Correct. I referred only to the violent ones. And there have been more than enough of those.

Strangely enough, though there were angry people there, nobody was actually harmed, and no property was destroyed.

I don't see how that's even remotely a valid comparison.

What does that have to do with people destroying their own neighborhoods, and putting their own neighbors out of business?

Pretty strange response. One might almost think that's not even what this is all about.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

I said nothing about "angry protests". I specifically referred to looting and destroying.

And no, it is NOT normal to go destroy your own neighborhood because someone else did something wrong.

What bearing does that have on situations like most of these, in which the crowd was already violent, destroying and looting?

It's pretty damned hard to "escalate" something that has already gone over the edge.

Not even close. I've been an editor myself.

I'll repeat myself one last time: the point I was making was not about editing. I certainly don't deny that they do that too.

I don't know, but as someone who worked on the project that later became Ancestry DNA, I can say that OP has no idea what it is or how it works.

No.

As far as any sort of actual general intelligence goes, nowhere near as generally intelligent as an actual cockroach.

To perhaps clarify this for some people:

Section 230 states that it exists to protect services that:

Twitter has not been doing those things. It has been promoting a one-sided political view, and stifling opportunities for discourse and intellectual activity.

So while I fully understand that they have a right to do that, if they want, the point I have been trying to make is that they do not have a right to do that, and at the same time expect immunity from lawsuits or prosecution from Section 230.

Their additions to President Trump's tweet(s) were not what I was talking about.

Rather, I was referring to the day-to-day control Twitter exerts over what content they allow, and more to the point, what content they have not allowed.

What I wrote above was not about editing or editorializing.

It was about controlling what content users are allowed to post, and are allowed to see.

Controlling what content is allowed to exist on Twitter. Not editing it.

That is a different animal from editing, or editorializing. Editing might be closest to it, but that's still not quite the same.

And no, courts have not "clarified" it, but there is legal precedent saying that there is a line they can step over.

And considering the extremes Twitter has gone to, in order to controlling content in a slanted manner, I am pretty darned confident they have stepped over that line more than once.

Apparently some people in government think so, too.

230 is what gives sites immunity from prosecution for things their users say.

Read again.

Losing immunity under 230 is HUGE .

It means twitter could be held liable for what users tweet.

Thing about that for a minute.

You missed the whole point. There is a word for that: "Whoooooosh!"

It isn't "fact-checking," per se, that is the issue here.

Though to be honest, that isn't really what they were doing, anyway.