You just said to prove free speech doesn't exist on X. I did so.
The fact that you don't agree with my speech is irrelevant.
X is *free speech" in the same way Meta is. The beliefs of Musk and Zuck respectively are those protected. X is no better than Reddit, you just see it differently because the censorship favors your position.
You just said to prove free speech doesn't exist on X. I did so.
The fact that you don't agree with my speech is irrelevant.
X is *free speech" in the same way Meta is. The beliefs of Musk and Zuck respectively are those protected. X is no better than Reddit, you just see it differently because the censorship favors your position.
My position is banned on everything mainstream but slightly allowed on x while yours is allowed on most platforms right now.
Dishonesty at its best.
But your test is dishonest because your views align with the CEO of X. It would be a shock if he did ban people like you, who advance his agenda.
By that evaluement any critique of banning would be dishonest.
I was clearly judging from the point of view of mainstream politics, to which your view aligns perfectly, and mine doesn't.
Besides, there are plenty of anti natalists active on X.
Dishonesty at his best again.
Not really. The test would be whether a platform allows people to speak who oppose the opinion of those running it.
Yes, a very specific subsection that consider anti-natalism an environmental or moral duty, rather than a fight against a political stance.
These people pose no threat to Project 2025 or Muskrat himself.