All X has to do is make controversial content decisions the same way the other social media companies do: at the behest of our intelligence agencies and opaque government-funded "partners"!
"Twitter Files" was hyped as ushering an new era of radical transparency on Twitter moderation. If you take that on face value, it is ironic Twitter is now refusing to be transparent about reporting its moderation (or lack thereof).
If you do not take it on face value, then it appears to have been a score-settling exercise motivated by animus against the previous management.
Technically it was a panel of 3 5th circuit judges. This is the same circuit which believes that for government to, in any way, "induce" a social media platform into negatively affecting the reach of user content, is likely a violation of the first amendment. This would presumably include merely calling out a post and essentially saying "hey I think this violates your policies, could you take a look?". Simultaneously, they believe it's a-ok for the government of Texas to expressly dictate social media moderation policies via legislation. When conservative-aligned plaintiffs bring lawsuits in the 5th circuit, they are able to win at each level of the federal court system without ever having to convince a single person that isn't politically aligned with them.
The party must just show that they have a possibility of winning the case and that granting temporary relief will not cause additional harm to the plaintiff.
To use that as proof that the defendant will win is ridiculous.
The actual term used is "likely to prevail".
Injunctions are not handed out willy-nilly, and the actual wording in the injunction should give you pause:
"The officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government"
Nobody said anything about "proof that the defendant will win". I said said that several judges have found evidence of unconstitutional pressure being applied. Please do not misrepresent a plain statement of fact.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214...
[Followed up by a page and 1/4 of people and agencies who the injunction still applies to]
In no way is it honest to describe this as "overturned".