“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a national security and law enforcement agency that uses, collects, and shares intelligence in all it does.” https://www.justice.gov/doj/organization-mission-and-functio...

“The FBI is an intelligence-driven and threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities. It is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Justice and a full member of the U.S. Intelligence Community.” https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-is-the-fbi

Or do you see a distinction between “law enforcement” and “intelligence agency” when it comes to asking a private business to ban certain customers?

I see no distinction. Both operate with the all the powers vested by the government.

They have no business doing it.

Collects and shares intelligence, intelligence assessments, and recommendations on mitigating threats indicated by that intelligence with other domestic and friendly government and private sector entities, yes.

That's all very much part of the FBI’s overt, primary, national security role.

Is there potential for confusion that needs careful clarity, especially when communicating with legally unsophisticated parties, when government agency has both advisory/supportive roles and enforcement roles, to avoid confusion about which role it is acting in? Sure.

Is Twitter the kind of unsophisticated entity where this concern is strongest? No. Is there any evidence that the FBI communication blurred the context of communication with Twitter such that there is nevertheless a legitimate concern that they were, explicitly or even implicitly, coercive despite Twitter not being unsophisticated? Not that I’ve seen. Is there, coercion aside, evidence that the FBI was intentionally decieiving Twitter with reports, so as to lead Twitter into actions it would not take but for a misleading perception deliberately created by the FBI? Not, again, that I have seen.

Let me bring it back on topic.

Are you ok with a US law enforcement/intelligence service asking a social media company to silence certain users? To squash stories reported by the media they know are factual?

I mean if you are, that's ok. Just be upfront about it and not try and hide behind a long paragraph that talks about other thing that aren't relevant.