You are clearly obtuse, a company free of responsibility from our bill of rights is insane. To say you have a right to censor others speech simply because you operate the platform makes you a publisher. Therefore anything 'published' under your platform is your responsibility as you chose to control the speech on the platform. You cannot have it both ways, either you are responsible for the content published or you are not. To say you are not and then control the speech is against the good faith clause. You have no rational argument, because you are basically saying that companies should have no responsibilities for their actions, which is redundant.
actually, they do owe anyone who makes an account a platform.
Section 230 that grants them protections from libel. It also states they must act in good faith, they have not.
You are clearly obtuse, a company free of responsibility from our bill of rights is insane. To say you have a right to censor others speech simply because you operate the platform makes you a publisher. Therefore anything 'published' under your platform is your responsibility as you chose to control the speech on the platform. You cannot have it both ways, either you are responsible for the content published or you are not. To say you are not and then control the speech is against the good faith clause. You have no rational argument, because you are basically saying that companies should have no responsibilities for their actions, which is redundant.