All those employees signed NDAs that said they would not disclose private company communications… this is way different than censoring a user who is under no such agreement.
Hence what people are complaining about: one set of rules for Twitter (the company) making requests of Twitter (the platform) and another set of rules for everyone else.
And really, it's the own-goalness of this that's likely irking everyone. Musk wants to get the high ground of a public space... and then he/someone at Twitter immediately burns that narrative on something trivial that doesn't even matter.
The sheer stupidity of taking it down makes me think it's probably internal HR.
It's like complaining that Amazon ships faster to areas that are close to Amazon warehouses. Well duh.
That was obviously wrong, as lots of legal speech makes the platform worse (eg, spam or spam-like behavior), but it was one of the claims made.
Is this an actual distinction or just being thorough for specificity? I know some companies are like Mozilla having the browser and the foundation, but just not familiar with Twitter.
So Twitter will now take down leaked internal comms from Facebook? What about from NYT? What about from CIA?
Obviously they have the right to do this, but yes it's also obviously hypocritical given Musk's approach.
Either they comply without hesitation to all takedown requests, or they don't take anything down unless ordered by a court. Doing something in the middle injects a level of moderation that goes against their "free speech" principles.