It's unreasonable, in that it's a standard that can (likely) ever be met. When it comes to the state, I believe the reason we require such broad free speech pr

It's unreasonable, in that it's a standard that can (likely) ever be met. When it comes to the state, I believe the reason we require such broad free speech protections is precisely because perfection can never be attained, and the state holds an unfair advantage in force, and in law. But it's just hyperbolic nonsense to consider nearly any private company, let alone one with such marginal reach as Twitter, as possessing such a monopoly on information that they have to be treated the same as the state. And it's transparently ideological when I see someone demand perfection from non-state sources while championing alternatives with records far worse.