[mikkergp]

But your point is the point as to why it’s not hubris! they weren’t trying to censor anything, they were just trying to follow their own moderation policies. This I think is why the censorship story is such a non issue, because Twitter is not an exclusive source of this information.

[lapcat]

> they weren’t trying to censor anything, they were just trying to follow their own moderation policies.

Well, it seems more like they were trying to apply their moderation policies to another website, which isn't the same as applying their moderation policies to their own website.

Anyway, moderation is censorship. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying that's what it is.

[jpgvm]

Did they? Where did they try to get NY Post to take the original article down?

[dmitrygr]

Did you read the OP? Even their CEO questioned of this was proper application of the policy. Their top legal dude admitted that they had been wrong but advised to stay the course. It was NEVER about the policy, except as a justification. They literally admit so multiple times...

[mikkergp]

Yes exactly! They asked all the right questions then realized they didn’t have justification and it was a mistaken, apologize and I hope learned from the incident. And will react faster in the future. But this is the point. They made a mistake, fine but no one said “hey, I hate Trump, maybe we should keep this down”

Never make moderation mistakes can’t be the standard.

[StanislavPetrov]

When moderation policies (or laws) are subjectively and arbitrarily enforced based on the identity of the party being persecuted, it ceases to be a policy and is simply another tool used to bludgeon those who are disfavored. It was a big story in September of 2020 when the NYT published Trump's hacked/leaked tax returns - a story that did not receive the Hunter Biden treatment, but was amplified all across Twitter. How can anyone who is even reasonably impartial and reasonably intelligent argue that Twitter was merely neutrally enforcing moderation policies in the Hunter Biden situation when it took the polar opposite stance when it came to Trump?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...

Indeed, numerous articles written explicitly from hacked sources (unlike the Biden laptop, which was only [faslely] rumored to be "hacked") were published and advertised on Twitter. These articles were never suppressed. How can it be argued Twitter was merely neutrally enforcing their policy when the only articles suppressed were clearly done to benefit their preferred political partisans?

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1598855600083177472

Personally I am (and have never been) neither a Republican or a Trump supporter, but what I (and many other like me) am is someone who supports free speech, open discourse and rational thinking. This is only part 1 of the "Twitter files", with many more revelations to come, and it is already incredibly damning. It is stunning to me that so many otherwise intelligent people do not see the problem with big tech colluding with government officials and intelligence agencies to brazenly attempt to distort and censor public discourse - especially right before an election. The ability of people to willfully delude themselves is astounding.

[mikkergp]

>It is stunning to me that so many otherwise intelligent people do not see the problem with big tech colluding with government officials and intelligence agencies to brazenly attempt to distort and censor public discourse - especially right before an election.

You took a giant leap from maybe people at Twitter were acting with bias. You’d need a lot more information to justify this assertion, and who is saying this wouldnt be a problem? I al saying this didn’t happen, not it wouldn’t be a problemZ