Reasonable people can disagree on whether retroactively enforcing a very broadly written legalistic TOS is sufficiently similar to editing a newspaper to qualif

Reasonable people can disagree on whether retroactively enforcing a very broadly written legalistic TOS is sufficiently similar to editing a newspaper to qualify as editorial control (no sarcasm). My point was to the question (paraphrasing) - how can the courts rule that corporations are entitled to opinions expressed via donations but then take away their right to express opinions through moderation? This court’s answer, which I find entirely plausible, is (paraphrasing) that the opinions tech platforms express through moderation at least do not constitute a real coherent viewpoint. Instead they are haphazard and fairly random responses to stimuli, for example, they are sometimes the side effects of algorithms designed primarily to promote engagement, and they are sometimes the result of pressure from members of Congress or other politicians, and they are sometimes the result of attempts to mitigate bad PR. I think the court is essentially saying something most people can largely sympathize with: that Facebook and YouTube don’t actually have anything resembling a genuine point of view, they are just out for their own growth and profit, and are claiming editorial coherence right now because it suits them, but will say the opposite tomorrow when they need a different legal shelter in a different court case. CBS News tried to make money but there is no question the driving force of that division was to gather and present accurate news of some high minded importance. 60 Minutes had its flaws but it had miles more integrity than say Facebook. At what point are we going to allow just any old company to claim to be essentially a journalistic enterprise? Do you genuinely believe Facebook has a point of view to justify its moderation? If so, what is it?