[75dvtwin]

Twitter restrict free speech using their selective outrage. It is morally reprehensible, but allowed.

They are free to have their selective outrage, but they are a publisher, not a platform.

And therefore cannot claim protections under 47.230 This is like claiming tax exceptions of a non-profit charity, while being a for profit business

>" ... (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

..."

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[wan23]

This is a strange reading of section 230. It seems like you're saying that Twitter is not a "provider...of an interactive computer service" because it is choosing what is on its platform, even though in section 2A it specifically provides protections for such providers to "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider...considers to be obscene...or otherwise objectionable". If it is not allowed for a platform to remove content they find objectionable, then why call it out as protected here?