1) I'd note a curious double-standard, namely that @Twitter hasn't slapped a warning label on the partisans/media outlets that falsely claimed WSJ news side had "debunked" the WSJ edit side on the Hunter Biden/China story.

2)The word the partisans were searching for was "confirmed." Our editpage column went up first, then the news side story. Both pieces explain that: the China negotiations were real; Hunter was involved; a document suggests a stake was envisioned for Joe; the deal fell through.

3) The only substantive difference: the news side correctly said Joe's name wasn't on official records. Our column correctly said emails/docs existed suggesting a deliberate effort to ensure his name wasn't on official records. We invited Joe to clear up the confusion.

4) So those spreading the "debunk" line are engaging in-- how best to put it?---disinformation. (Also vagueness, since "debunking" is the left's go-to putdown when it can't point to anything in a piece that is factually incorrect--as is the case here...)

5) Thanks to both WSJ pieces, the Biden family business story is in a whole new place. We delivered actual news to our readers and beyond, which is far more than can be said about those outlets now working to bury that reality with false claims of conflict.

6) As a consummate free-speecher, I'm opposed to @Twitter censoring, even of the factually challenged. But the episode does say something profound about social media's unequal approach to stopping the spread of "misleading" information that relates to an election.