> So the argument is exactly the same: whether or not we choose to remove some content, we cannot be held liable for all content, because doing so will make it

> So the argument is exactly the same: whether or not we choose to remove some content, we cannot be held liable for all content, because doing so will make it impossible to operate. But no one is forcing them to be "liable" for their own internal regulations they completely made up. This is a case of 1) a public person (so they don't fall under libel), 2) a politically newsworthy story, 3) published in a regulated industry, 4) where they inconsistently discriminated in applying their own policy, and 5) would be legally culpable if they were a traditional broadcast platform under FEC election law. The fact that their internal policy runs against what they'd have to do if they were a broadcast network is the icing on the cake. And then there's the fact that "they can't possibly monitor all of the violations on their platform." So wait, even their own EULA is selectively enforced for users!!!!?