I disagree with French (on whose legal analysis Krebs relied in stating his opinion.) French argues that there's a difference between "convincing" and "coercion." Imo, the government doesn't need to coerce bc the fact that the gov can (and have, think SEC) impose all kinds of sanctions/regulations on Twitter - so by the very nature of the relationship, there is implied coercion. Also, does whether it was "convincing" or "coercion" matter? The bottom line is that speech WAS censored, and it was not just Twitter's fault or the government's fault. It was both - in which case French should have discussed a couple other "C-words:" "COLLUSION" and "CORRUPTION." French's article: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/frenchpress/did-the-fbis-involvement-with-twitter-violate-the-first-amendment/