[mikkergp]

I agree with you, and I’m surprised Matt glossed over it. I think the question for me as a more government trusting person is;

What is the difference between the government providing unique information, because of its potential Intelligence insights, and what is the government trying to get things taken down that are not against twitters policies

[dmix]

> what is the government trying to get things taken down that are not against twitters policies

Twitter's policies being the basis of credibility in this question?

If this story showed us anything it's clear they were censoring at the whims of the moderators feelings, not based on some predefined set of rules or conditions. Even when multiple people brought up the fact the hacking angle was mere speculation, the Twitter execs glossed over it and said to say it's true in public communiqués anyway (until they have time to find out if it is true).

As long as there's a strong culture of censorship, all that matters is who has influence on the gatekeepers. Not what arbitrary rules they set for themselves.

[mikkergp]

A day of deliberation is not a strong culture of censorship.

[dmix]

Are you saying they were expecting to get proof it was a hack within the next day and simply jumped the gun? What happened after those 24hrs of “deliberation” then? Did they backtrack?

It took almost a year to find out it wasn’t hacked and it was bullshit like everyone thought it might be from day 1 (including we found out today even Twitter employees). Plenty of time to deliberate I guess.