Because Dr. Ayyadurai did not argue about Twitter’s “Terms of Service” everything will instead hinge on the degree of interaction between Twitter and the state government of Massachusetts.
And according to Dr. Ayyadurai, those links have already been proven in testimony, since Twitter has built a special portal offered to certain governmental entities so that government officials can flag and delete content they dislike for any reason, as part of what they call “Twitter Partner Status.”
This sets the stage for this court asking whether CDA 230 can be used to violate someone’s civil rights by letting the government do something via a private company that it could not otherwise do: silence their political speech.
Federal Judge Moves to End Twitter’s Immunity in Censoring Content
End of the road for Dorky’s Section 230 free ride?
American Buddhist Net 