Straw's MO is to find one off examples and use that to make his argument. In this case, finding one article talking about the lab leak therefore cancels out all the censorship big tech employed around the lab leak.
The context of the point I was making was the Big Tech censored and demonetized many for things that turned out to be correct, or at least part of the mainstream discussion nowadays.. Therefore, using Googles treatment of The Gateway Pundit to call them questionable doesn't hold water, since Google's has not been right on many of these things.
He will then key on semantics.
It's not worth engaging. I tried, but if you read the exchange, you can see there's no real desire to have a legitimate discussion. Same old shit.
I don't know who you're referring to
All I did was respond to what you wrote which was that
"it was only these "biased" sites that were telling the truth on certain subjects at first" and then you listed a few topics
Since it's well known that no one, as of yet, knows the definitive "truth" on the origins of Covid I chose that topic to ask you to tell us what site told you the truth about that
You immediately backpedaled and said Covid being grouped into the "truth" category wasn't "perfect".
Ok fine, then I asked you to provide an example of a biased site that was the only one telling you the "truth" about one of the other topics you listed
Then some other person brought up Hunter Biden's laptop and I did a simple search and showed you an example of mainstream media covering the story or in this case it was an article that goes into fine detail about the story and why they didn't cover it to the satisfaction of the demand of the right wing. In doing so they go over all the details of the story. Do I need more than one example. Does it make any difference. If I posted 5 examples would you then agree?
Again, your premise was that you relied on biased sites to tell you the "truth" that you couldn't find on mainstream media
I never said that social media (such as FB, Twitter, etc..) didn't attempt to censor some information. We all know they did but that information, dubious or not, was also readily available in every other form of media, including mainstream media as is true of virtually every topic on the planet. It's obvious that FB and Twitter have to (and have the right to) censor some information. If they didn't there sites would devolve into even bigger cesspool lies than it already has become
If you enjoy reading biased sites then that's fine but don't pretend that they have some "truth" that you can't find elsewhere
Heck, I asked you for examples on any of your topics and you have yet to provide one
