I see you still haven't read it. The government (under both parties) requested, not demanded, and under no threats, that certain content be removed or certain accounts banned. Twitter investigated, and sometimes they took action, sometimes they didn't. It's all right there.
The substance of this video is a threat. Removing section 230 for platforms that won't censor as much as you want them to is a threat.
Others in power made similar threats of regulation. In addition, here is twitter themselves talking about how government officials were "very angry" that they had not censored even more.
And when you say "both parties." you are correct. Neither of them should have been asking private platforms to censor citizens who were not breaking any laws, essentially circumventing the first amendment, and both are to blame. None of this should have ever happened.
For example, Twitter was asked by a Congressman to remove defamatory and doxxing material against a staffer which had been posted by a Q-Anon adherent.
Journalist. The word you're looking for is journalist. In this case, a journalist who has stated that he doesn't identify with the group he's being smeared as belonging to. He was also banned anyway three months later, and was never given a reason. If you can find a specific reason twitter announced for their banning of this journalist, I'd be interested to hear it.
From what I've seen from looking at his pre-ban tweets, there's probably a lot I would disagree with him about, but he's still a journalist.
So this actually proves the exact opposite of Musk and his friends are claiming - they asked, and Twitter said no.
Sort of, but it didn't last. One of the better things to see from this whole thing is just how much Twitter did push back on certain things, especially at first, until they generally were pushed and prodded into going a lot farther as time went on. But considering the refrain for the longest time was "they're a private company, they can do what they want" I'm not seeing a lot of criticism of the people pushing and threatening twitter to do more than it wanted.
And on that note, and in the spirit of "this isn't about red vs blue, this is about power" here's someone on the left and someone the right having a thoughtful discussion on some of the latest twitter files findings, and how the government threatened to use the media to create bad PR for twitter. The video also goes into some other politicized topics, but I'll not discuss those here.
I'm not watching videos with people who are repeating the false narrative. If you had pointed to a source of actual investigative journalism that would have been fine, but I do not get my information from the podcasts of comedians.
You don't need investigative journalism to point out that 20 years ago the government said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and used that pretense to start a war. And if social media existed then as it does now, the government would be requesting the deplatforming of people questioning that narrative. They would have been painted as spreading misinformation. That's the point made in the video you refused to watch.
And even if you do question that hypothetical, the question remains, why do you trust the government to decide what is true and what is false, and then "request" that people be silenced who disagree? With as many times as the power held in government has changed hands over the years, why should anyone willingly accept and even champion a precedent for that sort of censorship?