> Censoring skittle dick (a descriptive term, not a slur) 20 days out from an election was a crime.

Nudity was posted non-consensually, which is a crime in California. It was removed. That is not a crime.

It was actually consensual legally, given the paper her signed deferring ownership of all contents upon forfeiture to the computer repair company.

That said, stop prenteding. They 1984 style erased it. They didn’t demand that you censor Hunter’s surgically enhanced implant dick, they erased the idea that it happed at all.

> It was actually consensual legally, given the paper her signed deferring ownership of all contents upon forfeiture to the computer repair company.

C'mon. Don't pretend like that's legally ironclad in the face of California's revenge porn law, it very obviously isn't and you're doing your case a total disservice here.

Californias censorship law itself is unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean Twitter had to take it down globally. They could have only taken it down in CA.

But we all know that’s not why they did what they did, they conspired against the people of the United States.

They did this under the order and direction of United States Government employees

> They did this under the order and direction of United States Government employees

Truly incredible the way in which people see whatever they want to see in this story. From Taibbi himself:

“there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story”

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598833927405215744

Irrelevant, we have Zuckerberg himself admitting to being “primed” by FBI for the hunter Biden story.

We have members of the Biden campaign linking tweets and high level Twitter officers replying “handled” (read in your favorite Italian accent).

Criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.

>Irrelevant, we have Zuckerberg himself admitting to being “primed” by FBI for the hunter Biden story.

Please stop spreading misinformation. FBI gave only a broad warning: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-responds-...

Zuckerberg didn't actually say that FBI ordered him to do anything. Facebook silenced the story on their own. He mentioned FBI to confuse people and make himself look good.

>We have members of the Biden campaign linking tweets and high level Twitter officers replying “handled” (read in your favorite Italian accent).

Twitter censoring the Hunter Biden story (the NYPost article) was unacceptable. But I really don't see anything wrong with reporting tweets containing revenge pornography, which 1) violates Twitter ToS 2) is illegal in California.

Sorry, are you calling California's anti-revenge porn laws unconstitutional censorship?

So if Fox News doesn’t cover Jared Kushner’s antics to your satisfaction, should all Fox News executives go to jail?

Non sequitur

You don’t know what that means.

“It does not follow”

You might not be wrong, but your post has no relevance

I see. So how a media company handles bias has no relevance to how a social media company can handle bias. They’re completely different and social media company executives get jail time.

Great points. Well reasoned.

The topic of discussion here is Twitter, the FBI, and the Biden campaign’s criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.

How “Fox News handled desantis” is not relevant. Though you are welcome to start another topic.

Downplaying this topic as “what about X” is transparent

You’re the one howling for jail time for Twitter executives. I’m applying your logic to comparable situations to demonstrate its absurdity and help you stop hyperventilating.

Whataboutism is used to excuse bad behavior. Are you implying that Fox News bias is also illegal? Because I’m not. Media companies can be biased. They can favor candidates. Twitter isn’t on an ivory pedestal. Screaming jail time shows your ignorance to our legal system.