Twitter is a private company. They can censor anybody for any reason. They might be held accountable for allowing slanderous or libelous posts, but the first amendment only applies to government censorship. It doesn't apply to private companies.

@TyKC
Um … NOT “In collusion” with …
Further, they are alleging that they are a “Community Bulletin Board” (ie. “Open Forum) whereby they are protected from charges of “Liable” and “Slander” and etc. since the postings are opinions and etc. OF THE Posters and Not the Community Bulletin Board.
Once the company begins to “Pick and Choose” among the posts, they become “Publishers” (ie. NOT an “Open Forum” ) which makes them Completely Liable for “Liable”, Slander, Malice of the “Posts” and “Posters” they CHOOSE to “Publish”.

Twitter, Facebook, Google & etc ARE “Private Companies” but they are trying to claim protections that they have not earned.. (You really should look into it before you opine)

Further, Members, Officers of the companies that choose to “Lie Under Oath” are punishable.
Further the Government is heavily liable and prosecutable for Collusion, Manipulation and several other items in contravention of the 1st Amendment.

@Bay0Wulf Your post is a bit rambling, but I agree that companies should be held accountable for allowing obvious libelous posts. They can't offer a forum like they do, make money off it and not be held accountable. Anyone who lies under oath must be held accountable, not just social media officials. Collusion is not a crime. I can ask a company to delete or to not post something on their site, whether I am a government official or not. The company is under no obligation to comply.

its not what you know - its what you can prove

They denied denied denied...and now they are exposed for the liars that they are - Thanks to Elon Musk

@TyKC "Twitter is a private company. They can censor anybody for any reason" - evidently posting child abuse material was not a reason to censor but exposing child predators was...

@Tom81 Your comment only shows that there are limits to free speech. A company can choose to not censor speech that is contrary to written law, which certainly your example is. But it risks prosecution for doing so. A company shouldn't be allowed to claim that it is not responsible for the content it publishes.

@TyKC with all the info coming out of the Twitter files it seems that Twitter wasn't that much of a private company, considering state funding, state operatives and state involvement/control. It's also pretty obvious that the state was concerned with thought crimes, but completely ignored actual crimes on the platform.

@Tom81 What you seem to be arguing is that the State and the Company were in collusion. But that's a misnomer. Collusion is not a crime. I can ask a company to delete or to not post something on their site, whether I am a government official or not. The company is under no obligation to comply. So, if the Company wanted to say "up yours" to any requests from the government or anyone else for that matter, it was perfectly free to do so. All the so called "Twitter Files" are nothing but a political hit job. The Company executives were responsible for the decisions they made and no one else. If Musk wants to play a different game, he is perfectly at liberty to do so. He also has to take responsibility for it. If his customers don't like his rules, they'll leave. And he will definitely be held accountable for that. Moreover, if you take state money, you cannot expect it not to come with strings attached. If Musk wants to thumb his nose at the state, that's his prerogative.

@TyKC
Ahhh … “Collusion” per se may not be a crime but with the addition of “Coercion” whether actual or implied, I think you’re out on some pretty thin ice.
A “request” from the US Government under tge guise of the FBI is pretty serious coercion.

@TyKC so I guess you're fine with the feds using their time, money and resources to suppress your political rivals rather than actually trying to catch the rapists and pedos posting on the site. Shows your priorities.
I bet if it had been the leftists getting censored, blocked and banned you'd be carrying on like CNN does about J6.

@Bay0Wulf The claims about the FBI made by Musk are openly misleading. The money paid by the Federal government to Twitter was reimbursement for information provided to the FBI by Twitter, not the other way around. The FBI was not involved in Censoring anything as far as I can tell.

@Tom81 I don't think the feds used their time and money to censor anything (see comment above). Like I said, it seems the "Twitter Files" are nothing more than a political hit job. And I think CNN and other networks should carry on about J6 given what we know about the House report.

@TyKC ok, comrade groomer.

@TyKC
You are … as always … pretty squirrely …
If I didn’t know better, I’d guess you are either a Fed yourself, a Feebie WannaBe or, just willing to kneel and pucker up.
… Actually, I guess I don’t know better …