They aren't even severing the relationship with the provider, let alone censoring the person.
It's "free speech", not "full agreement".
They aren't even severing the relationship with the provider, let alone censoring the person.
It's "free speech", not "full agreement".
> They aren't even severing the relationship with the provider, let alone censoring the person.
Which is what makes it the hollow virtue signaling I said it was. I never claimed they were being censored.
I'm getting the impression you're the one who doesn't like free speech... just let it be...