The bullet's heading is "incitement", the purpose of the bullet is to explain the clear "incitement" standard that Twitter could rely on to block content likely to cause harm, and we've reached a point where we're using the word "inciting" to define it. Like I said, this is a hash of an argument.

There is a clear legal standard for incitement. Sacks hasn't articulated it. Either he doesn't know what it is, or he does know, but smartly recognizes that it cuts directly against his argument. The point he wants to make is that First Amendment jurisprudence already provides a basis for service providers to eliminate the most objectionable content. It does not.

Particularly in the case of incitement: if Twitter was held to the 1A standard, it would be unable to block a great deal of content likely to cause imminent lawless action.