> It doesn't matter! That's their legal right, which the first amendment (and section 230) both protect. Agreed! Corporations are people too! > Examples Her

> It doesn't matter! That's their legal right, which the first amendment (and section 230) both protect. Agreed! Corporations are people too! > Examples Here: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-sued-for-failing-to-take-down-child-porn-videos/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-su... > Is that really the model you want twitter to follow? I want Twitter to pick a model. In fact, I don't really care model they pick: they should be held legally liable when they curate an editorial headline that is libelous. If they decide that they're going to be a social "network" again (remember that word?) and not social "media" which steals content from their users, selecting a narrative ("some Twitter users are saying..."), then I don't care. That would be a world in which section 230 protections are valid. But as it stands, all Twitter is a mass narrative shaping device. All views are welcome, as long as they line up with the ever-changing, unknown corporate values of Twitter. Which is to say: Twitter picks speech to promote and yet is not accountable for it. > As I implied above, the NYT doesn't need 230 protection because they engage in much stronger censorship than twitter does. They do need 230 protection, because they've been sued over and over again for libel. Twitter's editors have not yet been, and according to this article, they actively prevent the process of legal discovery by a court when they don't need to. > That's not a motte and bailey though. That's just how rights work. This is about their process of argumentation. They used to say they were "The Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party." Ha. Ha. That's the ideological argument they're sheepishly putting forward in this legal brief, and thankfully people can notice the argumentative bad faith even if they have legal standing to do so.