Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's interesting is we're both reading "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," and my take on it is that yes, section 230 is there to explicitly protect Twitter under this circumstance, and you take it as giving Trump the ability to censor them. Thankfully, one of the authors of the section in question has actually stated exactly what it means: https://twitter.com/RonW…
Why did you ignore the part that the amendment was written by 2 people - Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) Somehow you only quoted what the Democrat says but not what the Republican says. Quite dishonest of you.
They co-authored the bill. They almost certainly had similar aims when doing so.
If there is no indication the other party has any difference in opinion, has not spoken out to disagree with the party mentioned, and there is no real reason to believe there would be a difference in opinion, why should I not be allowed to quote the only explanation from an authoritative party on the matter?
The answer is that that's perfectly allowable and that I am not being dishonest.