In an interview with the New York Times, Twitter co-founder Evan Williams apologized if the site he helped create played a role in electing Donald Trump to the White House, the Chicago Tribune reported Saturday.

“It’s a very bad thing, Twitter’s role in that,” he said. “If it’s true that he wouldn’t be president if it weren’t for Twitter, then yeah, I’m sorry.”

“The president has credited Twitter with his election to the highest office in the land,” the Associated Press said.

The AP added:

The 45-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur also said the internet is obviously broken because it rewards extremes.

Williams also says he was wrong thinking that the world would be a better place if there was a platform for everyone to freely speak and exchange ideas.

Translation: Free political speech is doubleplus ungood and must be curtailed, the First Amendment be damned.

Mashable further said:

Trump’s use of Twitter has long been the source of criticism, especially now as he holds the highest office in the country. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that Trump’s aides recently held a social media intervention with the president due to concerns his tweets could have political and legal ramifications.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Williams’ remarks, according to the Times.

But, Newsmax said, Trump’s tweets have “often become major news stories of their own, and allow him to present his opinions without having to rely on the media, with whom he has a contentious relationship.”

That’s putting it mildly. The so-called “mainstream media,” known here as the Democrat-media complex, has embarked on a jihad of sorts in an effort to foment hate and drive the president from the White House, in many cases pushing fake or distorted “news” based on anonymous sources and innuendo.

According to the Washington Examiner, a Harvard study revealed that 93 percent of the coverage provided by CNN and NBC has been negative toward the president.

Byron York explained:

…the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN’s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

Ninety-three percent negative — that’s a lot by anybody’s standards. “CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks,” the study noted. “Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity.”

But did Twitter really get Trump elected? Granted, Twitter helped him bypass the biased media and speak directly to the electorate, but the dissatisfaction with establishment politicians was already there.

Trending: Judge rules recall of Seattle Socialist Councilwoman can move forward

What should be more troubling to anyone who uses social media is Williams’ assertion that he was wrong to think the world would be a better place if everyone could freely speak and exchange ideas. Stifling speech will only increase dissatisfaction, but liberals — who used to support free speech — apparently haven’t figured that out yet.

Related:

If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.

And if you’re as concerned about Facebook censorship as we are, go here and order this new book: