Good question. Note, however, that before Snowden we have also been saying - look on those idiots posting about mass surveillance by NSA on their conspiracy maniacs forums. So good FB/Google/Twitter are removing all those crap.

This is a fair question.

A set of random tosses of a coin (even if the coin is partially biased) is expected to produce a mix of heads and tails outcomes. The random toss here could be human error or undiscovered bugs.

On the other hand, the international order is relatively old. There is no ageism in geopolitics, just ask Henry Kissinger. Established social and political affinities exist, globally. No assumption whatsoever is made regarding an existing, international, and powerful network of individuals and organizations.

Given that such networks exist, and that the stakeholders are indeed powerful individuals and organizations, and further that this case is shining a spotlight on their manipulating social institutions under their control, in a case where an individual is being prosecuted for publishing material detrimental to these powerful interests, no assumption is required to consider the high probability of their use of their power (which is the entire purpose of gaining power, btw) to insure their position, their actions, and their criminal behavior, is kept hidden from the majority.

Occam's Razor.

These networks seem to have abandoned whatever sense of decency they had in the early years of the Georgetown set.

We haven't had anything like a Marshall Plan or a Berlin Airlift for some time now.

In this particular case there is no shortage of evidence that there is a massive international deep state conspiracy against Assange. Given that fact, the question is what measures this conspiracy is taking and not its existence.

If there was no such evidence, then concluding conspiracy based on what is happening with FB and Twitter would indeed be crazy.