zlacker

You might be right.

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.

>>steven+(OP)
Any request from the government can be characterized as pressure.

>>philwe+h
Further, there is already precedent that this is in fact, a first amendment violation.

The Biden Harris government is guilty of censorship via a third party.

>>SV_Bub+M9
If Zuck has a real problem with that, he can sue (as per the SCOTUS ruling on standing vis-a-vis First Amendment protections against government coercion).

He isn't suing, and it's up to the rest of us to make our decisions based on how we feel about that.

>>shadow+ce
>https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1828485808023539967

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?

>>SV_Bub+Cy1
No, I'm not saying he's lying.

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.