Apologies if I'm missing the sarcasm, but Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit, Pinterest and even LinkedIn all suppressed certain stories, keywords, etc. For Twitter and Google at least we have documents proving Biden admin requests. I think there's a whole lot more, but the point stands regardless.
> unless he is lying, he wasn't forced to do this
"We could make things real hard for you for four years. We were thinking about breaking you guys up actually, you're sort of a monopoly. Anyway, here is our request - we'd never force you though. The choice is yours." [Ominous stare.]
You don't find it interesting that both Meta and Google had monopoly lawsuits aimed at them in 2020?
And at the exact same time, the exact same people were "asking" for scientific discussion of many kinds to be shut down across Whatsapp, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook, among many others?
Because it wasn't just Ivermectin. It was the lableak hypothesis, investigating the WIV, following back GOF funding, vaccine contracts, vaccine side-effects, vaccine effectiveness, lockdown effectiveness, natural immunity discussion, etc etc etc; all restricted and suppressed to fit whatever the Biden admin decided.
That's not hyperbole, that's simple and well documented fact. And, as was directly pointed out in this letter/article, the Biden admin wasn't above using lies to shut down politically inconvenient (and true) stories.
Yes, the case against Facebook was filed in December of 2020, less than a month before Biden was sworn in.
The Facebook case was then refiled by Biden's FTC pick Lina Khan in 2021, and made "more robust and detailed than before". [0]
Khan (who was fast-tracked to the position) also went after Microsoft and Google during the same period. [0] And Twitter. Some of those cases could have begun earlier too - what's important is that all those cases were active while Biden's admin was making "requests".
The Biden admin had a massive stick to wave at the tech giants, regardless of who started each lawsuit and when, and demonstrated both the power to make judgments and to easily make problems go away [1]:
> “You are now 0 for 4 in merger trials. Why are you losing so much?” demanded California Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley at a House oversight hearing this summer. “Are you losing on purpose?”
> ...
> In her interview with CNN, Khan said she was “quite happy” with the FTC’s merger work
All the leverage was sitting right there for any request from Biden to have a lot of implied 'stick' behind it.
Companies consented to remove content without looking too deeply at it, and a lot of problems went away. I guess that could be a coincidence, but the giant 9+ figure lawsuits would certainly be worth a mention, no?
I think using Trump as a bar for 'acceptable levels of corruption' is a critical error.
For example, I have some red lines on who I'd vote for, and genocide support is one of them. [It's crazy that needs to be said, and that it's controversial. Crazy.] Whether Trump would arm genocide even more is utterly irrelevant.
For that simple and non-negotiable reason, neither main party can represent me. Any party that arms and enables the atrocities the world has witnessed for the last year is too corrupt for me.
"You have to be practical - Trump could end democracy"... Any blame for his election is on the lady who refuses to heed either the Genocide Convention, our own Leahy Laws, or the will of 77% of her own party.
Like - you really think an admin that vetoes ceasefire in Gaza four times would be above using their political power to warp narratives on social media? This shit is documented bud. They did it.
Why would you pretend they're above using the leverage which they were clearly flexing?? 'Because Trump would be worse.' See how little sense that makes?
Apologies if I'm missing the sarcasm, but Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit, Pinterest and even LinkedIn all suppressed certain stories, keywords, etc. For Twitter and Google at least we have documents proving Biden admin requests. I think there's a whole lot more, but the point stands regardless.
> unless he is lying, he wasn't forced to do this
"We could make things real hard for you for four years. We were thinking about breaking you guys up actually, you're sort of a monopoly. Anyway, here is our request - we'd never force you though. The choice is yours." [Ominous stare.]