Banned from one of a universe of private platforms for breaking their specific terms of service?

In any case, do we really want the government to start dictating to private sector publishing companies what content they must publish?

> do we really want the government to start dictating to private sector publishing companies what content they must publish?

Yes, I think we do, if it’s in exchange for their currently privileged position.

Currently, they operate with the privileges of a common carrier, and none of the responsibilities.

They shouldn’t have the privilege of being shielded from responsibility for what they publish on behalf of others, while also claiming that doing so represents their own protected speech.

If they want to editorialize, they can be treated like any other publisher, and be held responsible for what they publish — including disinformation, libel, harassment, et al.

They are definitely not common carriers. That is a well-defned legal term, and Twitter simply does not meet the bar:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

> A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier)[2] is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.[3] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it.

Of course they’re not common carriers; that’s the whole problem.

They were granted the traditional privileges of common carrier status under section 230 of the CDA, but none of the responsibilities.

Refer to the “telecommunications” section of the Wikipedia page you’ve cited, where this specific topic is covered, along with additional references for further details.

Section 230 of the CDA never uses the term "common carrier". In fact, "Interactive computer service" was the exact phrase of language that ISPs successfully lobbied themselves to be classified as to avoid common carrier regulations.

Being a "Interactive computer service" != being a "common carrier". Pointing to Section 230 as an example of "common carrier" statues is massively misunderstanding the "ISPs as common carriers" debate.

One of the other commenters (and also Texas...) claim they are common carriers.

As someone that doesn’t use Twitter, I can confirm that I am not silent and that any model where one is silenced by being removed from Twitter is similar to geocentricity.

I agree with the sentiment but a LOT of journalists seem to not only take Twitter seriously enough to report about the nonsense that its users are rambling about, but even use it themselves !