> what are you specifically objecting to here?
I pointed out in my previous comment 2 specific sentences where you're moving the goalpost, no point repeating
> By context I thought you were talking about his Twitter suspension
I don't know where you'd get that idea, the thread started as a conversation about Meta banning a Dem account, we're discussing about Meta
> your comments were clearly incorrect as pertaining to his Meta suspension
You're clearly wrong, here's what Wikipedia says: "Trump posted a short video. Facebook removed it and blocked Trump's ability to post new content to both platforms.[...] The next day, Facebook said the block would remain" [1]; Then Wikipedia links to the exact video I was talking about in my previous comment.
> you still have to demonstrate that [commenters emotional opinion] are comparable to campaigning for a senate seat
No, I don't. You're moving the goalpost again by trying to switch what we are discussing here. I'm not debating with your feelings Trump's actions. We were discussing political censorship, specifically by Meta.
> Trump should stand trial for his crimes before he's sentenced
That's your emotional opinion again
> you aren't allowed to criticize me for defamation until I've been found guilty
You're not making any sense now, we are literally debating with each other; Goes to show how little you understand those concepts
> in the United States, it's only defamation if it's _provably untrue_
That's incorrect actually. Just for the sake of argument, in case of defamation, the burden of proof about the truth value of the statement is on the person that published the statement. If someone calls me a murderer, it's not my burden to prove I'm not a murderer (as a negative can't be proven), it's their burden to prove the truth of what they wrote about me.
> The platforms themselves made public statements as to why they suspended his accounts.
Then all those platforms (including Meta) paid hefty settlements to Trump and reinstated his accounts. So, clearly, all of them are regretting their actions. You keep insisting about nonsense that has no factual basis.
> your party is so much more guilty
Of course, I know, the other party is always always much much more guilty, even when you have 0 facts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_use_by_Donald_Tru...
Is the idea that I'm "moving the goalposts" by acknowledging that "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to private platforms' moderation policies? Or what are you specifically objecting to here?
> We were discussing Meta, why are we moving the goalpost?
Were we? By context I thought you were talking about his Twitter suspension, because your comments were clearly incorrect as pertaining to his Meta suspension which was for violating its content policies for promoting violence. Regardless of which platform you're talking about, you still have to demonstrate that promoting violence and trying to overthrow the government are comparable to campaigning for a senate seat.
> Lol, have you even heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?
Yes, Trump should stand trial for his crimes before he's sentenced. "innocent until proven guilty" does not protect Trump from people observing that he committed crimes.
> How about "defamation"?
Lol are you arguing that I'm committing "defamation" by criticizing the president for committing crimes when he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law? Firstly, by your own logic, you aren't allowed to criticize me for defamation until I've been found guilty in a court of law. Secondly, in the United States, it's only defamation if it's _provably untrue_ which is why the famously litigious DJT won't sue anyone for these claims.
> Yeah, that's your opinion.
The platforms themselves made public statements as to why they suspended his accounts. Maybe you could argue that the platforms are lying to us about their true intentions, but you haven't presented any evidence to support your claims that he wasn't, in fact, suspended for stoking a violent insurrection or lying about election results but rather was suspended for calling for peace.
> That's actually funny haha
Thanks, it was tough to pick just one controversy (tan suit gate, dijon gate, bike helmet gate, cheesecake factory gate, etc).
> That's were we have the real problem. "My side" vs. "your side". "I'm morally superior because [commenter's opinion]".
My man, I didn't start the right vs left stuff, I was pointing out that it's a particularly bad idea to engage in that sort of partisanship when your party is so much more guilty of the criticisms you're levying at "leftists".