Your logic is flawed and entirely unconvincing. > In this situation, what would you make of Zoom inserting that tag line? Does it change your analysis? It wou

Your logic is flawed and entirely unconvincing. > In this situation, what would you make of Zoom inserting that tag line? Does it change your analysis? It would be counter to the contractual agreements and policies that Zoom has set up. Twitter has no such obligations. > The Zoom example might open your eyes to the other side; namely, if a private company chooses to offer a service to the government, it needs to abide by certain restrictions... and, if it doesn't like it, it need not provide that service. The company is responsible for operating according to the terms that both it and its users agree to, and the law. That is it. > If Twitter is hosting government officials and agencies -- in their official capacity -- there are certain restrictions it muse abide by; namely, not modifying, editorializing, or shadow-banning their posts. If Twitter doesn't like this restriction, it can choose not to host that government official or agency. Twitter's only mistake is not reprimanding the racist hate-mongers like Trump for the policies it supposedly has. Any regular user or lesser public figure would have (and has) been banned if they tweeted the things he does. If Twitter has agreements with these users, stating that they are immune from all of Twitter's posted rules, then sure your argument has footing. Otherwise, you don't get to hijack a platform with your own rules and because you happen to work for the government and open a free account there.