Yeah, Elon Musk is completely objective and is telling the unvarnished truth about a company he is in the process of acquiring and wants to make as valuable as possible.
Boiler gives us yet another example of how the primary metric conservitards use to determine whether something is factual is whether it agrees with their preconceived notions.
More bad censorship news about Sleepy and friends's coming from Twitter and Facebook.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10754559/Criticism-Biden-Twitter-Facebook-censored-646-times-two-years-new-report-finds.html
Kevin, is this a revelation to you? I know that your news sources don't report this sort of stuff as you're always surprised.
When any private company decides what content should and should not be allowed on its own website, that isn't "censorship," even if some conservitard asshole says it is.
DUHHHHH, Boiler.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
When any private company decides what content should and should not be allowed on its own website, that isn't "censorship," even if some conservitard asshole says it is.
DUHHHHH, Boiler.
What's it called?
Originally posted by: Boilerman
What's it called?
It's called a business decision made by a private company.
If some conservitard doesn't like it, that conservitard will call it "censorship." But that's not what it is.
No one has the right to force a PRIVATE platform to accept and publish their content, any more than someone can force you to allow them to attach an election campaign sign to the front of your house.
If you think that's somehow wrong, well, then, I'll drop by your house with some campaign posters come October. No bitching, now!
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
It's called a business decision made by a private company.
If some conservitard doesn't like it, that conservitard will call it "censorship." But that's not what it is.
No one has the right to force a PRIVATE platform to accept and publish their content, any more than someone can force you to allow them to attach an election campaign sign to the front of your house.
If you think that's somehow wrong, well, then, I'll drop by your house with some campaign posters come October. No bitching, now!
Spot on.
You have to love it. Fox goes to court and gets sued for defamation that ouccured on Tucker. Their defense is nobody takes Tucker seriously nor should they. Fox laughs at how stupid the rubes are that they con every day.
''The most racist show on TV.''
Truth.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
I know that Libs said Trump was lying when he told us that his office had been bugged. I know that Libs claimed that Trump was lying when claiming that the Steele dossier was a fabricated piece of shit. I know that Libs, on places like Twitter, disallowed discussions about Hunter Biden's laptop, because anyone who claimed that it was not Russian meddling was tagged the liar and a spreader of misinformation.
Liberal publications call anyone's views that they disagree with a lie, so why put stock in what they say about McCarthy? Best I can tell, they're twisting words around to make something of nothing. For example, he claims he never asked Trump to resign, yet he's heard on audio saying that he plans to ask Trump to resign. This somehow proves a lie in the Liberal strange world.
A quick question (not) answered with the usual what-about-ism, look over there BS, and blind stupidity.
This is the Republican Party voter mindset. RIP.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
It's called a business decision made by a private company.
If some conservitard doesn't like it, that conservitard will call it "censorship." But that's not what it is.
No one has the right to force a PRIVATE platform to accept and publish their content, any more than someone can force you to allow them to attach an election campaign sign to the front of your house.
If you think that's somehow wrong, well, then, I'll drop by your house with some campaign posters come October. No bitching, now!
What's the word?
