Technology does weird things to conversations about the First Amendment. Twitter benefits from freedom of speech/the press/assembly in the sense that it can ope

Technology does weird things to conversations about the First Amendment. Twitter benefits from freedom of speech/the press/assembly in the sense that it can operate a platform that broadcasts individuals' writings. By the same principle, it has the right to only broadcast what it wants. Twitter isn't the government or a public entity. It's the publisher printing a paper. So, no, that's not really censorship, whereas requiring Twitter to broadcast speech against its will seems like it would be. NB: I am not a constitutional lawyer.