Do you honestly think it was ok to stop the spread of the hunter biden story and suspend people for spreading it?

You mean the one with a few leaked emails used to promulgate at repeatedly debunked conspiracy theory? That one?

Once it became clear that the conspiracy theory was just that, repeatedly promoting said conspiracy seems to be of questionable value, to anyone other than the GOP, who themselves repeatedly sued twitter for the identity of critics.

So yeah, I do think it was reasonable to stop that propaganda after it became clear the conspiracy was false, and "reporting" on the laptop was being used solely to continue promoting that conspiracy. Is that a more borderline case, sure, I'll accept that. Is the literal president promoting the overthrow of the elected US government something that is debatable? nope. Is that something the anti-woke people say was wrong? yup.

So I generally equate "anti-woke" with: anti-law, anti-democracy, pro-violence, pro-bigotry, pro-segregation, pro-conspiracy, etc and I have yet to see any evidence that the anti-woke/pro-"free speech" people clamoring for changes to twitter do not fall into those buckets.

I have never seen any evidence in fact of an "anti-woke" person not defending hate speech, I have however seen many vigorously demanding that all LGBT content be silenced to "protect children", or that American history be censored or rewritten in school.

Given that track record it is hard to see that the "anti-twitter-censorship" folk are operating out of a position of good-faith.

Ok well I'm going to remain on topic to your original (now obviously rhetorical) question. The article was not propaganda. It was disproving Biden's previous statement that he “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings”.

I would invite you to read the article again if you think its propaganda:

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden...

I'm sure you can come up with more phones and ists, it's like you're not even trying.

Of those you listed, only terrorism should be removed by law in the U.S. while the others are all things you, the reader, attribute to others and ascribe intent behind. You cannot prove intent, no matter how many mental gymnastics you perform. And then even if somebody expressly admitted to intent for those topics, they're not illegal. I don't care if you want them to be, they aren't. Get over it.

Really not trying to be a dick here, but why are we even arguing over Twitters content moderation policies? The companies that run social media can legally censor and remove publicly, and privately, posted content. They can also ban, suspend, or limit users, for pretty much any reason.

There is none, or at least no more than any other site. In fact, Twitter moderation is leagues better than old forum style moderation (dang is an exception :)). I waited for years post-2016 to see any real evidence of the “fake” news that is demonstrably false and has somehow infiltrated the world and… there is none. People just don’t like the ideological spin of the headlines and moderation decisions which, I mean, what’s new?

My advice is don’t hold your breath. This is exactly what you think it is.

To counter your anecdote, I’ve seen fake news on the platform dozens of times (at the “Obama was born in Iraq” level). Usually someone parroting it from a partisan media vehicle.

checkmate right?