Don't get lost in technicalities and don't impute me what I never said. I never claimed that Twitter is, from a legal standpoint, bound by the First Amendment.

Don't get lost in technicalities and don't impute me what I never said. I never claimed that Twitter is, from a legal standpoint, bound by the First Amendment. What I said is that Parag Agrawal and team made the conscious decision to institute censorship policies incompatible with the First Amendment. Obviously, the First Amendment case law only applies to public entities -originally only to federal entities and since the passage of the 14th amendment due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R... also to states and municipalities- and certain private entities that receive public money such as universities. There are also limitations to broadcasters that use properties, such as the allocation of frequencies, regulated by government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine . While how these latter policies apply to social media companies such as X/Twitter is part of ongoing debate and litigation, private social media companies, irrespective of the law cases, can decide what kind of censorship regimes they like to have. Under Parag Agrawal and team, Twitter was a far left platform. Under Elon Musk and team, Twitter/X is a centrist platform, meaning that neither the far right nor the far left have a free reign and the big middle is pretty much free to say anything they want as long as the First Amendment is not violated.