If twitter owns rights to use your content if you post it on their site and they are promoting content that supports their political ideology and suppressing content that doesn't
are they not acting as a publisher when they are in near full control of the content you see that they own legal rights to use? How is that much different than CNN feeding me its bullshit with no opposition allowed to speak if they don't want it?
Twitter is banking on 230 ATF style, they don't have the authority to just flat out pin their propaganda and keep 230 protection so they just use existing vague rules to remove whatever they want against their political beliefs which is not what 230 protection was intended for, it was only intended for the owners to not be legally liable for what users post and also allow them to remove rule breaking content. But if "rule breaking content" always seems to be opposing political beliefs it sure seems like you're in a way publishing.
If twitter owns rights to use your content if you post it on their site and they are promoting content that supports their political ideology and suppressing content that doesn't
are they not acting as a publisher when they are in near full control of the content you see that they own legal rights to use? How is that much different than CNN feeding me its bullshit with no opposition allowed to speak if they don't want it?
Twitter is banking on 230 ATF style, they don't have the authority to just flat out pin their propaganda and keep 230 protection so they just use existing vague rules to remove whatever they want against their political beliefs which is not what 230 protection was intended for, it was only intended for the owners to not be legally liable for what users post and also allow them to remove rule breaking content. But if "rule breaking content" always seems to be opposing political beliefs it sure seems like you're in a way publishing.