Are you serious? Your source is Matt Taibi's reporting on the Twitter Files? That journalistic abortion was not taken seriously by anybody outside Musk's sycophant circles, and Taibi disavowed it long ago.
Which of Taibi's claims is being cited as proof of the original assertion?
Why don't we start there. Can you express, what is the actual evidence behind the claim that soviets in the EU are faking a case against twitter, because they're mad about their sophisticated censorship getting stopped?
The government was asking for tweets to be taken down, that violates the first amendment. People were being "flagged" and/or shadow banned for what they said on Twitter because the government didn't like it.
The government of course claimed it was fighting "disinformation" which is irrelevant - the 1st amendment protects all speech, true or not.
Then to add on top they were banning "disinformation" that was actually true, just politically inconvenient.
The old Twitter management was generally happy to play along since they're all on the same team, and hey "what's a constitutional right between friends"?
This was captured in emails and texts between government agencies (FBI, etc) and Twitter employees. Musk happily released it all when he bought X.
None of this is contested. How anyone can see that and say "yeah, that hack Taibi" is frankly shocking. He's one of the few journalists who actually bothered to report on it.
Read the emails from the Twitter Files - "Hi team, can we get your opinion on this? This was flagged by DHS" is pretty straight forward.
I'm not sure how you think a Scotus decision is proof it didn't happen. That's not what the decision was at all - it was simply that the government can discuss moderation.
It's not an ad hominem. Matt Taibi was fed partial information by Musk, and decided to publish it anyway, losing all credibility in the process. And even though the data was hand-picked by Musk who had the biggest axe to grind, it ultimately proved nothing beyond the fact that Twitter was receiving numerous requests from all sides of the US government, and that they would scrutinize every request and respect only some of them. Going back to the original claims you have made, Taibi's reporting only showed what was happening before Musk took over, not after, so it doesn't back you up. Sorry if I sounded harsh, but I'm just blown away you ate this journalistic slob up without any critical thinking.
> Taibi's reporting only showed what was happening before Musk took over, not after, so it doesn't back you up.
Do you hear yourself? Do you think that's any kind of cogent defense? You and I both know that you're carrying water for a corrupt government. The only question is your motivation.
[1] https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hear...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACCBqZVnDz0