Let's go to specifics. Alex Jones is facing a civil suit alleging that he defamed the families of Sandy Hook victims, the harm from which include harassment and death threats from Jones' followers [0]. When you say that Maddow's coverage of Russiagate is "literally" the same: what actual harm – both in layperson's terms and legally actionable – do you see as a consequence? Defamation? Who would be the aggrieved and threatened party? Trump, personally? The U.S. law affords a much higher legal burden for the president of the U.S. (or anyone as public and powerful) to prove defamation.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/31/alex-jones-p...

Calm down, Sparky! Perhaps you misread what I wrote. I did not bring up defamation at all. The term used was conspiracy theory. Rachel Maddow pushed a conspiracy theory. It was completely disproven by the FBI investigation. She pushed it for three years with literally not a shred of evidence.

Perhaps you misread the discussion, Goofus! Youtube didn’t ban Alex Jones for being wrong about something.

Where did I refer to Alex Jones? I fear you may be responding to someone else.

It doesn't count when the popular side does it.

/s

They only think they’re popular because they’re raving so loudly in the public square that they can’t hear the silent majority.

I avoid Rachel Maddow for the same reason I don't bother with the majority of Fox presenters. MSNBC is quite liberal and as much as I like Ari Melber, Chris Hayes and Nicole Wallace, they don't always keep their biases in check. Can be amusing* though to watch Wallace lose it over something Trump said.

*I'm Australian, so my interest in US politics is largely entertainment.