but I don’t see a problem with the FBI/CIA/etc having regular discussions with Twitter about potential threats, influence campaigns, etc.
You don't?
There is nothing special about Twitter as a private business when it comes to acceptable level of government interference. Police agencies are responsible for investigating crimes. That's their remit. They aren't allowed to compel a private individual/business to provide any evidence without a court order. Of course you can always cooperate (and Twitter looks like they were), but any lawyer worth their salt would tell you not to.
But let's tweak the scenario a bit - if the cops were coming to your local bar every day or two, asking about various patrons, maybe suggesting "hey next time maybe you shouldn't let that person in", you think there isn't a problem?
“The FBI is an intelligence-driven and threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities. It is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Justice and a full member of the U.S. Intelligence Community.”
https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-is-the-fbi
Collects and shares intelligence, intelligence assessments, and recommendations on mitigating threats indicated by that intelligence with other domestic and friendly government and private sector entities, yes.
That's all very much part of the FBI’s overt, primary, national security role.
Is there potential for confusion that needs careful clarity, especially when communicating with legally unsophisticated parties, when government agency has both advisory/supportive roles and enforcement roles, to avoid confusion about which role it is acting in? Sure.
Is Twitter the kind of unsophisticated entity where this concern is strongest? No. Is there any evidence that the FBI communication blurred the context of communication with Twitter such that there is nevertheless a legitimate concern that they were, explicitly or even implicitly, coercive despite Twitter not being unsophisticated? Not that I’ve seen. Is there, coercion aside, evidence that the FBI was intentionally decieiving Twitter with reports, so as to lead Twitter into actions it would not take but for a misleading perception deliberately created by the FBI? Not, again, that I have seen.
You seem to be getting off topic, and arguing points I never made.
Let me bring it back on topic.
Are you ok with a US law enforcement/intelligence service asking a social media company to silence certain users? To squash stories reported by the media they know are factual?
I mean if you are, that's ok. Just be upfront about it and not try and hide behind a long paragraph that talks about other thing that aren't relevant.
You don't?
There is nothing special about Twitter as a private business when it comes to acceptable level of government interference. Police agencies are responsible for investigating crimes. That's their remit. They aren't allowed to compel a private individual/business to provide any evidence without a court order. Of course you can always cooperate (and Twitter looks like they were), but any lawyer worth their salt would tell you not to.
But let's tweak the scenario a bit - if the cops were coming to your local bar every day or two, asking about various patrons, maybe suggesting "hey next time maybe you shouldn't let that person in", you think there isn't a problem?