Worth noting, it took the NYT until March 10th [1] to finally come to the conclusion that ZH had come to on Feb 24th [2], regarding the burning of AID trucks being sent to Venezuela. ZH has an anti-establishment bend, and will take a critically hostile point of view against the main stream, it's interesting to read that perspective when most established news organization are aligned one way in their reporting.
Glenn Greenwald had a great piece on the spread of fake news surrounding the AID truck event, worth reading for anyone who is somewhat skeptical of establishment narratives. [3]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-...
[2] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-23/venezuela-border-t...
[3] https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-...
You can find a few examples on algolia if you poke around: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=glenn%20greenwald%20russia&sor...
The latest update to the ZH article says:
ZH> True to his word, it appears the humanitarian aid trucks being sent from the west into Venezuela have been repelled by Maduro's guards as reports come in from social media that they are all now on fire.
I don't see anything that says that the protestors set them on fire, but might have missed it. The way that is written makes it sound like Maduro's guards did it. The only mention I see of protestors setting anything on fire is the burning of a bus covered earlier on the page.
[1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/burning-aid-interv...
To also clarify my position, ZH is not very reputable, but they provide interesting insight into current events and will sometimes post contradictory views from different blogs/news sites. It's up to the reader to determine if the "news" they produce is verifiable or merely conjecture. It should not be up to facebook to make the decision for the reader.
Also it is worrying that a company with the reach of NYT doesn't produce this information till weeks after the event. It allowed for the false version of the incident to complete its cycle in the news without interrupting the narrative being formed, and thus creates and incentive for people to seek-out ZH as a source of info. ZH isn't reputable, but their reputation is improved when they are stacked up against poor reporting from other agencies, which is unfortunate.
So like the rest of the news?
The point of news is to have a spectrum and you read them and determine the truth for yourself.
None of the points you make validate a ban.
Could you provide me some links showing Zero hedge is different?
Free speech isn’t about holding your hand and establishing a standard, it’s about laying out all the information, real or not, and letting you decide for yourself.
If you posit that censorship is an acceptable form of filtering where someone else with their own version of facts and biases does your thinking, then you are entering a very dangerous mindset.