> Mostly by soft power, which you can’t say no to. Which is the whole premise of the parent comment. I think the point is that Twitter, a multibillion corporat

> Mostly by soft power, which you can’t say no to. Which is the whole premise of the parent comment. I think the point is that Twitter, a multibillion corporation run by rich, powerful, and well-connected people, isn’t in the same position w.r.t. the government as fledgeling starlets were against Weinstein. Twitter could have said no, and they would have been fine; they are protected from the government by the Constitution. Twitter has tons of money, and could easily file a lawsuit or defend one as well.