Alright, so the story is:
1. Outside parties can petition twitter to moderate content
2. This was used by both political parties, but more frequently by the democrats
3. When the Hunter Biden laptop story initially started circulating, Twitter decided to moderate the story (in particular in preventing dickpicks and fearing hacking)
4. There is no evidence to suggest that this was based on democrats requesting it
So, it does seem clear that twitter was willing to moderate the story. It's also very likely that twitter staff had a democrat bias, but that's not exactly groundbreaking news. Nor is it illegal, or against company principles. With that said, I think it's important that these things come to light because there's no doubt that most privately owned media are biased. We need more transparency.
However, the narrative that moderating Hunters drug fueled dickpics and private pictures was election interference from the Biden government and violated the first amendment is obviously fantastical though. It goes without saying, but Biden wasn't in office, the story was already out and the first amendment wasn't violated. Plenty of media networks had access as well, the smoking gun wasn't there.
You can't read?
Damn, Gorka not on board?