But that just makes Twitter normal - that doesn't deserve congressional hearings, or whistleblowing IMO. Doctor's only briefly talk to patients before moving on, and depend a lot on the file: I don't think that is right - but that's what the American standard of care seems to have settled on. If I were to sue a doctor for malpractice, alleging they'd have made a more accurate diagnosis by spending more time with me, a valid defense for them would be to show that they followed standard practice.

> 2) knowing someone's background, and deeply studying their historical writings, can provide a lot of color when evaluating someone's ethics, or any bias in their actions.

I learned from the New Yorker article that Mudge signed an 7- or 8-million dollar agreement with Twitter earlier this year that had a carve-out in its non-disparagement clause(s) for whistleblowing

That definitely "adds color"

Of course, but a Wikipedia page is not immune from bias nor does it provide unfettered credibility. I recall the same tactics and approaches being utilized in users pushing an agenda for Wikileaks, suggesting that they were basically perfect and incapable of doing any wrong and that Assange could do no harm. I don't give anyone a God-like status.

> Reading through rest of thread...Is this a Musk-related thing for you?

No, this is a personal experience kind of thing. I see this type of situation quite often where a topic will get people are riled up based on their political and personal biases and skew their critical-thinking ability to actually analyze the situation. If congress was actually concerned about people's data, they would have actually put forth efforts to enact some reasonable legislation that didn't just apply to whatever platform they feel the most censored on.