Re: More civics 101
Thus the 1st amendment is a limit on THE U.S. GOVERNMENT's power to regulate we the people's speech. It has nothing to do with a private company's regulating people who use that private company's network, chats, blogs, etc.
Way to miss the point. So I report you to the mods for being wilfully deceptive in your interpretation of the Constitution. The mods may or may not decide I'm right, and delete your post, or ban you entirely. All pretty much legal because their site, their rules.
If instead I'm from say, the FBI, and mail Twitter from my FBI account demanding you're banned, then the First Amendment applies because IT IS THE US GOVERNMENT making the request, or demand. This is a simple concept and distinction, even if 'civics' experts don't seem to understand it.. Or they do understand it, but intentionally attempt to mislead by deliberate misinformation.
It's also not uniquely a US problem. Way back, before RIPA even became law there were consultations between law enforcement, the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) and industry. We don't have the same 'Free Speech' rules in the UK, but we do have laws. So a lil problem. ISPs are told to take down illegal content, or face legal iability. ISPs may be told to provide subscriber information, or be punished. Subsriber's personal information is protected in law, so if the request wasn't valid, the ICO may prosecute the ISP. The subscriber could also bring a civil case against the ISP. Fun times!
So that ultimately resulted in a SPOC (Single Point Of Contact) system between entities entitled to make requests, and indsustry, who could train their SPOCs in the legal stuff. And that works, mostly.
In this case, it's more like the someone from Conservative or Labour party HQ demanding content or personal information and industry (ie Twitter) saying ;'OK!' and obeying orders.. Despite those requests being unlawful.
So it's a huge mess, especially as it's been allowed to spiral out of control and become blatantly political. Musk's exposed these issues, the litigation has only just started, and may or may not end up at the Supreme Court. And there may be more clarity around what 'Free Speech' means on the Internet, and when it's censorship for political advantage. Or even financial advantage.
Once 'society'', legislators and the courts have waded through that mess, then Musk, Zuckerburg etc have a better chance of implementing a fair and legal moderation system. Authoritarian/fascist people will no doubt whine because they can't silence people they don't like.