You have to look at social media like a newspaper that publishes letters to the editor. They're the editor, you're writing letters. The editors are free to throw away crazy letters, edit letters for length, syntax, and content, or discontinue the section entirely. That's what free speech is. If a newspaper won't publish your letter to the editor, you can make your own newspaper and publish whatever you want.

You need a really good reason to take away Twitter's editorial control over Twitter. Please provide one. (The best I see so far is "Twitter is really popular, so they shouldn't be allowed to edit their own website." I am not convinced that that is a good justification for limiting the freedom of the press. If that's where we want to go, I would be the first in line to make sure Fox News drops their conservative bias and gives liberal viewpoints a fair shake. Does that sound good to you?)

What decisions? You think the government should be able to control whether Twitter adds additional context to posts?

For almost 100 years it has been held both in general and by the Supreme Court in particular that the remedy to speech you disagree with is more speech. Do you object to Twitter's ability to have such a disagreement?

Or, as is being proposed, do you believe Twitter should be held legally liable for every nasty thing said on their platform simply because they choose to have an opinion of their own?

To me that seems like a recipe for significantly more banning of content & users by Twitter to avoid even the hint of liability that would come with allowing it to stand.