Yes, but which one supports
@Cosmacelf ‘s claim?
I can't believe this has gotten me to even read twitter, but its the one you cited above, "Khanna" is congressman Ro Khanna who is a congresscritter from CA.
The back and forth "bombshell" is between Khanna and somebody at Twitter.
Of, course, then you have the Trump administration doing the same thing.
What is sort of interesting is that, like many things, the position you take on the law depends on what you want.
Twitter takes the position under Section 230 that its not even a publisher in virtually all respects. If Twitter had any liability for what people Tweet, as a publisher might (see, e.g., the suit of Dominion Voting v. Fox News), Twitter is not a sustainable business, because if the moderation required to just keep things civil is too much, the moderation to make sure everything is not libel would be prohibitavely expensive.
Yet, when Twitter wants to just let some Tweets go through un moderated, it cites the First Amendment.
Well, I mean, I am a lawyer used to splitting hairs, but you really can't have it both ways, Twitter.
If I didn't think this was a total waste of Elon's time the irony would be too much. So, you think Twitter is acting too much like an actual publisher? Not publishing some conservative political stuff you say?
Why not just buy it for 44B and then you can be the publisher! Unbelievable. You can even promote reporting using the term "we," as in me and Matt Taibbi I suppose.