I'd add that at least AFAICT, Twitter's ban of the NY Post's tweet about the laptop story, which hyped the article posted on the NY Post's website, gave the story even more visibility than if they'd just ignored it.
As I recall, the entire media world had to weigh in, telling many more folks about the story than would have heard about it without the controversy over the tweet.
In fact, I don't use Twitter and generally don't read the NY Post. Yet I heard about the tweet and the story based on the uproar that the tweet had been removed. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have heard much about it unless there were actual indictments.
And AFAIK, at no time was the NY Post website impeded from serving the story.
If censorship was the goal, it was completely misdirected and, unsurprisingly, ineffective.
As I recall, the entire media world had to weigh in, telling many more folks about the story than would have heard about it without the controversy over the tweet.
In fact, I don't use Twitter and generally don't read the NY Post. Yet I heard about the tweet and the story based on the uproar that the tweet had been removed. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have heard much about it unless there were actual indictments.
And AFAIK, at no time was the NY Post website impeded from serving the story.
If censorship was the goal, it was completely misdirected and, unsurprisingly, ineffective.