True and they have responsibilities because of it that Twitter does not due to current interpretation of Section 230. See the Covington decision where a paper lost to the tune of many millions of dollars.
Do you have a year / parties citation? Having a hard time narrowing down "Covington decision" past the noise of a hard-to-judge MMA fight and North Carolina gerrymandering something.
It's interesting to observe that he claims to be targeting Twitter with a defamation suit. I believe S230 would block that.
Under Twitter's behavior prior to about this year, they would have let unfiltered defamatory tweets go through without any fact-checking. Fact-checking may actually have saved this young man some malignedly-lost reputation had it existed at the time.
I agree they could, in theory, be the same entity but it would be near impossible to exist in such a form without accusations of bias in one way or another.
As a pure publisher, I think it's generally understood, there is inherent bias.
It is, perhaps, the best option to assume that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. aren't neutral platforms.
Indeed, even when people assume they're neutral, that assumption doesn't extend to full laissez-faire. All these platforms have basic "censorship" in place for legal compliance (DMCA takedown processes, interactions with government anti-crime systems, a need to follow US law regarding dissemination of pedophilic content, etc.).
Indeed, there are legal obligations and such but, perhaps, the problem is that not all people assume social platforms are neutral in the way they do other media outlets?
Maybe because one can have extreme political views and easily find other like-minded people then one can become somewhat blinkered? If one's platform of choice is also stifling some content there is still enough of other stuff around that one may not notice?
