"The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey")."
Right, so instead of exposing themselves legally they do an end run of telling Twitter to ban and writing smear campaigns. Which is they did to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard.
1. We're not talking about your company which probably had a different context. We're talking about the FBI telling Twitter to silence opinions and facts.
2. Whether you agree with the LE request has no influence on whether it's legal or not.
> 1. We're not talking about your company which probably had a different context. We're talking about the FBI telling Twitter to silence opinions and facts.
The context was quite comparable: live conversations, messages both public and private.
> 2. Whether you agree with the LE request has no influence on whether it's legal or not.
Twitter had an extensive legal team before Musk fired them all, I'm pretty sure they were well capable of determining which requests were legal and which were not.
