3 ms·

> they are insanely biased in their reporting > *cites National File*

• imwillofficial 6y ago
  What a useless response. Arstechnica covering for pedos is not a good look. Also I have no idea what national file is. I read their article and it reported the facts to support my point.
  • GuardianCaveman 6y ago
    National file is not a reliable news source and I don’t see the part where ars defended him. National file is incredibly bias right wing propaganda. Will you refute this with a quoted article from infowars?
    • imwillofficial 6y ago
      Dude what the fuck are you talking about? Who said anything about info wars. Bright had been making pedo tweets for a long time and remained employed, then Ars said nothing after their prolific author got busted. Like I said, not a good look.
• at_a_remove 6y ago
  I suppose we could try justice.gov. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-journalist-convicted-trial-attempted-child-enticement https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-journalist-convi... Balanced enough for you? Guy's convicted. If Rush Limbaugh said it via Ouija board it wouldn't make it any less true. His twitter handle was "@DrPizza," and hilariously he tweeted "Yes, apparently pizza is now the international symbol of pedophilia (?) because pedos like to advertise that they're pedos (?)" Anyone can search for this. National File is irrelevant.
  • jhgb 6y ago
    I haven't said a word about Bright. So I'm not sure what you meant by this. I merely find it hilarious that the same people who complain about insanely biased sources cite insanely biased sources.