3 ms·

Corrupt authorities are happy to label anything they don't like as "demonstrably false" so we're back to square one.

• TuringTest 5y ago
  If you're not capable of developing your own demonstrations nor checking the quality of the ones provided by authorities, you deserve whatever level of misinformation you're fed.
  • textgel 5y ago
    Exactly, thus eliminating the need for the we-know-better than you authority on what can and can't be discussed in the first place; glad to see we have yet again come back around to the same conclusion on censorship.
    • anigbrowl 5y ago
      This story is explicitly not about censorship - rather, supplying additional context - but you and other posters seem unable or unwilling to address that.
      • textgel 5y ago
        > It doesn't hurt when others publish their own views on what they think of others' statements. What hurts this process is when their comments are based on demonstrably false information.
        • anigbrowl 5y ago
          Circular argument is circular. Repetition doesn't strengthen it any.
          • textgel 5y ago
            The comment I have quoted is alluding towards censorship of "demonstrably false" statements; that comment is what I was replying to as can be seen via the technique of reading-the-comment-chain; most with a basic understanding of forum architecture can get to grips with this but hopefully now I've spelt it out as explicitly as possible you can manage, unless perhaps some sort of diagram would help you with the difficulties you appear to be struggling with?