I'm not sure that's actually true. Twitter did not stop the spreading of the information it suppressed (the author of this article knew perfectly well what that information was, after all). It just made people route around Twitter to get the information. The more people realize that they need to route around Twitter to get the information they want (just as they now route around traditional journalists to get the information they want), the more Twitter's authority is reduced just as the authority of traditional journalists was reduced.
I think the author of the article has not sufficiently considered this aspect.
> I think the author of the article has not sufficiently considered this aspect.
I agree, but are we talking about this because it's the first time it's happened for such a high profile story in the US? Will we still be talking about it the third or fourth time it happens?
I'm not sure that's actually true. Twitter did not stop the spreading of the information it suppressed (the author of this article knew perfectly well what that information was, after all). It just made people route around Twitter to get the information. The more people realize that they need to route around Twitter to get the information they want (just as they now route around traditional journalists to get the information they want), the more Twitter's authority is reduced just as the authority of traditional journalists was reduced.
I think the author of the article has not sufficiently considered this aspect.