"“We definitely see social as just one part of what people do on Twitter,” Dorsey said. “We think of it as an information utility and a communications network.”"
I don't know how to look up cases, or if this is possible online, but, the info is "The case is Taylor v. Twitter, CGC18564460, California Superior Court, San Francisco."
My layperson's understanding is that whether Twitter is a utility isn't at issue. If Twitter is to be regulated like a utility, any highly popular website allowing user uploads must also be. Twitter isn't even close to being the most-used or most influential site in its category, so you'd have to call Facebook or YouTube a utility first.
It looks like the judge is allowing the lawsuit to decide whether Twitter falsely advertised a policy of ideological neutrality.
Ah yes, I didn't mean that Twitter actually was a utility, just that Jack had positioned it as one; and I was highlighting the differences between what he said then, and what the Twitter legal team's current argument was.
I think it is worth paying attention to as a court case, since it might influence how Twitter, YouTube FB etc. are viewed by the courts...
"“We definitely see social as just one part of what people do on Twitter,” Dorsey said. “We think of it as an information utility and a communications network.”"
I don't know how to look up cases, or if this is possible online, but, the info is "The case is Taylor v. Twitter, CGC18564460, California Superior Court, San Francisco."