" Twitter Files have been out there for some time. ..."

And NO ONE, not even Musk, has detailed a single time the government overrode the editorial board.

You know ... THE SALIENT ACTION.

Also, until Zuck shows the content for which he (and only he, from the testimony of Meta employees) was pressured to censor, it makes sense to assume it's vile crap only Zuck might like.

" how much does Trump pay you to change his full diapers? Or do you pay him to provide that service?"

He probably pays by the slurp.

" your position is Zuckerberg is lying"

Neither he nor Musk have shown ANY censored content.

The Meta employees, meanwhile, were under oath.

And you've still never addressed the most basic question: Would it be okay to post an instructional video on how easy it is to inject bleach? Or do YOU censor that?

And what if you were responsible for the results if you left it up? Would that alter your behavior?

" the parents of those 13 who were killed approved in advance a photographer and videographer."

What part of that makes it legal for Trump to use the footage for a campaign?

Oh right ... none of it.

Why are you glossing over the important part?

I mean, aside from the fact getting photo clearance doesn't mean Section 60.

" So, what's yer current alias' point?"

It pisses him off when I prove what a partisan hack he is.

Not that it's connected, but JeffJ got VERY UPSET with me one night, for asking salient questions all the time.

" Zuckerberg is saying the same actions were applied"

Until Zuck specifies exactly what content he's talking about, it's safe to assume it's directions on how to kill a parent with megadoses of ivermectin.

Alternately, Jordan could release the transcripts of the Meta employees.

Trouble is, NONE of them mentioned government pressure. Which is, of course, exactly why he WON'T release the transcripts.

And you'll slurp it up.

"So we went from it never happened. It's is racist right wing conspiracy theory to, okay, I guess it happened but it was a good thing."

No dumfuq, it went immediately to "if Jim Jordan had this information from the Meta workers he questioned under oath, he would've come out with it."

The fact he didn't, makes it seem more like Zuckerberg is trying to pull a fast one.

Only the Meta workers were under oath. Not Zuck, and not Gym.

The only other answer would be if Jordan knew, but was keeping the facts under wraps. Anybody with a below room temperature IQ around to believe that?

"Does anyone on the left have consistent guiding principles"

Fat talk from someone whose only "principle" is slurping whatever comes out of ANY Trumphole.

"Or pro-lies and pro-hate-speech?"

Oh, definitely that.

Twitter is a cesspool compared to pre-Musk. 70% of my feed is bullschittt, like folks lying about the unrealized cap gains tax.

Guess what part they always leave out???

"This whole ivermectin -------- is just a subset of all kinds of misinformation"

STOP CALLING IT MISINFORMATION. I'm not talking about misinformation, I'm talking about MALINFORMATION.

Do you know the difference? YES YOU DO.

"maybe it wasn't really the law but rather the unwillingness of the govt to pursue such folks."

All the more reason for government to step into the Social Media world, or hold the gatekeepers responsible. Suddenly "Mr. HorsePaste" doesn't have a couple yokels from the General Store trying his "cure", he's got tens of thousands.

A different world, requires different solutions.

"How can 70% be in favor of unions then?"

Because only 23% disapprove.

Still leaves 7% undecided.

"The Federal government? Local government? The Secret Service, FBI, the Texas Rangers?"

Hell, ANYBODY, hopefully. But at this point we're talking the Feds and FaceBook.

Does it matter WHAT was asked by the FBI, or is just the asking censorship?

I believe the lynchpin is CONTENT. Was it merely disagreement? Then the government is WRONG. Was it medical malinformation? If so, I believe the government is duty-bound to protect the general welfare.

More specifically, "Don't take the vaccine" is one thing; "You can't overdose on horse paste" is another, especially when the government is seeing a 1000% spike in ivermectin poisoning cases

Sorry, but I just can't get behind "it's my right to indirectly kill others with my stupidity" concept.

"my free speech protection includes protection even when I'm misleading people."

Good God, I hope it doesn't. But I'm not talking about just "misleading"; I'm talking about PIMPING FATAL ACTIONS AS CURES.

Free speech? Or time for a little General Welfare? The Bellringers of the world don't believe it EVER gets to the GW part.

"who is represented when you say "their"?"

The folks responsible for The General Welfare.

Pretty obvious, in context.

" Harris turned him down."

So basically, RFK was offering, and the first Jane he approached turned him down, so then he went to the next john. (In this case, Donald John.)

He was offering the same services, and would've done EXACTLY the same to Republicans.

Sounds like a whore to me.

" Where in the past would you want to have invoked the first amendment to punish people up for that?"

As soon as they publish after being told to take it down, or retract it.

That said, why shouldn't they be held as liable as a doctor giving fatal advice? More people died in New Mexico from ivermectin poisoning than all the Alec Baldwin movies, combined.

Does free speech include your right to claim doctors have been misleading everyone about megadoses of horse paste?

How about after the government has seen thousands of ivermectin deaths?

Is it censorship if they do, and shirking their constitutional duties if they don't?!?

" Somebody hasn't seen the Zuckerberg confession this morning..."

Until and unless Zuckerberg shows us EXACTLY what was curbed, it's safe to assume it was instructions on best methods of inserting a UV light up your hoo-hah.

But while I have your attention, does the first amendment extend to potential fatal medical malinformation?

"He's on record inciting a riot"

Link to proof, please. Credible sources only.

" No conservative I know of "hates" America."

Wanna bet? Answer this:

If NC casts more votes statewide for Democrats than Republicans, should Democrats run the state, or should the state, like Wisconsin, gerrymander to the point where Republicans keep power despite getting less statewide votes?

FTW, Sconnies could vote 75% for Democrats, and not get control of the state legislature.

For historical comparison, the largest landslides in Presidential history (Harding and FDR) barely broke 60%.

" You clowns clearly don't understand 1A."

Says the guy who can't even tell us where 1A ends.

To this point, he's OK with folks instructing other people how to properly inject bleach.

He's not only for misinformation, he's in favor of MALinformation.

" Post a thread critical of a Dem and Danforth ...

... points out, honestly (but embarrassingly for you) you're a raging hypocrite if you're upset by ONE lie, but not 30,001.

Remember the threads you posted about Trump being a pathological liar? No one else does either.

Freaking out over one lie, while ignoring 30,000 others, is the real world equivalent of worrying about the speck in the other person's eye, while ignoring the LOG in yours.

Lying was never your dealbreaker, as you're pretending it should be for Democrats.

" Look at Dinesh D'Souza, and they put him in jail over a couple of hundred bucks"

Not true at all. Trump is off by MAGnitudes. D'Souza was put in jail for $20,000 of illegal contributions.

Trump is pathological.

" The fact that no one here can dare challenge the echo chamber "

It seems more pointing and laughing at the pop gun attacks by Republicans.

Republicans are whining constantly, and making up new rules for removing Harris. Nothing substantive, and at times, laughably false.

"People donated to Biden" is the most obvious one; the solicitation came from "Biden-Harris".

Trump has to find buyers to sell.

If others with millions to sell get to market first, he could be left with fire-sale options only.

" It is if it's because of pressure by the government"

You're basically saying Constitutional requirements for The General Welfare can NEVER override what the rando editorial board of Anarchy Now wants.

Let's say they want to publish the building drafts for every government building, highlighting weaknesses, should they be attacked.

Is that "free speech" in your book?