共和黨參議員約翰·科寧(John Cornyn)在國會聽證會質問推特CEO傑克·多西（Jack Dorsey）：
When Twitter decided to take down the story, the NY post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop, did you do that under your terms of service, or did you do it under some claim of authority?
We did under our term of service, which as you know everyone agrees on their signup to Twitter. This is a policy around distribution of hacked materials. We do not want Twitter to be a distribution plane for hacked materials.
You do realize, by taking down that story, probably gave it more prominence, more visibility than it would have gotten had you left it alone.
We realized that. We recognize it as a mistake we made, both in terms of the intention of policy, and also the enforcement action of not allowing people to share it publicly or privately, which is why we corrected it within 24 hours.
And Mr. Dorsey, why isn’t Justice Brandt’s formulation in Whitney vs California? Why shouldn’t that apply to the internet platforms like yours? In order words, the cure for bad speech is not censorship. It’s more speech. Why wouldn’t that principle apply to Twitter?
I think it does apply. All of our policies are focused on encouraging more speech. What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse, harassment, and misleading information that will cause harm. And they would leave our service because of it. So our intention is to create clear policy, clear enforcement, and enable people to feel they can express themselves on our service and ultimately trusted.
So it was a business decision?
It was a business decision.