[WoahNoun]

From your own link:

>[Twitter] officials emphasized there was no government involvement in the decision.

>“I am aware of no unlawful collusion with, or direction from, any government agency or political campaign on how Twitter should have handled the Hunter Biden laptop situation,” Baker said in his opening statement. “Even though many disagree with how Twitter handled the Hunter Biden matter, I believe that the public record reveals that my client acted in a manner that was fully consistent with the First Amendment.”

[theultdev]

Well there ya go, they said they weren't aware of anything. Case closed.

Anyone can go read the reports and judge for themselves what happened.

I don't see how anyone could go through it and think there was no collusion.

(not that I agree with this whataboutism used to distract from the initial criticisms of the CCP oppression)

[WoahNoun]

If there was any actual evidence, they'd be in jail for lying to congress.

[theultdev]

Interesting theory, but what do you call the emails and slack channels where government employees requested (and usually received) banishment or limiting of targeted users?

Are you under the thinking that no coordination happened, or that the coordination that did happen is legal and expected?

Trying to understand how you didn't get to the same conclusions.

Just picking a random snippet from the Files, here's part six:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1603857534737072128.html

How is that not government collusion with a private company to censor US citizens?

[WoahNoun]

The testimony and article was about the removal of a nypost story about Hunter's laptop. Not that they are never in contact with government officials.