I don't think he understands the Streisand effect in this context. It was inevitable either way that the majority would hear about the fake Hunter Biden story the ideal case for both the truth and for Biden is that people hear about it in the context of it being fake crap being propagated by an unreliable source instead of having it laundered through a million and one personal contacts who can rightfully claim to be sharing a legit piece of news.

“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”

C. H. Spurgeon,

Whereas a truth is may be amplified by ineffective blocking a lie may be irreparably damaged if the truth gets there first.

Regarding 230 the primary author of the statute disagrees with Thomas.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/11032444780/autho...

Justice Thomas is the Giligan of the supreme court.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomas...

>Why was this? It is because Thomas is not a conservative but, rather, a radical—one whose entire career on the Court has been devoted to undermining the rules of precedent in favor of his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution.

Personally this sounds like an intensely editorial decision on Twitter side then.

Anyway what I was referring to was how Twitter's moderators decided to restrict this news based on it being obtained through hacking, but few days ago had nothing against Trump tax story that was based on illegally obtained documents.

I had a problem with the Biden hard drive story because I believe its a lie. I have no reason to believe the tax story was anything but honest. Twitter's difficulty is not wanting to admit why they censored it.