Other than that, your knowledge of current events is spot on.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/12/22/how-twitter-hid...
1. These accounts weren't promoted, they were just protected from being "deranked".
2. Twitter and Meta suspended most of these accounts, and made public that they had done so. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/us/politics/pentagon-soci...
So the entirely of this "scandal" is that Twitter agreed to shield these accounts from being attacked themselves (mass labeled as spam) - which as it turns out wasn't needed because according to their own records, these accounts received 1-2 impressions per post. In other words, no one even saw them.
Then Twitter banned them and pubicaly fingered them.
Should Twitter have done this? No. Is it proof of an engine of Twitter/US Gov cooperation to promote certain things and silence others? No.
Sometimes individual government employees report posts, the same way you can; this doesn’t have the force of law and you can ignore them.
1) Twitter censorship often took place at the discretion of employees, including Yoel Roth
2) The FBI was in consistent contact with Roth and co, directing them on which topics and individuals to censor
3) the CIA also had representatives who met with Twitter to help arrange censorship.
Best to catch up on the latest breaking news before wading into these discussions. Im sure you’d agree that mis, dis, and malinformation are extremely dangerous to our democracy!
2. There was no direction. FBI pointed out content that filed Twitter's rules (NOT its rules), and Twitter sometimes took action and sometimes didn't, at their own discretion. There as no direction, no instruction, no ordering of any kind.
3. Communications yes, "arrange censorship" no. See above.
I get that the "Twitter Files" is a perfectly engineered PR campaign to convince conservatives of the one thing they believed all along "they are censoring us!". Well, you are half right. "They" meaning Twitter did take repeated actions against right wing accounts for breaking its rules against harassment, election/public health misinfo, and general awfulness. That's true. But the US government never demanded or received any action.
If you need a reminder about what free speech actually protects (hint: it's not the consequences of being an awful person online). https://xkcd.com/1357/