Sure, but Twitter banning (or not banning) your account for praising Hitler is political speech, however, Twitter stating "we are/aren't a platform for free spe

Sure, but Twitter banning (or not banning) your account for praising Hitler is political speech, however, Twitter stating "we are/aren't a platform for free speech" or "our moderation will/won't ban your account for praising Hitler" is commercial speech similar to it soliciting you to purchase Twitter blue, it's a statement about the media service they're offering as part of their business, and that's something that can be reasonably compelled. The law does not make any requests about how Twitter should moderate things, it asks for information about how Twitter does moderate things. First amendment protection should ensure that government is prohibited to impose restrictions if a company says they will/won't ban accounts for praising Hitler, however, the people certainly have the right to take action in response to that, and the government has the right to compel Twitter to disclose to these people truthful information about their media product. If they have a policy document stating "posts which contain more than three letters 'z' shall be deleted", they have a right to moderate this way if they wish - however, do they have a constitutional right to keep that policy document secret from the public? The way I see it, laws are permitted to regulate the disclosure of company policies.