"We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. We shouldn't have done it."

Also: The 5th Circuit panel found that the White House coerced the platforms through “intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences” and commandeered the decision-making processes of social media companies, particularly in handling pandemic-related and 2020 election posts.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/09/08/biden-adminis...

To say they were free to refuse is disingeneous.

Yes, pressure is not the same as coercion. The 5th circuit is a notorious conservative circus show, I’ll wait for the Supreme Court’s decision.

How is "threats of adverse consequences" any different than what China does?

If a cartel member comes up to you and tells you to give him your wallet or there might be "consequences", do you think you are free to refuse him?