Real quick overview of the thread:
Twitter started letting companies/political parties send in request to remove info. Dems and Reps would both do it, but Dems had more connections therefore more swing (not surprising).
When the story broke, twitter staffers banned it in the same way they would for Child p***.
Twitter execs in the public policy/comms departments seemed to not know about the ban or play a part in it (at first).
Safety/Trust teams had broad moderation power and used it under the guise of "hacked materials".
Twitter exec Vijaya Gadde essentially made the call herself, with CEO Dorsey's knowledge.
Other execs bring up how difficult it would be to justify policy, but they decide to "stay the course" and see if the story goes away.
(There's an aside in here about how Dem rep Ro Khanna reached out directly to Gadde in regards to the first amendment. He references
NYT vs Sullivan. Makes a comment about agreeing twitter has the right to monitor what is reccomended on trending, but he believes restricting news articles invites backlash.)
Twitter is alerted house judiciary is "out for blood" and may move to regulate tech more.
3 Dem reps on the judiciary want to regulate tech because "the 1st isn't absolute".
It takes Dorsey personally getting involved to unfuck the situation.
Taibbi signs off with more to come
There is much more to come, including answers to questions about issues like shadow-banning, boosting, follower counts, the fate of various individual accounts, and more. These issues are not limited to the political right.
Forgive me If I missed something. This is a very general overview of the main points.