[joefkelley]

The evidence presented in the article does not match the claims.

The emails they include show that there were meetings between DHS and Twitter and between DHS and Stanford, on the topic of election integrity. And that there was a Signal chat (I guess this is kind of sketchy).

But there's no evidence of censorship or anything politically-motivated that I can discern.

[uLogMicheal]

How long can people pretend censorship is not becoming more abundant? How can democracy exist with an abundance of subjective censorship? There was an entire ticketing portal for government agents to request take downs of content for subjective reasoning. How is that not censorship?

[brookst]

I guess I can join in decrying the decline of 100% free speech in the abstract, but does that mean I shouldn’t be critical of whether an article’s evidence supports the claims it’s making?