“You simply have no argument”

“people are giving a weight to his comments that seems more appropriate for a crime.”

I made no such claim. Read better.

“However, if you present a claim, are clearly refuted with demonstrable facts but you still refuse to concede, that makes you a troll.”

“having intimate knowledge of her work”

“She chose to break that convention”

“I doubt his employers would be outraged by those tweets.”

Where is the “authority” and “allowing” part? You completely forgot to address it.

Nobody believes you.

“if they fail to support those views with facts and logic”

“I mean, by those standards, approximately 80% of the workforce should be fired.”

“I don’t know who this person is”

“She STARTED the conversation”

She did “walk away.” And then she made it clear what he had done.

There is no Authority of Private Messages that allows or doesn’t allow specific content. This has nothing to do with what is allowed or not allowed, for fuck’s sake.

125,000+ Americans dead from a pandemic, the highest incarceration rate on the planet, and nearly 15% unemployment, but no, America is just perfect the way it is.

So the answer is “no.” 

What goalposts? Goalposts precisely define an area of acceptability. Where are the “goalposts” for any behavior? What the fuck are you even trying to say?

It’s not targeted and it’s not censorship. It’s a private company that has its own terms of use policies. If you violate the terms, you cannot use the company’s platform. Pretty straightforward.

Does it? I mean, does anyone hear from Alex Jones anymore? Milo? Seb Gorka?