The argument that "it's not censorship if a private company does it" was always weak. What these revelations show is that a lot of so-called moderation was done at the explicit direction of government employees. How do you defend this? "it's not censorship if the private company willingly complies with government requests"? A refusal by twitter would have had quite high costs for the company. The cooperation between…
From this thread, it seems by just going "pfft... no big deal."
As long as there's a layer of abstraction ("I didn't kill him. The bullets and the fall did") and it's applying to speech we generally don't care for (misinformation, "hate speech", etc..), then I guess we're cool with it?
It's tough not to be cynical at times. A decade after PRISM, the government controlling speech indirectly via "polite suggestions" mostly just fills me with similar feelings of "no big deal." Not because it isn't, but because it's expected.