[kodah]

The problem here is something new, as Matt points out.

Law enforcement, tech companies, and the news media are operating under on some type of cooperating agreement which is not transparent to users or the creators of content. In normal human society you know the binds that bond, this is a reasonable expectation, and an expectation that even been challenged in the law. As the law infinitely expands, who am I (as a commoner) to know what I did wrong? Do I have the opportunity to change? Do I have the opportunity to face my accusers in a forum?

Our rights, and the framework they reside in, are far too outdated for this sort of problem. The leaders we have in both business and government are too cowardly, weak, or self-interested to directly address the McCarthy-esque patterns that are beginning to emerge that seem to be opportunistically aligned to further narratives.

[hackyhacky]

If your point is that the originators of the Biden story are shocked and confused that it's being suppressed in an opaque tech cooperating agreement, they shouldn't be: the story is being suppressed because it's at best illegally obtained data, and at worst deliberately falsified; and in either case, it's now being used by bad actors in an attempt to manipulate the results of the election. There's no mystery here: Twitter is being very clear about why this story is blocked.

[kodah]

As Matt stated, and really the whole point of the article, the Biden story doesn't matter. Forget about charging Biden with any wrong-doing for a moment and see what this relationship and mechanism between law enforcement, tech companies, and media entities is for its merits: The same mechanism that autocratic governments use for control and operated in the name of "the public good".

[joshuamorton]

I don't follow, are you suggesting that Tech companies and the media, in acting directly in opposition to the sitting president, are somehow forming an autocracy? Does that word continue to have a meaning?

[bassman9000]

There's a severe double standard here given that Twitter has allowed worse than that, which was the whole point of the article: that the decision making is opaque, arbitrary, and probably coordinated.