This would be worthwhile if you hadn't read the article and already decided that twitter execs meeting with DHS weekly to discuss specific accounts and what should be done about them is not censorship.
The US gave a report of what was misinformation and requested that social media companies respond with a report of what, if anything, was done about it. What were the repercussions of Twitter didn't do anything? Oh, none? Okay.
The US does this weekly, and about specific people and subjects that it wants to communicate its concern over.
> What were the repercussions of Twitter didn't do anything? Oh, none? Okay.
Why are you convinced that you have some sort of inside information about repercussions twitter may or may not have when the government approaches them with concerns about content? Who convinced you?
>"Why are you convinced that you have some sort of inside information about repercussions twitter may or may not have when the government approaches them with concerns about content? Who convinced you?"
I'm not convinced there were. I don't think the Biden admin would do that as its flatly unconstitutional. Sending a list of misinformation, weekly, daily, monthly, whatever, is flatly constitutional.
It's not really a matter of a religious belief, it speaks more to their desire for political expediency, which would be thrown out the window if they actually did violate the first amendment. Not that I expect you to bring a realistic view of the current political climate to this conversation.
