I know what you meant; my point is that using opinions cast as facts to contradict and censor does not shield from liability for fraud. It is a ruse to punish dissenters and push a political agenda, which is also a violation of election laws, undeclared contribution in kind. The more you dig the more illegality you find. Let's also look into Zuckerberg's $300 million contributions to Democrat election infrastructure in swing states.
I know what you meant; my point is that using opinions cast as facts to contradict and censor does not shield from liability for fraud. It is a ruse to punish dissenters and push a political agenda, which is also a violation of election laws, undeclared contribution in kind. The more you dig the more illegality you find. Let's also look into Zuckerberg's $300 million contributions to Democrat election infrastructure in swing states.
I don't think the crooked court system will address any of this.