A private contract does not attract protection from the first amendment, which is a bar upon the creation of laws, not a bar upon the contractual behavior of pr

A private contract does not attract protection from the first amendment, which is a bar upon the creation of laws, not a bar upon the contractual behavior of private parties. I think you've skipped the key point here. >Google's position doesn't need to be that twitter is free from hate, but rather that it does enough to curtail it. The implicit premise of Gab and it's explicit stated position is that it will not curtail hate speech. Absent other indications, words in contracts are interpreted to have meaning. Accordingly, significant has a 'non-zero in some context' meaning. Zero =/= Non-zero. Accordingly Gab is in breach. Trying to compare them to twitter and other platforms that do moderation isn't a like-for-like comparison in the contractual framework this is being analyzed under.