Verily. Here interpretative skills don't appear to be impaired (see her comments on [paraphrasing] 'this is not censorship it's business practice') and there is so little to interpret in being asked [initially] to remove only live links in order to get an ebook allowed that I can't readily see how it's an issue of objectivity. Hence my inclination towards trusting her presentation of the situation.
My initial thought was that it might be affiliate links she'd included but then her failure to mention such a thing would be brazen dishonesty IMO and not [accidental] situational interpretative failure or simple bias.
I think it's more likely than not that her interpretation would agree with mine, but it's still an unknown. The parent post of this thread was asking if we could remove that unknown, so I think it's quite reasonable.
My initial thought was that it might be affiliate links she'd included but then her failure to mention such a thing would be brazen dishonesty IMO and not [accidental] situational interpretative failure or simple bias.