Now, this part of the argument just misses what the NYT v Sullivan standard requires: it's more than just passive publication. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266381424896114691 …pic.twitter.com/SVBMRz8TRr
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The anti-free-speech case for 230 revision makes some sense if you're trying to stamp out, say, child porn. But "Twitter should not be able to publish libelous Tweets" is a terrible argument.
You can’t leave it up to Cheshire Cat regulators without very bad consequences.
Right, one of the problems with requiring neutrality is having it defined by people who are themselves far from neutral.
Why not just mandate social media to not censor anything with the exception of child pornography or threats of violence against individuals outside the First Amendment?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.