[ChainReaktion]

But what exactly is “the law?” It’s not like this stuff is cut and dried even within the US. Posted this elsewhere, but free speech laws are some of the trickiest legal issues we grapple with in the US, and many statues hinge on the intent behind the speech. How is Twitter supposed to implement this (hypothetical) new policy? Do they always give posters the benefit of the doubt? Seems ripe for abuse. Assume the worst? Probably more censorious than it is today. Punt to the courts? Great, moderation now takes years and costs thousands of dollars. What is the standard of proof to take down a tweet? Preponderance of the evidence? What evidence is admissible? Does Twitter just internally recreate the US trial court system to manage this? What about cross-border disputes? What about laws that directly conflict? What about international law? Treaties to which the US is not a party (eg Protocols I & II of the Geneva Convention)? If “following the law” were easy we wouldn’t have so many layers and judges

[judge2020]

To be fair, 'free speech' isn't even something a company can force themselves to follow. Short of selling to the US Government (who would have to explicitly accept such an offering), being bound by free speech isn't possible without making your own rules for what qualifies as free speech and what happens when the platform 'violates' it - ie. you can't say "take all matters of violating your first amendment to civil court" since corporations, by design, cannot violate your first amendment rights.

[antiterra]

It’s fair to assume any substantial site with user created content has some significant agreements/settlements with attorneys general in various jurisdictions. Those will likely be the stickiest, outside of ones with direct judicial determination.