and never will). Are there no slander laws in the US?