[we_never_see_it]

> Twitter has not asserted they were pressured. If they feel they were, they should say so, and sue.'

You do understand that they can collude? It's funny we have spent countless hours hearing about Trump Russia collusion. Now suddenly people can't seem to figure out there is a thing called collusion.

Censorship of this story doesn't exist in vaccum. There is a legitimate argument why this shouldn't be investigated as election interference when we've spent countless hours based on Steele dossier, which turned out to be a political ploy.

[epakai]

For collusion to be noteworthy there still has to be a crime committed. The allegation in the Trump-Russia collusion case is that they conspired to have foreign operators influence the election. This would have been an illegal act that they colluded on.

There is nothing illegal about requesting review of tweets even through special channels. If Twitter actually has evidence of an illegal act to coerce the review then they should probably rehire whoever was coerced and file suit.

[anoonmoose]

Collusion as you're using it would not be a 1A violation. It also would not qualify as election interference any more than any other newspaper choosing what stories to run or what candidates to endorse (legally speaking).

[RonaldRaygun]

Collusion with a foreign adversary regarding illegally obtained internal comms from your political opponent: NBD

Collusion with a domestically owned bird app re revenge porn of your crackhead son: Worst scandal in US history

Got it.