3 ms·

There is literally a conspiracy - https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+climate+change+social+media+ban https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+climate+change+so

There is literally a conspiracy - https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+climate+change+social+media+ban https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+climate+change+social+... by the administration, so... I'm still waiting for the misleading part? I am sure you will agree that there is a conspiracy (two or more people in Trump's administration, conspiring.) You're saying it doesn't affect them, but if the conspiracy doesn't aeffect them then...why did this happen? I guess I just don't see anything misleading about their report. If I had my blog about climate change removed since Trump's administration and was told not to open any new blog, period (despite having thousands of views) I'd come to the obvious conclusion that this was the reason. I would (as they did) ask for clarification. I mean what other reason is there? What did they do wrong exactly - and why wouldn't YouTube clarify in their human-written email on the subject which they quoted in full? I guess I don't understand your perspective at all.

pmorici 10y ago
You think that because the administration asked executive agencies to stop all posting to social media under _official_ government accounts that that means YouTube took down a _private_ parties youtube channel run by a private party / individual company not associated with the US government? There is literally ZERO evidence that is true. What you are saying is like saying I saw the president's dog poop on the white house lawn and today I found poop on my lawn. Then concluding it must have been the president's dog that pooped on your lawn. It's nutty false and untrue. You are taking two completely unrelated facts and making a wild unsupported claim which most people would call misleading if not a lie.