[pannSun]

Evidence of editorial and policy decisions subtly favoring US government agendas? No, there will always be plausible deniability that someone willing to play as dumb as you will interpret as innocence and impartiality.

And if I may be more direct for a moment, perhaps other Americans will play along with your charade, but those of us in other countries won't be as willing to turn a blind eye to "ex" foreign (to us) intelligence agents meddling with communication platforms, just as you would not be so placid if it were ex-FSB agents instead of your people.

[IAmGraydon]

That was a really emotional and irrational way of saying "no, I don't have any evidence".

[pannSun]

It's irrational to expect "ex" government agents and spies to still pursue that government's agendas? You are confusing rationality with naivete.

[cactusplant7374]

If someone voted they are pursuing some kind of government agenda. In the absence of real evidence it's hard to take any of this seriously.

[pannSun]

For those few deliberately obtuse souls that need evidence the fox may have ulterior motives for guarding the hen house:

In response to a 2017 request from the Pentagon, Twitter kept online a network of accounts that the U.S. military used to advance its interests in the Middle East, according to internal company emails that were made public on Tuesday by The Intercept, a nonprofit publication.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/technology/twitter-milita...

But I am certain you'll find a way to excuse this, or see no connection between this event and the ex-CIA staff.

[cactusplant7374]

It’s innuendo. You have not built the case.

Where is the proof the Pentagon harmed Americans? Pursuing interests abroad is not illegal.

Where is the proof Twitter was forced to do X, Y, and Z by the government?