> Leaking a private slack can be political activism for worker's rights.

Unless she's acting as a "whistleblower", then that argument carries zero weight.

But who's judging whether she is or not? Twitter is, still.

The whole point of free speech ideology is that corporations aren't supposed to be unaccountable judges and executioners, and this should stay up until she is actually convicted of breaking some law.

Wait a minute, corporations can't police their own platform? Sure they can. "Freedom of speech" is a political freedom -> free from persecution from the government.

If Twitter (or Elon as owner of his private company) wants to take down a post that exposes internal dealings then they're completely within their right to do that. But that doesn't relate at all to the other, more important conversation of Twitter limiting certain voices (Trump, et al). Stop mixing the two.

I remember some years back when Microsoft fired an employee for taking pictures of some boxes of brand new Macintosh computers on their campus and publishing it on the internet as a way to lightly smear the company (for using non-MS products apparently). MS was fully within their right to do that and nobody screamed "freedom of speech" back then.

The irony is that Musk was proclaiming that Twitter is now going to focus on free speech (as in, everything non-illegal goes), and just now they removed an instance of non-illegal speech.

Violating an NDA to not disclose internal communications to the public seems clearly illegal?

Maybe a court would decide that heart emojis aren't a company secret covered by an NDA, but are expression of solidarity with workers which is legally protected speech regardless of what the employer thinks about it. Or maybe not. By the free speech ideology you can't know, and are supposed to assume innocent until proven guilty, and keep it until a court orders taking it down.

But here a private company is executing its own unilateral judgement by their own clearly biased moderators.

The definition, applicability, scope, etc., of tech industry standard NDAs is very clear cut. Presumably Twitter didn't insert some uniquely odd clauses.

Trying to create vagueness where there is none seems like motivated reasoning