A law doesn’t have to be effective for its stated purpose. If the law allows them to have more control over the internet, bypass rights, etc. it is an effective law for them.

If you have been watching, the courts have been making rulings to liberalize gun ownership, and carry/use laws. Simultaneously they have been making rulings that have been making it easier, and easier, for cops to basically use this liberal state of gun rights as a reason to treat everyone as a lethal threat, and basically disregard a lot of your rights, like the 4th, and 5th, if they even think you have a gun. There is a blanket reason to disregard constitutional protections being crafted here.

i have no interest in blocking you. It’s not like you are a nazi, or something. I also lurk at least one of your fora, solarpunk strength. However, I will voice myself over the bad sources you frequently post.

Posting garbage simply because it shits on the party they have a deep bias against, doesn’t mean you are actually countering some narrative, garbage is garbage, be it pro democrat, pro gop, whatever.

The daily mail, NY Post, The militant. This makes up most of what you have been posting. daily, and post, are barely outside of being tabloids. While I have some respect for the SWP, and generally support them because there is so little actual leftist stuff in the US, the militant has a history of posting unsourced claims, straight up stuff that is wrong, and, while I can understand the desire for anonymity for the owners of a leftist circulation in the US, the lack of transparency is always suspect. While you can’t really just trust news, you can at least not primarily post the bottom feeders.

Also, your profile just screams martyr complex

You are free to be wrong

I mean, that is obvious, you post them frequently. Garbage in, garbage out.

No, if he had a record of the call/meeting. If there is an uninvested third party witness, etc. then I will take the claims seriously. Like I said, I do not doubt that the Biden admin, or any other presidential administration, has exercised undue influence over the media. It is indisputable that there is a history of it. However, I still want evidence before I go any further than “given the history, it could be true”.

I do not operate on faith, and you should not either, even though you will continue to do so. You also should probably drop the shit tier rags you post all the time, like the daily mail. If something is out there, a better outlet will have it.

We know he is saying things you believe, and so you like it, and agree with it. Without proof though, it isn’t uncovering anything, just rage bait.

Hopefully they will, however this is not that. Until proof is provided this is just puff to gain engagement via outrage.

And I am still gonna demand proof of the claims of people in power. Zuck talking to some news outlet is not the same as me, at a house party, talking shit. Things he says, especially about the very important thing he has disproportionate influence over, has consequence.

you keep waiting for me to give you a different answer

I haven’t the slightest hope I will change anyone’s opinion. In fact, there is evidence that things like contradictory evidence are more than likely to just make people doubly down. I am here because you felt the desire to post your opinion online, and I felt like I wanted to post my opinion about that, and now, here we are, with you claiming you don’t have to defend your post, but still giving me things to post my opinion about.

I don’t have to defend why I posted it tho. Thanks!

You don’t, yet here we are

If you just want have your opinion, and not have people questioning it, all you have to do is not make it public.

It is also ok to ask for proof, and challenge people’s statements, is it not? Cause this is some big “It was only a joke, you take things too seriously” energy. If you don’t want people to express their opinions, about your opinions, you need to not make them public.

“I believe what this guys claims”

“I need some proof to believe him personally”

“You need proof to believe a claim? This isn’t as court of law. Your critical thinking skills suck if you don’t understand this is just a baseless accusation I want to believe.”

Thanks. I will. And YOU can go ahead and belive the Democratic Oligarch without evidence.

Difference is, I am not believing the Biden admin. Zuck made the claim something happened, Zuck has to provide proof that thing happened. This is the burden of proof. So you are believing a claim without evidence, I am holding judgement until I get some. The fact that you do not understand this calls your critical thinking skills, at least on this subject, into question.

You can go ahead and believe the oligarch without evidence. Also, he can say these things without getting into actual trouble. Making a case against him over these statements, towards public figures, would be next to impossible. I have no doubt the biden admin pushed for more control over things like covid information. However, this is very conveniently timed to discard the previous admin, and kiss the ring of the incoming one, you know, the one that has been openly threatening people like Zuck.

I need more than the word of a corrupt megacorp billionaire.

Did he provide any evidence of this? I can’t find anything other than him just saying so. The court even found the republican case against this had provided no good evidence.

Can you link me to something other than “media oligarch says previous administration bad as new administration, who has leveled public threats against the media, prepares to take office.”

They need to quit worrying about sounding too smart, or whatever, and start doing things actually break down the oligarchy, stop the cartels controlling things like our food, and utilities, prices, and provide some form of universal healthcare, as a start. The tone of how they speak is just a diversion, actions are not accomplishing enough, this is the problem. This will upset their corporate handlers, so they will argue about how they sound, when they talk, instead of doing things that actually work for the people.

And then, when this doesn’t work, and the talk is about how the democrats no longer speak to voters like adults, and speak down to them like morons, what will his suggestion be?