My interpretation of the article is that they're excusing direct interference by a government entity just because they're not directly in power (but obviously p

My interpretation of the article is that they're excusing direct interference by a government entity just because they're not directly in power (but obviously power is their objective). This implies that it would be justified for Trump to influence Twitter and have them ban people who speak against Trump, and this article should defend that as well. I have a feeling people would not see those two cases as equal. If they do, then great, that's consistent, but I'm pretty sure there are going to be massive protests, and that highlights the double standard. Sure, people can leave, complain, protest etc., my point is, that is a double standard.