“We just joined Truth Social, mostly because we thought it would be very funny,” it explained. “Follow us there for truths and retruths or whatever they call them.”

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    1 year ago

    Conservatives don’t mind being blatantly hypocritical, though. They’d support it with some rationalization. Just look at their subs on reddit, for example… constant whining about being ‘censored’ when they’re downvoted on other subs, but their subs would be ‘flaired users only’ and when people dared to disagree with whatever BS in other posts, very swiftly permanently banned.

    • Laser@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s especially disingenuous because removing a post by definition isn’t censorship, but one could argue that only allowing comments by flaired users is much closer to it.

      • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        removing a post by definition isn’t censorship

        What dictionary are you reading, my guy?

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, it’s pre-censorship. Also the definition of an echo chamber. “Only people who are verified as agreeing may reply”