Bari Weiss should be given a listen to

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

O lord . . . if you don't see "debunking" the Hunter laptop story as Russian disinformation (when they knew it wasn't) in order to discredit and dismiss it is not suppression of speech, then why bother giving you any more examples--the examples, which you can find, even on google, of such suppression exposed in the Twitter files are numerous, but, very apparently, you will believe what you want to believe. Do your own research and believe what you want to believe.

Do you believe the Hunter Biden laptop is going to provide what exactly because the information on that laptop is so corrupted in the chain of custody. You can’t trust anything that’s on that, but that won’t stop you from believing it.


to say that you're OK with government oversight and control of the flow of information that can be delivered to the public. That would be unconstitutional, and rather frightening.

What’s frightening is you believe that it’s actually unconstitutional for the government to control the flow of information apparently, you’ve never heard of national security, top-secret information the Manhattan project I guess in your opinion does it all need to be fed to the public? As it happens

And, like I said, the Hunter, Biden laptop story was covered by many many different news agencies, someone suggesting to take something with a grain of salt, does not equal suppression


And I’m still confused by the hunter laptop story get your goat more than what happen on January 6 maybe you can explain why one is worse than the other
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Do you believe the Hunter Biden laptop is going to provide what exactly because the information on that laptop is so corrupted in the chain of custody. You can’t trust anything that’s on that, but that won’t stop you from believing it.

So why did the FBI suggest or say or imply or indicate that it was Russian disinformation when they knew it wasn't?


to say that you're OK with government oversight and control of the flow of information that can be delivered to the public. That would be unconstitutional, and rather frightening.

What’s frightening is you believe that it’s actually unconstitutional for the government to control the flow of information apparently, you’ve never heard of national security, top-secret information the Manhattan project I guess in your opinion does it all need to be fed to the public? As it happens

You just said "information" which implies all information, and the Hunter laptop info was not Manhattan Project kind of stuff.

And, like I said, the Hunter, Biden laptop story was covered by many many different news agencies, someone suggesting to take something with a grain of salt, does not equal suppression

It was "debunked" as Russian disinformation, not a grain of salt. And there is no need for the FBI to tell us, or filter through any media, about any mere grain of salt. They are not paid, nor is it their mission, to waste time telling us about mere grains of salt. So why would the FBI spread false information to news outlets other than to suppress the story, to "debunk" it?

And it was falsely covered by most major news agencies, and suppressed by social media outlets, as Russian Disinformation. The lie that it was Russian disinformation was not suppressed by them. The fact that it wasn't Russian disinformation was suppressed. Ergo, the story was suppressed sufficiently enough to dismiss it in the eyes of those who trust major media and social media.


And I’m still confused by the hunter laptop story get your goat more than what happen on January 6 maybe you can explain why one is worse than the other
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am concerned about government suppression of speech. If you can show that government suppressed information about January 6, then I would be with you in saying that was wrong.