> X responded by blocking links to the material, claiming that it contained sensitive personal information such as the Ohio US senator’s social security number,

> X responded by blocking links to the material, claiming that it contained sensitive personal information such as the Ohio US senator’s social security number, and banned Klippenstein from the platform. That seems like a crucial detail that Guardian could have verified. Is it possible that they know the validity of that claim but chose not to mention it in the article?