[lapcat]

> they weren’t trying to censor anything, they were just trying to follow their own moderation policies.

Well, it seems more like they were trying to apply their moderation policies to another website, which isn't the same as applying their moderation policies to their own website.

Anyway, moderation is censorship. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying that's what it is.

[jpgvm]

Did they? Where did they try to get NY Post to take the original article down?

[lapcat]

> Where did they try to get NY Post to take the original article down?

Your reply is based on a mistaken assumption.

[jpgvm]

Can you clarify what you mean about them attempting to apply their moderation policies to another website then? The rest of the context makes this appear as if you mean the NY Post...

[lapcat]

Yes, I do mean the NY Post.

The content in question was not hosted on Twitter, it was hosted on the NY Post website. Twitter moderates the content hosted on Twitter, the NY Post moderates the content hosted by the NY Post. But when Twitter censored links to the NY Post, Twitter was attempting to apply its own moderation policy to content hosted outside of Twitter.

Again, I'm not claiming that blocking links is inherently bad. For example, it may be reasonable to block links to malware, phishing, misleading URL shorteners, etc. I'm just saying that this is censorship. "Moderation" is a euphemism for censorship.

[jpgvm]

So they didn't try remove it from NY Post... they just removed links to NY Post...

That isn't moderating the NY Post or attempting to extend their moderation policies beyond the border of their own systems.