[wonderwonder]

What you are discussing in regards to free speech is again, by your admission, just a concept, not a law. All that matters is the law. Until its made law it has no bearing on the actions of a company. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act means that whether you want to call them an editor or whatever, legally they are not responsible. The law is the law until it is changed, everything else is just an opinion.

[zakk]

I sincerely hope you are joking.

People can discuss things that are not law.

One can point out, for instance, that Twitter is not a free speech platform, and this is bad for many reasons.

One can comment on laws, proposing to extend legal protections to different sectors.

I hope your conversations are not solely based on current law, that must be pretty boring.

(You interpretation of Section 230 is shaky at least)

[wonderwonder]

I think we may have a failure to communicate. This entire thread is predicated on you stating that "This is quite important from a legal standpoint, because since Twitter practices censorship of ideas they don’t like, they are no longer considered a common carrier. There are huge legal ramifications of this!" That's the entire central premise of the discussion. You are the one that brought up the legal aspect of it. Anyone can discuss anything in a conversation, it still does not change that its only a conversation, it does not affect the laws that govern how a company can be run.

Edit: Note - I am not blaming you for the communication breakdown, it seems that perhaps we were both coming at this from different sides and may have missed each others points. Either way, wish you all the best.