WTF you’re just tone -policing after losing the argument now.
Calls for censorship coming from individuals or groups who later assume positions within government are worth reviewing because it may inform how they operate while in office. Calls that come after taking office may be punishable. Therefore, any influence exerted during campaigns of private citizens, while unpunishable, is still interesting to follow. An incumbent up for re-election is not free to exert such influence, though I imagine it still happens on their behalf, and I'd say those unpunishable actions are worth following too.
All private messages aren't interesting, but these ones are because they called for censorship. Also, censorship just means suppression of content. It doesn't have to be done by a government.
Let’s stop being vague, what messages are you talking about?
Here is a US representative, a Democrat no less, arguing that the story should be allowed to remain on the basis that even if it was hacked material, journalists are not responsible for the illegal actions of a source, and because the story is of national interest. On the other hand, the "DNC" [3] and "Biden team" [4] were apparently asking Twitter to clean up certain content in relation to that story. Regardless of what that removed content was, the suppression of the story has itself been national news for awhile and it's worth clearing the air with facts to understand what occurred. One of them was a blurred image of Hunter Biden [5].
So again, it's interesting because these are calls for censorship, and campaign messaging can indicate what the candidate might do while in office.
None of this, by the way, should be construed to be limited to the Biden campaign or Democrats. Groups have been censoring each other for eons. Communists censored everyone but their own messaging, McCarthy censored them, Anthony Comstock did it, religions and dictators do it, and on and on.
[1] https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden...
[2] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929
[3] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828601268469760
[4] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064
[5] https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1598837329250045953
Now Twitter can suppress whatever they want, and we can disagree or agree with it, but there was NO evidence presented that anyone asked them to do that.
Edit: this explains it better than I did. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-...
Edit: you know where there were direct messages from a campaign and officials while in government? It was from the Trump team and Fox. Tons of them.
From my comment above,
> the "DNC" [3] and "Biden team" [4] were apparently asking Twitter to clean up certain content in relation to that story.
If it isn't true, the Biden team and DNC can publicly deny what's presented in those messages.
The Atlantic article you cite makes a different case than you do. They're saying no violation of the first amendment occurred, and I agree with that. I've always found the released communications interesting nonetheless.
> you know where there were direct messages from a campaign and officials while in government? It was from the Trump team and Fox. Tons of them.
All are concerning regardless of party. Sen. Hawley has been probing the same of this admin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfJZ2MTDEWY
This is the end of the conversation for me. I've got other things to do.
Gotcha, so there’s nothing here to be concerned about unless they release something new.
https://twitter.com/greggnunziata/status/1599295288081948673...
And the GOP supports him while he calls for suspending the constitution https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/trump-lot-things-itll-...
Finally, even if I or the public could only focus on one thing, Trump's statement appeared after the Twitter Files release.
Is it really so problematic for you that I, a person distant from you on this planet, express interest here about Twitter's comms with DNC or Biden team?
It's not reasonable to repeatedly ask me to convince you to change your mind. You've seen the same things as me, I think it's interesting, you think it's not. This is end of convo for me.