The current Twitter Files aren't that interesting either. I haven't seen anything related to them that even seems different than how I thought it was working at the time, nor that seems illegal or incorrect.

The idea that the fruits of a hack should not be published by media outlets (including Twitter) for at least a cooling off period makes alot of sense. Also for Podesta to be involved in that since the hacking of his emails was one of the main events of the 2016 election cycle and he was keenly aware of the speed at which those hacks can entangle people and have a profound impact on the democratic process. There's no way a responsible company would want that traffic on their site.

> I feel like the really interesting part of "The Twitter Files" isn't the arbitrary moderation decisions made (we sort of knew what they were thru their implementation and it's hard for moderation to be "not arbitrary" whether you agree with the decisions or not) but the involvement of US government representatives in it.

I haven't followed parts 2 & 3 of the Twitter files. But the irony here is that the government officials involved in part 1 were the Trump administration. Biden was not yet elected and should be considered a private citizen.

According to a heavily edited, and biased Twitter files release the only government entity that was censoring stuff was the Trump administration. But it’s unclear what they were censoring as Elon edited that part in his lame attempt to created a false narrative

A not-so-fine line between compulsion and requests. The government is allowed to reach out to and talk to Twitter.

Taibbi mentions two "suppression" interactions:

> Taibbi reported Twitter had "received and honored" deletion requests from both the Biden campaign and the Trump White House; he presented examples of the former but not of the latter.

(per Wiki)

Only one of those groups was actively in government and as expressed both were requests.

>it is illegal for the government to "outsource censorship" to private parties in order to silence speech protected by 1A. A relative of DNC's Podesta or an FBI lawyer working for Twitter add to the impression more than the legal argument I guess.

This is the entire story, but lede buried by MuskHate.

Does no one out here realize this is the same hate-everything-acknowledge-nothing behavior regarding Trump?

That you must hate the person and nothing else matters... "always shoot the messenger"... It seems clear as day to me, but I guess I'm the crazy one.

EDIT: It's called cathartic scapegoating. And if you point it out, it must mean you're a Trump loving far-right loonie toon. Look at the extent that people will go to prove they aren't just shooting the messenger right here, it's just evidence it is happening.