The article says they were "pressured", it doesn't seem to to say how that pressure was applied. To me, it reads as though compliance was not mandated, just requested. Without more info, I suppose it could be taken either way.
"Crank vs sincere skeptic" is fallacious, as it attacks the person and not the argument.
The Biden Harris government is guilty of censorship via a third party.
He isn't suing, and it's up to the rest of us to make our decisions based on how we feel about that.
Facebook is no different. Just bigger.
Flat earthers are not “legitimately questioning the science”
This is called JAQing off. “Just Asking Questions”. They’re not. They’re muddying waters, often knowingly.
Well yes, because one is trying to get to a positive outcome while the other is trying to confuse and mislead you for ideological reasons.
Your retreat into legality and semantics is telling.
You responded, you obviously think you're making a point. I hope you're one of the cranks though, because that would explain how poor your argument is.
Not exclusively, no. There's nothing in the definitions of the words 'censor' or 'censorship' that imply it is an act exclusive to governments.
Effectively, something can be censorship even if the government is not involved.
When the government is involved, then it's government censorship.
Pot, meet kettle.
You desperately need to remove yourself from communities of perpetual victimhood.
All I said was that they are not legitimately questioning the science, because they are not.
The one thing that is extremely interesting is that even the people who loudly shout for free speech do not themselves believe in it, as they constantly try to cancel all sorts of free speech and expression essentially constantly.
Very very few people believe in absolute free speech.
He is making sworn statements to the house judiciary committee.
Are you saying he is lying and the BidenHarris admin is telling the truth?
Why would he do that? And why does all the evidence of censored accounts on Facebook match up with the Twitter Files and what everyone saw happening?
The discourse as I interpreted it, was that there was a need to censor those who are expressing opinions that are not "legitimate".
I'm saying he might have found the circumstances distasteful but he didn't find them a violation of his rights worthy of a lawsuit.
That the crank can actually change things just by thinking about it, like some kind of half-assed troll telekinesis. Wow. You've apparently got a few fans for your idiocy, they're downvoting away.
For practical purposes though, the kind of censorship that we're concerned with in this conversation can't be done by anyone other than a government or a lunatic with a gun. Companies just don't have any authority over anyone except themselves. They can't deprive you of your ability to speak, only your ability to use their property to do so.
What Facebook does though, is horrific. They are not just letting illegitimate science have a platform, they are actively and intentionally propping that shit up because it creates victimhood communities.