It misses the point. To use an analogy, bars need bouncers. But bouncing the jackass at the bar isn't speech and thus not protected by the 1st amendment. Sta

It misses the point. To use an analogy, bars need bouncers. But bouncing the jackass at the bar isn't speech and thus not protected by the 1st amendment. States and the Feds can regulate how people are bounced. Such as saying you can't bounce people just because they're gay. A 1st amendment activity would be something like choosing who can speak at open mic night. That falls under editorial discretion. It's a limited resource, choosing who speaks shapes the content, and generally adds up to expression of it's own. Thus 1st amendment protections come into play and bars can ban people that speak positively about homosexuality. So to come back to Twitter is their moderation like bouncing jackasses at the bar or selecting speakers for open mic? For pretty much their entire existence they've been claiming that they're a platform for people to express their own ideas. I don't see how they can now argue editorial discretion.