And that story was banned on social media unfairly(this banning was cheered on by Dems and left leaning folks), even though it turned it to be credible later.
It was egregious censorship is the main point I am making here.
As bad as Putin? No. Was it bad? Yes.
The "muh private companies" argument ended long ago when government officials started using it as their main platform and we applied archive rules and prevented Trump from blocking people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-cant-block-twit...
You can't have it both ways. Let's investigate why they all decided at once to block it right before the election. Are they coordinating? Let's find out. Seems like an anti-trust issue.
Point is, it's censorship, no matter how much people try to weasel out of it.
It's legal in Russia to do what Putin is doing, that doesn't make it not censorship.
But yes, we're working on it, it starts with public discussion and communicating with our representatives, which I and others do.
Playing semantics over whether omission of truth is bias vs. censorship doesn't make a strong argument.
The 1A guarantees the right that our government won't censor us.
It only pertains to the government, not these two instances involving social media behemoths and Russia.
Just because something doesn't violate the 1A doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Are you saying Putin isn't censoring information since it's legal for him to do so in Russia?
Russia participates in censorship on a state level with its own state-run media agencies. These things are not equivalent. The Hunter Biden story is widely reported by numerous American media outlets.