Except the leaked messages do no such a thing. In fact, what they show is that the standards team at Twitter made a decision based on a specific policy that was in place at the time and applied to everyone. Moreover, it shows that Twitter itself was questioning the use of that policy in this case and was listening to outside opinions on the decision.

Also, once and for all: the first amendment of the US Constitution does NOT apply to individuals and businesses: it is a restriction on the government against taking action against imdividuals and businesses over protected speech. Not all speech is protected. There are libel and slander laws in the US. There are laws against reckless endangerment, even if caused by speech.

Businesses like Twitter are liable for harm caused by the posts made on Twitter. That's why Title 47 Section 230 exists - to shield companies like Twitter from legal actions caused by posters on its service.

When libertarians and far-right types argue for "free speech", what they mean by that is "consequence free speech" where they can say anything they want no matter how dangerous or harmful it is without any concern for that damage. Musk has shown that disregard repeatedly and had caused literally billions of dollars of damage to other companies and investors.

Yet, he's quick to ban Twitter users if they make fun of him or in any way damage his surprisingly fragile ego.

We call that "being a hyprocrite".

Except that this story was factually incorrect and therefore "fake news". Social media sites remove or restrict such proven fakes all the time, be it with deletion or fact checking.

In turn, the question of "isn't this election interference" can also be redirected the other way - isn't distributing and amplifying such false stories also election interference? It is well known that social media algorithms often amplify such fake rage stories if left unchecked.

Of course, the question of "should private companies control communication" is a very interesting one, and I personally think that such critical infrastructure should be public. But I don't think there is a real interest to honestly discuss this question, rather, the issue seems to be that for some people, they wish that different private companies were in control, companies more in line with their own political views.

Quote from: Benjamin Herzig on December 04, 2022, 17:17:11TBH, newsworthiness of this whole "scandal" is difficult to determine when the big "censorship" that seems to have actually happened was the removal of Hunter Biden dick pics. Publishing nude sexualized pictures of other persons without their consent is not really tolerated anywhere else and is considered revenge-porn.

The New York Post ain't a porn magazine. Their original article does not contain any pornographic imagery and is entitled "Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad". Links to the story were censored using tools intended to limit the distribution of CP. Put that DNC talking point in the trash where it belongs.

The suppression of organic interest in that story was done to influence the outcome of the election.

Indeeed, and even for the more impartial news outlets in Europe, Twitter is not such a big subject as in the US. People are more into FB in this part of the world... or, as I was saying earlier, at least in Romania.

TBH, newsworthiness of this whole "scandal" is difficult to determine when the big "censorship" that seems to have actually happened was the removal of Hunter Biden dick pics. Publishing nude sexualized pictures of other persons without their consent is not really tolerated anywhere else and is considered revenge-porn.

As far as the problem with social media sites goes, there many other instances where sites acted in much more problematic ways - like the countless scandals surrounding Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.

The thing with European countries - at least the one I'm living in, but I know for sure that it's not the only one where this is happening - is that the news reported must be boombastic. Fantastic. Any piece published by mainstream media should enrage the public or make people go "Wow" with amazement without making them think too much. That's the key. Write an in-depth, documented article on corruption that you spend weeks documenting, you might get some views. Do a quick article on a kid who got perfect scores at some national exam despite coming from a poor family, it will simply float under the radar. Spend a few minutes to write some stupid gossip with some pics showing skin, you're set for a raise!   

I've looked into some mainstream media online newpapers in several european countries.
Not a single one is publishing anything on this topic.

It's not even desinformation, it's simply non-information

The state of moral depravity and bias of the west is just crazy

Congratulations for reporting this news, considering the one sided and biased news that I've been reading elsewhere (Techspot in particular has gone full woke in its apocalyptic predictions about Twitter's collapse) it takes some genuine intellectual honesty for reporting news about the previous, not really so brilliant and immaculate, administration as well.