Giant corporations don't get to decide what is true

And yet, you still tag it with "censorship".

It's not censorship if they let him say what he wants and then reply with just arguing!

Except it is if they have a special exemption under the Communications Decency Act which is specifically dependent on them NOT arguing or editorializing. Hey, if they want to give up that exemption, then have at it Hoss. They can be as biased as they want if they do that. But I don't really think they want to do that, do you?

I don't know who told y'all that argument would stand up in court. Twitter is to allowed to have a Terms of Service and they have let Trump break it so many times. All they're doing is adding a link to more information.

If Trump doesn't like it, he should delete his account and find a service with rules more to his liking.

No, they actually don't get to do that. That's the point. Your ignorance of the law aside, the Communications Decency Act says they are immune from liability, ONLY if they act as a platform not a publisher. Once they start editorializing content they are not a platform anymore, they are a publisher. They do NOT have a legal right to Terms of Service that include them editorializing content UNLESS they want to give up their CDA exemption. So if they want to editorialize content then they have to give up their immunity from liability. It IS the law. They do have to choose between cultivating content and being immune from liability. I really wish people would learn about things before they started spouting off that their opinion supersedes the actual law.

Tell a judge to rule that way and then get back to us.

Learn something about the actual real world and get back to me. This is explicitly written in the act. You have no idea what the Communications Decency Act even is, yet you believe you have a valid opinion on it's contents.

Section 230 states “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

It creates a legal exception that allows platforms to moderate their sites as they see fit, without taking on the risk of being sued for the content they leave up. And a judge will tell you the same thing.

You've been lied to and you should be furious at the asshole who manipulated you into repeating that lie.

And Twitter should have kicked Trump's sorry ass off their service a long time ago.

While I appreciate your ability to copy and paste something you don't understand, that isn't the relevant section of 230. You just copied and pasted the first thing you thought was intelligent. All that says is you you can't be liable for misinformation in something that was published elsewhere first. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing LMAO!!!

Well, after Trump's lawyers tell him he can't win this, you might find yourself wondering what happened. And what happened was that you were wrong in the first place.

Can't win what, exactly? Trump isn't suing anyone.

Get past your Trump Derangement Syndrome for a second, if you can. Pretend Trump does not exist. That should make you happy at least. Are you seriously arguing that you believe the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world should be deciding, for us, what is true and what is not? And that these giant corporations should be able to tell us how to think? Is that really your argument?