Social media censoring truth to support biden regime; Fakebook admits its "fact checks" are merely "opinions"

The goal of a censorship regime isn't to censor lies and misinformation.  Instead it's to suppress *accurate* information--truth--that the regime finds inconvenient.

Like Hunter Biden's laptop.

Like the fact that the so-called "vax" has killed tens of thousands of Americans.

Like the fact that supposedly-vaccinated people can spread the virus.

That last fact undermines one of the two main arguments for the ordering every American to take the jab:  Biden has repeatedly claimed only unvaccinated people spread covid -- so the fact that vaccinated people spread the virus must be suppressed.

Enter Social Media.  Twitter says it will begin imposing penalties on users who post the absolute truth that vaccinated people can spread Covid-19.
 
Biden's own CDC director admits vaccinated people can still spread duh Chyna virus.  But ordinary citizens why try to post that officlal position on Twatter will be deleted.

The other main regime argument for taking the jab is to keep you from getting the virus.  But of course we've known for several months that the jab does NOT keep you from getting covid.  So there's another fact to be suppressed (if possible)

The regime wants both those facts suppressed because both truths undermine Biden's ORDER that everyone must take the jab or be fired, so the regime doesn't want people to know that people who've taken the jab can still spread the virus, and doesn't want people repeating it.  So it wouldn't surprise many to find that top Democrats had asked Twatter to censor that fact.

But suppressing the truth is just fine--because it's not the government doing the censoring.  It's just corporations, acting completely on their own without any pressure from the government.  Mere coincidence that the position of every social media and Mainstream Media outlet supports the regime's lies.

Meanwhile reporter John Stossel is suing FakeBook (now "Meta Platforms") for defamation, for claiming that completely-true things he said were false.  Calling a journalist a liar is about as reputation-damaging as you can get.

FakeBook and the other social media giants have always claimed they're immune to virtually all lawsuits of any kind whatsoever because of a special provision they got congress to put in a law, called Section 230.  They insist it does not need to be reformed.

In the Stossel case FakeBook is pleading several defenses--including section 230 immunity, which they claim gives them not just immunity for the words of others but for their own words as well.  But now Fakebook is also trying a new (and amusing) defense:

Company attorneys have now claimed, in official court records, that their so-called "fact checks" are actually...wait for it...just statements of opinion.  The reason is that you can't be found liable for stating an opinion.

Interestingly, Fakebook doesn't label their so-called "fact checks" as "Opinion Checks."
And of course Fakebook treats these not as mere opinions, but as actual facts--which the company then cites as grounds for deleting any post it doesn't like.  "We not censor you, peasant!  We jus' won't let you post anything our "fact checkers" say isn't true!"

In reality, this totally bogus "fact check" ruse is simply a tool used to suppress free speech and the open discussion of science.  It treats regime and Democrat positions as something supposedly factual, trustworthy, and based on science.