This clearly falls under Twitter acting as a publisher since they are choosing which political actors are given voice on their platform. While they can ban anyone they like, if it isn’t done fairly then they deserve to be treated as the partisans they are.
Right, as they are exercising censorship authority they become publishers and thus lose protection for things being transmitted on their network (as they are now implicitly giving approval to other things on their network by stating who can and cannot post). This isn’t a good road Twitter wants to walk, assuming there’s actual Justice to be had.
You don't know a thing about section 230. If they are a publisher as you say and not a platform then they should be shut down years ago for the child pornography they publisher. Right behind facebook with that shit.
This clearly falls under Twitter acting as a publisher since they are choosing which political actors are given voice on their platform. While they can ban anyone they like, if it isn’t done fairly then they deserve to be treated as the partisans they are.
Right, as they are exercising censorship authority they become publishers and thus lose protection for things being transmitted on their network (as they are now implicitly giving approval to other things on their network by stating who can and cannot post). This isn’t a good road Twitter wants to walk, assuming there’s actual Justice to be had.
You don't know a thing about section 230. If they are a publisher as you say and not a platform then they should be shut down years ago for the child pornography they publisher. Right behind facebook with that shit.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/
CP doesn't violate their rules so its their first amendment right to publish it, right?