I worry that people tend to use such a device to shut down discussions on a “reasonably well researched” article which espouses a widely held viewpoint that they might not agree with.

Most people were told they weren’t allowed to hold funerals for their loved ones, but thousands of people can protest together. The rules are undeniably slanted in their application based on politics. I think the tipping point was the open letter from healthcare professionals claiming that BLM should be exempt from social distancing rules that shut down the economy and put 40 million people out of work.

Another recent article on ZH showed a video taken in a predominantly Hasidic Jewish area of Brooklyn of city workers literally welding the gates shut at a park, in the same weekend that massive protests for BLM were being held. They mentioned in the same piece I believe that NYC has ordered contact tracers not to ask residents if they had attended a protest.

The first amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. The State here is picking favorites. It doesn’t take a “Russian troll” to tell you that.

I don't think that the lockdowns and systemic police violence are especially comparable in terms of severity, but it's been infuriating watching the very people in my network that were mocking the 'dumb rednecks trying to kill themselves and everyone in their community over a haircut', and making a scene of complaining that three people at the supermarket weren't wearing ppe turn around and fanatically support some of the least controlled mass gatherings in recent memory.

It's not a centrally distributed talking point, it's a readily perceived point of contrast which any casual observer could make, even if it's somewhat tacky and ill-advised so far as rhetorical gotcha's go.

A counterargument would say that concerns of government overreach and economic damage weren't worth the risk that accompanied their expression. I'd argue that getting any significant number of libertarians and conservatives out on the streets to demonstrate is exceptional enough an occurrence that clearly they'd beg to differ.

Besides, knowing Russia’s m.o., they’re probably promoting both sides at once to sow division.

Contrast this to Fox News, which hasn’t been deplatformed, but falsified photographic evidence against the CHAZ BLM people, and then ran headline stories about events that didn’t happen.

Again, I’m not seeing why ZeroHedge got the ban hammer when most right wing sites are much, much worse.

Are we going to now deplatform every news outlet that publishes false images? Let's start there.

But seriously, this is ridiculous. News media makes mistakes