You keep saying things that are completely unsubstantiated as though they were fact. "Nobody believes..." _all people_ this, _complete failure_ that...

You're either a shill, an ideologue or arguing dishonestly.

All three are bad equally.

The topic at hand is not whether it's a bold claim to make. The question is: should organizations that control a large portion of the world's communication channels have the ability to unilaterally define the tone and timber of a dialog surrounding current events?

To the people zealously downvoting all of these replies: defend yourselves. What about this is not worthy of conversation?

I'm not saying that I support lab leak. The observation is that anyone that discussed the lab leak hypothesis on social media had content removed and potentially were banned. I am fundamentally against that.

If the observation more generally is that sentiments should be censored that can risk peoples lives by influencing the decisions they make, then let me ask you this:

Should Charlie Kirk have been censored? If he were, he wouldn't have been assassinated.

I called this out in this thread and was immediately downvoted

Can you please provide evidence? I'm not saying I don't believe you. It's just... extraordinary claims etc

Saying lab leak was true