Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230) immunized Twitter from liability for suspending Murphy’s account after she posted messages critical of transgender women in violation of Twitter’s hateful conduct rules.  Section 230 immunizes an interactive service provider, like Twitter, from any claim that would treat it as the author or publisher of content provided by another person.  Since the publisher’s role includes deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content, any claim that Twitter committed a wrong by refusing to publish or post plaintiff’s messages falls within the scoe of section 230 immunity.  Moreover, plaintiff’s claims were not viable because Twitter’s terms of service expressly allow it to terminate a user’s account at any time without cause, and that term is not unconscionable.