What's the probability that the story they're blocking is 100% bullshit? And if they have evidence or signals of that, does that weigh in to your opinion on their intervention?
The President is still allowed to tweet almost anything he wants, so this is still very selective censorship.
Maybe Twitter should just shut down for a month. That's my point, there's so much untruth on Twitter, even specifically related to politics and the election, that it's just impossible to intelligently "curate" the platform. There's no apparent principle in what they allow and what they don't.
> certainly not being more laissez-faire about a problem that is destroying the world.
It wasn't a story about climate change, or nuclear proliferation.
Twitter is just an extreme example of a social media platform acting like a publisher and applying blatant censorship.