Ben Weingarten writes at the Federalist about the latest questionable decision from the Big Tech giant.

If you thought Twitter’s censorship of reported Joe Biden family corruption or frequent flagging of the U.S. president’s tweets were isolated incidents, think again. Big Tech’s efforts to shield favored political figures and positions from scrutiny have only increased.

You and I can find ourselves branded with censorious labels even for sharing court documents containing sworn testimony, should the offending share touch any of a growing number of third rails. Today, the integrity of the 2020 presidential election is the greatest third rail of them all.

I found that out this week when I tweeted screenshots of the summary of a sworn affidavit, and a link to that affidavit, delivered by Detroit poll challenger Zachary Larsen. In the affidavit, Larsen, a former Michigan assistant attorney general, claims to have witnessed several disturbing instances of fraud during the vote-counting he watched on and after Nov. 3, 2020.

The affidavit is part of a lawsuit pending before the Wayne County Circuit Court. Larsen is joined by several other individuals in the lawsuit, including an employee of the City of Detroit and other poll challengers, who likewise attest under penalty of perjury to a raft of alleged fraud and corruption during the vote processing and tabulating.

These people put their names and necks on the line in coming forward in our charged political environment. A court will now determine whether their claims are sufficient to merit adjudication.

Twitter, on the other hand, is in no position to do so. Yet after my tweet started circulating widely, suddenly the purported non-publisher stepped in and made its own ruling: “This claim about election fraud is disputed.”

It slapped this flag on the tweet. Retweets meet a warning. One can now only share the tweet by adding text responding to it.