On the one hand, yes, social media trying to thwart its dissemination is a bad thing. I don't need Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey deciding what's true and what's not true for me. I'll decide that for myself, thank you very much.
On the other hand, I'm skeptical.
It's not that I think Joe Biden isn't corrupt or that his son didn't peddle access to the then vice president of the United States. Daddy bragged about abusing his position to meddle in Ukraine's investigations of Burisma, and little Hunter got paid a lot of money that only his relationship to Daddy seems to explain very well.
On the other hand, the guy who provided the supposed email to the Post, Rudy Giuliani, is at least as slimy and dishonest as either of them, and the chain of evidence, so to speak, is sketchy. Was that laptop actually Hunter Biden's? Did the owner of the repair shop actually make a copy of the hard drive before giving it to Giuliani? Were those emails actually on the laptop, and were they given to the Post unaltered? How long will it take to find out those things?
I'm willing to assume the worst about any politician ... in general. When it comes to specifics of accusations levied, and supposed evidence provided, by other politicians, I'm also willing to assume the worst of those other politicians.
Especially when those other politicians hold on to the supposed evidence for nearly a year (if they didn't manufacture it themselves last week) and release it through the media at the most politically convenient moment rather than getting it out there with plenty of time for thorough investigation before the political event it's intended to influence the outcome of.