>Can a lawfag tell this anon how the internal rules of twitter can supersede the laws of the country within it operates?
>
>I'm alluding to the 1st Amendment.
Well, technically, they can suppress speech on their platform since it is akin to private property. You don't have to allow a biden rally in your living room.
Sec. 230 protects them from liability from things like libel IF they are just providing a platform. but if they "publish"/curate the site, they could be liable in a civil suit
HOWEVER …
where I think they're potentially liable for suppressing speech [compare, allowing defamatory speech] is as follows:
like the Pied Piper, they lured away the public from the old town square and promised they were the new town square, even if it was like "private property" they let it ride for a while - just long enough to get everyone to move their soapbox to their domain
then, they pulled the rug out of half of the crowd
under contract law, this smacks of 'bad faith' [like when you sue the hell out of an insurer for not paying a claim they knew was covered]
it also sounds like a civil rights violation, since they tricked millions into surrendering the liberty they once had in the town square for their sparkly little gulag
finally, it sounds like a potential RICO case [if] it was part of a larger and more diabolical plan to suppress liberty in general, and in aid to corruption and or treason
in sum: you can restrict some private speech in a private domain – but NOT IF IT IS A BIG FUCKING SILLYCONE VALLEY +CIA TYRANNY TRAP [those motherfuckers!]