Section230 says they are a platform not a publisher.

This is the foundation of Web 2.0 social media. Open forum enabler, not a publisher.

The BBC & NPR are on pretty thin impartiality ice as state funded supposedly independent voices. Perceptions they are just state propaganda megaphones (which UK citizens are directly taxed if they wish to consume as well as indirectly, with Bill Gates and other globalists also contributing vast sums to 'sponsor' their output) are rising as the quality and bias of their chosen 'reporting' increases and objectivity diminishes.

Emily Surname is one of the few BBC truth speakers

https://youtu.be/W90buvgQ-Mk

So? The government isn't the arbiter of what words mean.

> globalists

Oh look, a racist dog whistle.

"Bill Gates and other globalists"

Unless Bill Gates is Jewish (is he?), the context doesn't support this being a dogwhistle in this case.

Which race might that be?

Globalist is at least in some circles a code word for Jewish.

Not in the circles I move in.Sounds like paranoia to me...

Paranoia and projection.

As someone not in US newspaper terms, I thought AP was associated publisher (ie another publisher who gives them rights to edit the story)

This seems super far from what twitter is. Please explicitly explain how an AP story is in regards to twitter.