The Smiling Face of Censorship: Welcome to Zuckerberg’s Vision of Internet “Kindness”

Meta CEO Zuckerberg is continuing to market his new text-based app Threads with the pitch that he is “definitely focusing on kindness and making this a friendly place.”  This has been picked up by an eager media as a “Twitter killer” where “Friendly Threads Collides with an Unfriendly Internet.” However, what is not discussed is what makes Threads “friendly.” Zuckerberg appears to be promising the friendly confines of a censored site. Likewise, Instagram head Adam Mosseri says that politics and hard news are not worth the “incremental engagement or revenue.” It is all part of Threads’s promise for a “sane” and “kind” alternative to Twitter where greater free speech is now allowed to run rampant. It is precisely what Facebook tried to sell years ago in a pro-censorship commercial campaign.

Below is my column in the Hill on achieving “kindness” through corporate censorship:

“Sanity” has returned to the internet.

That is the message of not only Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, but also a host of gleeful pundits heralding the arrival of  the “Twitter killing” text-based app Threads — the Twitter knock-off meant to destroy Elon Musk’s platform.

This is not just a cage fight between the two billionaires. Many are more interested in whether Zuckerberg can choke out free speech than in whether he can beat Musk.

Many critics opposed Musk’s dismantling of Twitter’s massive censorship system. Zuckerberg now promises a “sane” alternative that will place consumers under the watchful eye of Meta censors.

On the first day of the rollout, millions signed up, thanks in large part to Zuckerberg linking the new platform to Instagram. The censors also got to work right away. When people tried to follow Donald Trump Jr., they were met with a warning label: “Are you sure you want to follow donaldjtrumpjr? This account has repeatedly posted false information that was reviewed by independent fact-checkers or went against our Community Guidelines.”

Later, the company backed down after an outcry. But it was a telling moment. Andy Stone, who heads communications for Meta, wrote: “This was an error and shouldn’t have happened. It’s been fixed.”

But this was clearly a pre-established warning system, to be used to flag accounts disfavored by the company. It was “an error” that would likely not have been “fixed,” if not for the objections voiced on the first day of the rollout.

The controversy itself was a warning that the company has activated its signature censorship system to influence or regulate viewpoints.

Facebook has long been accused of targeting conservatives and dissenting viewpoints. Indeed, Zuckerberg’s pitch for “sane” management seemed like an appeal to those on the left who objected to the more tolerant free speech policies on Twitter after Musk’s purchase.

While there have been controversies at Musk’s Twitter over critics being banned or posts being removed, it is a fraction of the level of censorship that has long characterized Facebook and other competitors. Indeed, most of Musk’s critics attack him for reducing the “content moderation” on Twitter.

Threads’s rollout coincides with a court ruling that the government’s interventions to censor people on social media represented “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” Now, Facebook is offering an alternative to Twitter, with the assurance that users will be protected against any thoughts that Meta’s staff finds problematic. While free speech on Twitter is portrayed as harmful, the company has promised to “prioritize kindness.

That sounds eerily familiar to some of us as a way to deprioritize free speech. Recently, former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on how she and her staff would remove anything they considered “dog whistles” and “coded” messaging. Rather than using “kindness,” Twitter used undefined standards of “safety” to cancel free speech. Navaroli declared that they were unwilling to allow the safety of others “to go to the winds so that people can speak freely.”

Facebook has long tried to get the public to embrace its role as some kind of speech overlord. Years ago, Facebook rolled out an Orwellian commercial campaign to get the public to embrace censorship. The commercials showed young people heralding how they grew up on the internet and how the world was changing, creating a need for censorship under the guise of “content moderation.” Facebook, they promised, was offering the “blending of the real world and the internet world.”

Facebook is not alone in trying to get people to accept censorship. Recently, after the court ruling, various figures assured the public that they are better off letting corporate and government censors protect them from harmful thoughts. On CNN, Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly went so far as to state that it simply “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.

After this week’s decision, the New York Times immediately issued a panicky tweet that the resulting outbreak of free speech could “curtail efforts to combat disinformation.”

For his part, Zuckerberg prefers to just offer “kindness” and “sanity” with few details. Of course, there is a very simple way for Zuckerberg to show that he is committed to free speech: He can release the Facebook Files.

One of the reasons many of us in the free-speech community still support Musk is that he transformed the debate over government censorship by releasing the Twitter Files. For years, politicians and pundits dismissed objections from some of us to government-corporate coordination of censorship as unproven. In Congress, Democratic members attacked witnesses for supposedly lacking proof of censorship, even as they fought to block any investigation that might uncover that evidence.

Musk changed all that by showing the public an extensive network of government interventions to support censorship and blacklisting of private citizens. Much of what we know today is derived from the Twitter Files, but surely there is more to learn.

When I testified in Congress on the censorship operations, I noted that, as massive as this effort has been, Twitter is only the 14th largest social media company, according to some estimates. That means that this is only a fraction of the evidence that might be out there.

Facebook is the largest platform in the world, but so far it has steadfastly refused to offer the transparency of Twitter. If Zuckerberg is truly proud of his “sane” approach to social media, he should not fear the release of information on the past coordination with federal and congressional offices.

We assume that Facebook had the same backchannels that were established at Twitter, but the company has left the public entirely in the blind. That approach has made Meta one of the least transparent companies in the world on the scope and standards of censorship.

House committees will hopefully force Facebook to disclose some of these details. However, as Zuckerberg sells a promise of the “saneness’ and “kindness” of his platforms, he should be willing to show precisely what that means for consumers — and at what cost. After all, he has appealed to many of those consumers with the promise of a censored platform.

If Zuckerberg is so proud of his “content moderation,” he should take a victory lap and release the Facebook Files.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University Law School.

172 thoughts on “The Smiling Face of Censorship: Welcome to Zuckerberg’s Vision of Internet “Kindness””

  1. Zuckerberg represents a “coming out party” for institutional censorship AND election interference more finely tuned than 2020 where the FBI declined to charge because he was on the democrats side. He belongs in prison.

    1. Zuckerberg is nothing but an operative of the Bolshevized DemocRAT sociopathic sadomasochist maniacs follow Lenin, who follows Marx, and Nechayev; and the later, in his “Catechism of the Revolutionist”, preaches:
      “ 2. The revolutionary knows that in the very depths of his being, not only in words but also in deeds, he has broken all the bonds which tie him to the social order and the civilized world with all its laws, moralities, and customs, and with all its generally accepted conventions. He is their implacable enemy, and if he continues to live with them it is only in order to destroy them more speedily.
      3. The revolutionary despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the mundane sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows only one science: the science of destruction. For this reason, but only for this reason, he will study mechanics, physics, chemistry, and perhaps medicine. But all day and all night he studies the vital science of human beings, their characteristics and circumstances, and all the phenomena of the present social order. The object is perpetually the same: the surest and quickest way of destroying the whole filthy order.” [to, over the rubble, build the new Communist order]

  2. This venture continues Zuckerberg’s approach to business: he either steals, copies, or buys the ideas of others. Nothing he does is original with him, starting with the Winkervosses, Zuckerberg’s classmates at Harvard, who started “The Facebook.” Zuckerberg’s aim is for Threads to turn Twitter into Threadbare.

    1. Traditionally when it comes to business, “first to market” wins when other merely copy the first to market. For example, the pharmaceutical industry is a classic example of this paradigm, particularly in a very aggressive, profit driven, direct to consumer landscape. “Viagra” was first to market when it came to ED drugs. Others followed but they all offered the same result with the same mechanism of action. Others the followed offered a longer half life but also longer adverse events. These other agents did not produce the revenue that Viagra did, suffering the dreaded “me too” reputation

      First to market always wins when the followup widgets are mere copy cats. Zuckerberg is not an original “first to market” entrepreneur whereas Elon Musk is, e.g. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX, etc

      The viagra segment held the highest revenue share of 57.8% in 2021. At present, many companies are undertaking various strategic initiatives such as research collaboration, partnerships, and agreements with an aim to expand their business footprint.

  3. “The Smiling Face of Censorship”

    This may be a little off-topic (or maybe not), but when I see online references to online censorship, I often feel compelled to mention at least a partial list of more than a dozen websites that in truly bipartisan fashion have banned or shadow-banned my comments.

    From Fox News (where I have more than 200,000 upvotes under my real name), Townhouse, and the NY Post to the Ny Times (which once upon a time selected many of my comments as “Editor’s Picks” under my real name) and ABC News and Mother Jones (which banned me after I posted a single comment — LOL) — there is a wide-ranging consensus that my opinions are to be bannished from civilized society — which begs the question about whether those comments are THAT toxic or THAT on target.

    So when the online dialogue wanders into a condemnation of censorship — not infrequently censors condemning censorship — I’m always more than a little amused while being reminded of the old saying about people who live in glass houses, or the even-older saying that some guy supposedly said once upon a couple of thousand years ago (give or take) about “Judge not, lest ye be judged”:

    “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

    1. Peter Shill is quoting Scripture!!! Miracles never cease. I knew it was only a matter of time you would convert. Now how do we get you to stop upvoting your own comments?

      Your BFF

      1. I don’t know who you are, or what your problem is, or why you’re calling me Peter Shill, but thanks for demonstrating a major flaw in this comment system.

  4. “Leftists Argue Government Censorship is the Highest Form of Speech”


    When Judge Terry Doughty issued an injunction in Missouri v. Biden that banned the government from “specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression,” all hell broke loose.

    Evelyn Douek, a Stanford law professor, formerly of the Knight First Amendment Institute, warned that preventing the government from colluding with corporations to censor citizens would have a “chilling effect on communication between the government and platforms.”

    . . .

    Liberals who might have once worried about free speech now fret that the government will be inhibited from censoring free speech. According to CNN, “Legal experts say that the order is overly broad and scholars on online misinformation warned that it could have a chilling effect on the government’s efforts to curtail lies about public health emergencies and elections.”

    1. About Missouri v Biden: So far, the only place I could find information related to the Appeal is embedded in a Fox article, which contains a copy of Defendants’ “EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27.3 FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL”:

      I usually don’t like reading one party’s filings unless/until I can read the opposing party’s filings — but in this instance curiosity got the better of me, as I just couldn’t keep myself from discovering the supposed substance of Defendants’ grievance concerning Judge Doughty’s ruling.

      And after reading it, I suspect that there may be some — keyword “some” — grounds for reversal, if only due to potential vagness of some aspects of the ruling — as I might have expected, given the enormous scope of the subject matter and difficulties involving differentiating acceptable, possibly-necessary contact between the government and social media and unacceptable, unnecessary collusion or coercion between the government and social media.

      It was a monumental task for the Trial Court to attempt to craft ONE injunction that covers a multiplicity of conduct, and specify what is permitted and what is not permitted — all the while knowing that the ruling would instantly be attacked and dismantled by the crowbars of professional sophists.

      I very much like Judge Doughty’s thinking, admire his effort, and agree with his ruling — but there is SO much territory covered in Plaintiffs’ Motion and Judge Doughty’s Ruling that I can’t help but expect trouble in the Court of Appeals as weill as the Supreme Court.

      1. “…there is SO much territory covered in Plaintiffs’ Motion and Judge Doughty’s Ruling that I can’t help but expect trouble in the Court of Appeals as weill as the Supreme Court.”

        Based on this ruling, wouldn’t government would have to prove it has: A) Superior free speech Rights, above and beyond The People’s 1st Amendment Rights, including suggestive editorial control over individuals and businesses speech, B) it’s enumerated somewhere in the Constitution, and C) it’s the instrument that gives government (in this case Executive Branch) the authority to control what information can be heard and by whom?

        I mean this is what the case is all about and surely, there’s no requirement the case *must* be more complicated than that.

  5. What they do?
    They smile in your face
    All the time they wanna take your place
    The backstabbers

    -The O’Jays (1972)

  6. How this “communication” sometimes functioned in the past:

    If a private company received a lucrative contract from a federal agency.

    If that private company doesn’t go along with illegal actions, like government-driven censorship or violating the federal Privacy Act, the federal agency simply drops the lucrative contract. Some call that criminal extortion when citizens do it.

    If the private company company says “No” to the agency, the agency drops millions or billions of dollars in contracts. This is exactly what happened in the “Joseph Nacchio/Qwest Communications” case in February 2001.

    Nacchio refused to spy on his customers about 7 months before 9/11 when no wartime emergency existed. The NSA dropped a multi-million dollar contract and the DOJ apparently trumped up fake charges against him, sending him to prison [Washington Post’s reporting of Nacchio’s side of the story].

    Communication is many times coercion and extortion, for a government agency to subvert legal and constitutional law. It’s totally legitimate to question any communications to a private company.

    1. Hollywood Confused By New Movie That Depicts Child Sex Trafficking As Bad

      Hollywood critics, actors, and producers are reportedly confused by Sound of Freedom, an action thriller produced by Angel Studios and starring Jim Caviezel, because it depicts child sex trafficking as a bad thing.

      According to sources among the nation’s entertainment elite, Hollywood insiders had been excited to learn there was a film coming out about sex trafficking but were then disappointed when they found out it’s depicted as a negative thing in the film. Critics have been giving the film poor reviews, citing the filmmakers’ “baffling” decision to take a stance against the practice, with The New York Times slamming the movie for “not having enough kink.”

      “It’s just confusing,” said one director. “You go through all this trouble to make a film about child sex trafficking, and then you end up making the traffickers out to be the bad guys?”

      “Such a missed opportunity.”

      “Yeah, I guess I just don’t get it either,” said Ezra Miller (they/them). “You’re not supposed to kidnap people? Or it’s like, frowned upon? Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?”

      At publishing time, President Joe Biden had slammed the movie as “a far-right extremist domestic terrorist act” and called upon Congress to pass “common-sense Mormon film control.”

      Babylon Bee

  7. It is slowly being revealed, drip by drip, like at first leaky gonorrhea then gushing faucet, with high grade cocaine at the scene of the crime for added theatrical props. The Executive Branch and its agencies have a case of the clap being slapped down by a Federal Judge for violating the US Constitution in muzzling Americans.

    One wonders if Zuckererg’s Threads app will censor this news!


    The following are a few examples of actions taken by Defendants that demonstrate they are unlikely to succeed on the merits.

    1. White House Defendants
    (a) On January 23, 2021, White House Digital Director for COVID-19 Response Team Clarke Humphrey emailed Twitter and requested the removal of an anti-COVID-19 vaccine tweet by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.11
    (b) On April 14, 2021, White House Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty (“Flaherty”) demanded censorship by Facebook of a video of Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren where Tucker Carlson was saying COVID-19 vaccines don’t work and Tomi Lahren was saying she won’t take a COVID-19 vaccine.12 Flaherty demanded immediate answers from Facebook on April 16, 2021, in relation to the video, and on April 21, 2021, despite not violating Facebook’s policies, Facebook gave the video a 50% reduction for seven days and stated it would continue to demote the video.13

    2. Surgeon General Defendants
    (a) Senior Advisor to the Surgeon General Eric Waldo (“Waldo”) testified that Surgeon General Dr. Vivek H. Murthy (“Murthy”) used his office to advocate for social-media platforms to take stronger actions against “health misinformation,” which involved putting pressure on social-media platforms to reduce the dissemination of health misinformation. That message was given to social-media platforms both publicly and privately.14
    (b) In addition to public statements, Murthy had meetings with social-media companies, called health misinformation “poison,” and called for social-media companies to do more to control the reach of health disinformation. When Murthy was calling posts “health disinformation,” he was referring to anti-vaccine posts.15

    3. CDC Defendants16
    (a) The CDC Defendants consistently had regular contact with social-media platforms via email, phone, and in-person meetings. The CDC Defendants received CrowdTangle reports from Facebook as to the “top engaged COVID and vaccine related content.17
    (b) The CDC Defendants provided PowerPoint slide decks to Facebook, which provided examples of misinformation topics and made recommendations to Facebook as to whether claims were true or false. Some of the items designated as false by the CDC Defendants included medically debatable topics such as whether COVID-19 had a 99.96% survival rate, whether COVID-19 vaccines weaken the immune system, and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.18

    4. NIAID Defendants19
    (a) Dr. Francis Collins sent an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci on October 8, 2020, which stated that the Great Barrington Declaration20 needed to have a “quick and devastating take- down.”21
    (b) Dr. Fauci sent back information to “debunk” The Great Barrington Declaration and both Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci followed up with a series of public media statements attacking the Great Barrington Declaration. Thereafter the Great Barrington Declaration was censored by social- media platforms.22

    5. FBI Defendants23
    (a) The FBI Defendants, along with numerous social-media platforms, CISA, and the Department of Homeland Security, met consistently at Industry Meetings. The Industry Meetings were used by the FBI Defendants and others to discuss election disinformation.24
    (b) Prior to the 2020 Presidential election, the FBI repeatedly warned social-media companies to be alert for “hack and dump” or “hack and leak” operations. The Hunter Biden laptop story was published by the Washington Post on October 14, 2020. After being asked by Facebook whether the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, the FBI’s Laura Dehmlow refused to comment, leading Facebook to suppress the story. The FBI had had the laptop since December of 2019, and knew that the story was not Russian disinformation.25

    6. CISA Defendants26
    (a) The CISA Defendants regularly met with social-media platforms at several types of meetings. At those meetings, disinformation was discussed as well as reports about social-media companies’ changes to censorship policies.27 CISA had five sets of recurring meetings with social- media platforms that involved discussions of misinformation, disinformation, and/or censorship of protected free speech on social media.28
    (b) The CISA Defendants collaborated with the Election Integrity Partnership, working with them in a “switchboarding” operation which reported alleged election misinformation to social-media companies. The alleged election misinformation included claims that “mail-in voting is insecure” and “theories about election fraud are hard to discount.”29
    (c) CISA Director Jen Easterly views the word “infrastructure” expressively to include our “cognitive infrastructure,” which deals with the way people acquire knowledge and understanding.30

    7. State Department Defendants31
    (a) The State Department Defendants worked closely and collaborated with the Election Integrity Partnership and the Virality Project, who forwarded alleged election misinformation and COVID-19 misinformation to social-media companies.32 The alleged misinformation related to content by American citizens. The alleged disinformation primarily involved social media posts which delegitimized election results,33 and posts which involved anti- vaccine content by such personalities as Alex Berenson, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and John F. Kennedy, Jr.34
    (b) The Election Integrity Partnership was designed “to get around unclear legal authorities, including very real First Amendment questions” that would arise if government agencies were to monitor and flag information for censorship on social media.35

    Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears. It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting social- media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms. It also contains numerous exceptions.
    Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein,
    The Defendants’ Motion to Stay [Doc. No. 297] is DENIED.

    MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 10th day of July 2023.



  8. Everyone should research the “Joseph Nacchio/Qwest Communications” case in February 2021.

  9. I believe the WSJ has been appointed “Threads” PR firm. Last week they published four or five hit pieces on Musk as they promoted Zuckerberg’s new “Threads” enterprise.

    Today, they have a gleeful headline “Rapid Rise of Threads Appears to Be Hurting Twitter” that states “Third-party estimates showed Twitter’s traffic falling, while Meta’s new app hit 100 million sign-ups.”

    Between the reports of the enormous amount of your information they suction up, along with the level of censorship involved, I think I’ll pass on Threads.

  10. Zuckerberg is free to create an entity of private property over which only he, the owner, may “claim and exercise” dominion.

    Zuckerberg may exercise dominion over his social media by censoring free speech there.

    Patriotic Americans will not visit platforms on which free speech is censored by Zuckerberg.

    America will know its enemies.

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison

  11. The real danger today is “non-confrontational blacklisting”. If you are aware that you were censored and the reasons why (confronted by the censor) then you can challenge the censorship.

    If confronted, you can challenge the rulebook of the private social media company, or you can challenge the First Amendment if censored by a government agency.

    The problem is many censors don’t follow the rules or Constitution themselves. They can’t confront you because it’s perfectly proper speech or perfectly legal speech. So they censor or punish you covertly so you either aren’t aware of it or can’t challenge it.

    Very few judges understand “non-confrontational blacklisting”. Most government security agencies have practiced it from Cointelpro by the FBI to your local police chief, but very few judges are even aware of it.

  12. Imagine that, Judge Doughty denied the Biden administration’s request to stay the injunction. Another win in the war against censorship.

    Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears. It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms. It also contains numerous exceptions.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein, The Defendants’ Motion to Stay [Doc. No. 297] is DENIED. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 10th day of July 2023.

    1. thanks for the update. From the linked ruling:

      For all the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Ruling,8 this Court finds the Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits and, therefore, that Defendants have failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. As discussed in detail in the Memorandum Ruling, all of the Defendants likely “significantly encouraged” and/or “jointly participated” with the social- media companies to engage in viewpoint-based suppression of protected free speech. Additionally, the White House Defendants9 and the Surgeon General Defendants10 were found to have likely engaged in coercion of social-media companies.

      But lets talk about DeSantis and Florida Legislature endorsing of book banning of kiddie porn because Leftists will have to entice little boys and girls into sex without the aid of library books. Instead they will have to break the Florida laws and common decency and use hard core porn

      Grooming and censoring are being exposed in DNC circles. No wonder the MSM has gone deafly silent

      1. Grooming and censoring are being exposed in DNC circles. No wonder the MSM has gone deafly silent.

        And when they are not silent, they are busy trying to gaslight their base that a movie, Sound of Freedom, that is based on a true story of worldwide child sex trafficking, is a QAnon conspiracy theory. It is beyond my capacity to understand why any individual or organization, other than NAMBLA for example, would publicly attempt to discredit a movie regarding this easily provable, evil, worldwide scourge on humanity. Is this really the hill they want to publicly die on?

        Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick, D.D., pastor of Riverside Church, New York City said:
        In a world which turns so quickly to the lure of pleasing generalities, it is well to pause and think deeply of whether each one, as an individual, is a part of the problem or a part of the answer.

        I have colleagues that are members of ARC;, that if I were them, I would be building a database of anyone (anonymous or not), or any organization, that is publicly or privately “not part of the solution” to expose these monsters.

        1. Pope Francis has been calling attention to human trafficking for years. The US Border is experiencing dramatic increases in this evil, but Biden’s Handlers care not a whit. Their concern is satisfying the evil appetite that sin feeds. This is a corrupt and evil world we are witnessing. People of Faith particularly, but everyone in general, should be leading the world is shining light on this darkness. It is more common amongst immigrants coming from poor countries, sadly.


          Thursday, 11 April 2019

          “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). These words of the Gospel of John summarize the mission of Jesus: to offer the fullness of life to all men and women of every age, according to the plan of the Father. The Son of God became man to show all human beings the path to realizing their humanity, in conformity with each person’s uniqueness and unrepeatability.

          Tragically, our world today is marked by situations that hinder the fulfilment of this mission. As pointed out by the Pastoral Orientations on Human Trafficking, “our times have witnessed a growth of individualism and egocentricity, attitudes that tend to regard others through a lens of cool utility, valuing them according to criteria of convenience and personal benefit” (§17).

  13. Remember that modern leftist, woke censorship is different than that of bad countries such as Nazi Germany or Sovei Union.

    It is good, necessary and only to protect people from themselves.

    And if you disagree, you are probably a ‘nazi’ in need of doxxing and public exposure.


Leave a Reply