This is legal gibberish. Section 230 immunity has absolutely nothing to do with this publisher/platform distinction that has become so popular. You can actually read section 230. It’s not long. And there is no publisher/platform distinction. It’s pure propaganda that has taken hold.
Your public/private distinction is also simply wrong. Being publicly traded isn't what confers section 230 immunity.
No it doesn't. But my point is if you want to enjoy special government protections from limits of liability provided by being a corporation, then you have to accept their rules. If you don't want to accept their rules you should be a corporation.
I feel like if a private business doesn't want to serve certain people for any reason, that should be their right, according to the first amendment free association clause. However, once you gain the protection of limited liability for being a Corporation or LLP then you should be subject to whatever rules the representatives of the people vote for.
Twitter is very clearly a Publisher via their actions. They should be liable for everything posted through Twitter.
“No
provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider."
They are now the de facto provider of the content. Especially when they selectively promote/suppress content. And actually it does make a distinction about being a publisher. It was originally design to protect the Internet Service Providers (the guys that hook you to the internet, think AT&T, local power company, whoever you get your internet service from). You see a publisher is not the speaker or writer of the content, but they are still liable if they publish it, without checking the validity of the statements. It is why papers and other non-fiction publishers pay for so many fact checkers. Now Twitter and and other social media companies are utilizing fact-checkers, not just people policing copyright infringement and illegal activities (calling for people to kill someone). So even they are taking the actions of a
publisher. They are making the content their
own, and so not protected by original intent of Section 230.