> They removed links to a story that violated their published policies. I am not sure that it matters 'why they censored'. Put it another way, I do not think

> They removed links to a story that violated their published policies. I am not sure that it matters 'why they censored'. Put it another way, I do not think it matters if they applied their own ToS rules correctly, incorrectly, selectively or whatever. I am not sure that their terms of service, allow them to claim protection under 47.230 [1] I am sure that the position that the fed government investigators will take. If Twitter folks (or their crowd-sourced moderators, or committees) gray-out/remove/comment on/hide/edit content that Twitter claims 'is not theirs' -- then it is hard to imaging they are compliant with the 'non-publisher' protections of section 47.230. Imagine if one is a for-profit business, claiming tax code for a non-profit organization. Their Terms Of Service mentions: 'Making the world better and being charitable. We do not do business with bad clients'. Does that make that business less criminally liable for claiming taxes of a non-profit? To me it does not. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230