Twitter Finally Adds a Fact Checking Warning Label to Trump Tweets

[ZiprHead]

Twitter User Creates Account to Tweet Exactly What Trump Does to See If He'll Get Suspended, and It Only Took 3 Days

Twitter refuses to suspend the President's account, however, citing his relevance as a world leader.

So the Twitter account @Suspendthepres decided to put the standard to the test. The user behind the account began tweeting exactly what the President tweeted and urged its thousands of followers to report the tweets.

The account was suspended in less than three days.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Twitter User Creates Account to Tweet Exactly What Trump Does to See If He'll Get Suspended, and It Only Took 3 Days

Twitter refuses to suspend the President's account, however, citing his relevance as a world leader.

So the Twitter account @Suspendthepres decided to put the standard to the test. The user behind the account began tweeting exactly what the President tweeted and urged its thousands of followers to report the tweets.

The account was suspended in less than three days.

I was coming here to post this.

Once again, one set of rules for the plebs, a different set of rules for the kleptocracy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Twitter User Creates Account to Tweet Exactly What Trump Does to See If He'll Get Suspended, and It Only Took 3 Days

Twitter refuses to suspend the President's account, however, citing his relevance as a world leader.

So the Twitter account @Suspendthepres decided to put the standard to the test. The user behind the account began tweeting exactly what the President tweeted and urged its thousands of followers to report the tweets.

The account was suspended in less than three days.

Actually, I prefer that His Flatulence not get suspended. It lets us see what he's really like. I do like the fact-checking, though.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What percent of Republicans do you think would inject disinfectant if Trump tweeted it?

Well, 60 million of them voted for Trump in 2016, so that's a huge percentage right out of the gate exhibiting demonstrably poor intelligence. The largest demographic block to do so were white middle class males with little to no college education, with a household median income of around $72K (which was a good $10K higher than HRC's average supporters, or Sanders' supporters for that matter and about $16K higher than the national median), so we already have a demonstrably intellectually impaired demographic who nevertheless had better income opportunities to afford college, but evidently could not intellectually handle the academic rigor of college and dropped out accordingly, did not have the intellectual capacity to get accepted by any college in the first place, or had the intellectual capacity, but had other issues to deal with, like needing to take over their parent's business or the like.

So, normally, I'd make VERY conservative estimates just to hedge, but had you bothered to read the links I posted and/or did your own fact checking as you claim you do, you'd be able to make that estimate yourself.

For example, from my source, we have the fact that 75% of Republicans actually trust Trump's medical advice. Donald Trump. A realty TV celebrity who has bankrupted every single business he's ever personally been involved with and has only ever been rich due to his father's real estate acumen and bankroll. 75%.

From the other link, in just Maryland alone:

"We had hundreds of calls in our hotline here in Maryland about people asking about injecting or ingesting these disinfectants, which is, you know, hard to imagine that people thought that that was serious. But what people actually were thinking about this, was this something you could do to protect yourself?" Hogan, a Republican, said in an interview on CBS.

Not only did the CDC and the FDA and the WH and mutliple governors around the country have to do their own version of Twitter's fact checking to stop people from actually taking ANY medical advice from Trump, Trump himself had to attempt to walk what he said back in the pathetic cowardly manner he always adopts:

Trump attempted to walk back his comments Friday, saying he was being “sarcastic.” Trump suggested on Twitter this weekend that he might stop holding daily coronavirus briefings following the recent backlash, saying they are “not worth the time & effort.” Meanwhile, the FDA had to issue warnings against people self-medicating with anti-malarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine Friday, after multiple deaths and poisonings were reported. President Trump has repeatedly touted these drugs, telling Americans to “try it.”

ALL of that--including the "multple deaths and poisonings" could have been averted by doing up front what everyone then had to scramble to do directly after, so it's difficult to give an estimate since fact checking had to immediately be instituted after he said such collosally stupid things--including by himself--to stop his idiot followers from actually doing what he suggested.

This is what the Maryland Emergency Management Agency was forced to do because of Trump's idiotic comments:

View attachment 28062

Iow, fact check. And here's more of what Republican Governor Hogan said:

“I think when misinformation comes out or you just say something that pops in your head, it does send a wrong message. We had hundreds of calls come into our emergency hotline at our health department asking if it was right to ingest Clorox or alcohol cleaning products, whether that was going to help them fight the virus,” he said during his ABC appearance.

So, "hundreds of calls" in Maryland alone seriously asking "if it was right to ingest Clorox or alcohol cleaning products." All based entirely on what Trump said. So, "hundreds" at least implies over 200, so we'll go with 250 in Maryland alone, so let's multiply that by 51 (to include all voting states and districts), and we're at 12,500 just in regard to something so blatantly and obviously stupid as ingesting Clorox, and many of those must have been after the WH and all the others immediately fact checked, so we should try to account for NO fact checking by tossing another zero on the end there for 125,000 so fucking completely and utterly stupid that they might actually inject Clorox just because Trump mentioned it.

And then how do we add in additional percentages that have done other things not quite as blatantly idiotic--like take untested malaria drugs that turned out to not only not be effective in treating Covid 19, but also have serious detrimental side effects--just because Trump mentioned them? Double it? Triple it?

Well, if 75% said they actually trust Trump's medical advice and we already estimate a good 125,000 might have actually acted on that advice when it came to something so blatantly fucking stupid as injecting bleach--iow, as a lower bound--then the upper bound is likely closer to around, what, 30-35% of all Republicans too fucking stupid to NOT have a fact checker? Just to be especially generous and conservative for illustration's sake.

Let's go with that. A good 30% of Republicans are so fucking stupid that they need a fact-checker on every tweet from Donald Trump at the very least. Once he's ousted, we can revisit the whole thing, but in general and if it were up to me, ANY right-leaning member of any mainstream social media platform should have a fact checker installed by the platform in their feed for the betterment of all humanity as a simple TOS and just as a starting point.

 

[Metaphor]

<snipped irrelevant insults about Republicans>

For example, from my source, we have the fact that 75% of Republicans actually trust Trump's medical advice. Donald Trump. A realty TV celebrity who has bankrupted every single business he's ever personally been involved with and has only ever been rich due to his father's real estate acumen and bankroll. 75%.

That isn't the question I asked. I asked, if Trump Tweeted that people should inject disinfectant, what percentage of Republicans do you think would do it?

ALL of that--including the "multple deaths and poisonings" could have been averted by doing up front what everyone then had to scramble to do directly after, so it's difficult to give an estimate since fact checking had to immediately be instituted after he said such collosally stupid things--including by himself--to stop his idiot followers from actually doing what he suggested.

That isn't the question I asked. I asked, if Trump Tweeted that people should inject disinfectant, what percentage of Republicans do you think would do it?

This is what the Maryland Emergency Management Agency was forced to do because of Trump's idiotic comments:

View attachment 28062

Iow, fact check. And here's more of what Republican Governor Hogan said:

“I think when misinformation comes out or you just say something that pops in your head, it does send a wrong message. We had hundreds of calls come into our emergency hotline at our health department asking if it was right to ingest Clorox or alcohol cleaning products, whether that was going to help them fight the virus,” he said during his ABC appearance.

So, "hundreds of calls" in Maryland alone seriously asking "if it was right to ingest Clorox or alcohol cleaning products." All based entirely on what Trump said. So, "hundreds" at least implies over 200, so we'll go with 250 in Maryland alone, so let's multiply that by 51 (to include all voting states and districts), and we're at 12,500 just in regard to something so blatantly and obviously stupid as ingesting Clorox, and many of those must have been after the WH and all the others immediately fact checked, so we should try to account for NO fact checking by tossing another zero on the end there for 125,000 so fucking completely and utterly stupid that they might actually inject Clorox just because Trump mentioned it.

It seems to me that every single person who called was fact checking.

And then how do we add in additional percentages that have done other things not quite as blatantly idiotic--like take untested malaria drugs that turned out to not only not be effective in treating Covid 19, but also have serious detrimental side effects--just because Trump mentioned them? Double it? Triple it?

Well, why not? You are already in phantasia.

Well, if 75% said they actually trust Trump's medical advice and we already estimate a good 125,000 might have actually acted on that advice when it came to something so blatantly fucking stupid as injecting bleach--iow, as a lower bound--then the upper bound is likely closer to around, what, 30-35% of all Republicans too fucking stupid to NOT have a fact checker? Just to be especially generous and conservative for illustration's sake.

Let's go with that. A good 30% of Republicans are so fucking stupid that they need a fact-checker on every tweet from Donald Trump at the very least. Once he's ousted, we can revisit the whole thing, but in general and if it were up to me, ANY right-leaning member of any mainstream social media platform should have a fact checker installed by the platform in their feed for the betterment of all humanity as a simple TOS and just as a starting point.

Oh, now we get to it. Right-wingers need a fact-checker installed. But not you.

And of course, Facebook, which is a social media company, is perfectly placed to do it, even if its run by a fuck-face coward who opposes the idea.

Got it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Twitter User Creates Account to Tweet Exactly What Trump Does to See If He'll Get Suspended, and It Only Took 3 Days

Twitter refuses to suspend the President's account, however, citing his relevance as a world leader.

So the Twitter account @Suspendthepres decided to put the standard to the test. The user behind the account began tweeting exactly what the President tweeted and urged its thousands of followers to report the tweets.

The account was suspended in less than three days.

Actually, I prefer that His Flatulence not get suspended. It lets us see what he's really like. I do like the fact-checking, though.

So, someone recently did an experiment. They started tweeting the contents of His Flatulence's tweets. Just, word for word the same. He was banned within 12 hours for racism and violent rhetoric.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I asked, if Trump Tweeted that people should inject disinfectant, what percentage of Republicans do you think would do it?

And I gave as measured an answer to that question as I could.

It seems to me that every single person who called was fact checking.

Which not only proves the need for it--so, thanks for shooting yourself in the foot--but it also gives an indication as to how many others were out there who did NOT take that step. Such as the ones who actually poisoned themselves (some of which who died from doing so, evidently), or did you just conveniently ignore this part:

Meanwhile, the FDA had to issue warnings against people self-medicating with anti-malarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine Friday, after multiple deaths and poisonings were reported

That's the FDA doing exactly what we're talking about, only they had to do it after "multiple deaths and poisonings were reported" (who knows how many others not reported), not in tandem with Trump's idiotic comments, which would have likely saved many, but sadly not all of those lives.

Oh, now we get to it. Right-wingers need a fact-checker installed.

Oh, now we get it. You hate white people!

No? That's not what you were arguing?

We'll try this again for the apologists, IF you voted for Trump you have already demonstrated a measurable intellectual paucity, but more so than the act of voting for Trump proving you to be objectively intellectually impaired is the undeniable fact that the average Trump voter was a white, middle class male with little to no college education. It is just a simple fact of demographics that the majority of Trump voters were not (and continue to not be) very well educated.

And surprise surprise, we see the effect of that lack of higher education over and over and over and over and over again, to the point of 75% actually stating that they trust Donald Trump's medical advice more so than any other person (including actual Doctors, as if I needed to use the word "actual").

This is objectively idiotic and can only be explained by a clear cognitive impairment made all the more terrifying by the fact that SOME OF THEM HAVE ACTUALLY DIED because of it.

You want to liken that to religion? Fine. Call it a cult. That doesn't mean the cult members aren't lacking in intelligence and show a clear and present need for real-time fact checking as the point you raised ironically proves.

So, no. It isn't the cart before the horse. Nor is it mutually exclusive. Fact-checking harms no one and clearly is needed by some. Exactly what percentage is, of course, impossible to properly quantify, which is why you're trying to shift the narrative toward that end, but in doing so you just underscored the clear need for fact checking.

Why shouldn't that come at the same time as the false claim being made?

And of course, Facebook, which is a social media company

And the number one source of news for well over 65% of Americans. Though you'll note that Republicans are actually more skeptical now--gee I wonder why--than Democrats in regard to anything on social media.

But if you look at the stats in relation to the average Trump voter (white, middle class male with little to no college education) you'll see precisely why he targets Twitter (and why his minions target Youtube and Reddit, while Russia targets Facebook, Twitter and Instagram):

is perfectly placed to do it, even if its run by a fuck-face coward who opposes the idea.

You keep trying this idiotic tactic--which is endlessly ironic considering the topic--but of course Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't have anything at all to do with running such things. It's not like he's going to personally oversee every fact check before it gets posted. He'd do what he always does, hire others to do it for him and go back to his pampered do-nothing life.

And he's a "fuck-face coward" for not implementing fact checking, because he has no doubt been told by the army of business execs hiding behind him that actually make all of the policies that he just rubber stamps, that adding the fact checking could impact their advertising profits. As that PEW study I referenced above--and you didn't read, but now that I pointed that out, you will, but now that I pointed that out, you won't, etc--points to Republicans having already been driven to distrust Facebook more so than other platforms due exclusively to what Trump and his evil cabal have done over the past four years (make legitimate news "fake" and fake news legitimate) so the bottom line--as always--is no doubt the prime motivator for Zuckerberg.

As to his comments, like:

"I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. I think in general, private companies shouldn't be, especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that."

Facebook already is in that position, but it's also the same position as any other news provider. That's like saying the New York Times should not have a fact checking department or an editorial policy of any kind regarding what they print in their paper.

Whether he admits to it or not, Facebook is a publisher with an editorial policy (aka, "algorithm" in their case), and detailed TOS, not a passive "platform" that doesn't get involved in managing user content. They are, in effect, a newspaper--or, at the very least a news magazine--just in a new form, with content that they carefully and deliberately curate for you and in ways you cannot control, only they can and they do so exclusively to sell advertisements.

Got it.

You clearly do, yes, but of course, not as you meant that and that's the problem. You know--and agree, as your comments throughout this exchange concede--that there are no harms to fact checking and that there is a clear need--a clear life-saving need, no less--for fact checking. You just don't want the medium that is delivering the false claims to be the one that ALSO checks those claims with reputable sources before allowing the claims to be disseminated by their service, which is, once again, exactly like arguing that the New York Times should not fact-check anything they publish prior to publishing.

 

[Metaphor]

Which not only proves the need for it--so, thanks for shooting yourself in the foot--

Oy gevalt. It does not prove that Facebook needs to 'fact check' content. It proves that the vast majority of people never attempted any such thing as 'self-medicating' even without Facebook's expert hand to guide them, and that the ones for whom the claim passed some threshold of believability had the nous to check for themselves.

but it also gives an indication as to how many others were out there who did NOT take that step. Such as the ones who actually poisoned themselves (some of which who died from doing so, evidently), or did you just conveniently ignore this part:

Meanwhile, the FDA had to issue warnings against people self-medicating with anti-malarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine Friday, after multiple deaths and poisonings were reported

And these deaths and poisonings - why do you believe a Facebook fact check would have prevented them? Do you think the kind of person who believe's Trump's medical advice is the kind of person who trusts a social media company's stamp of disapproval more than they trust the President?

That's the FDA doing exactly what we're talking about, only they had to do it after "multiple deaths and poisonings were reported" (who knows how many others not reported), not in tandem with Trump's idiotic comments, which would have likely saved many, but sadly not all of those lives.

Well, sure, I trust the FDA to give advice about drugs. That gives me no reason to trust Facebook as a fact-vetting source about every conceivable topic.

<ridiculous Trump derangement syndrome screed snipped>

You want to liken that to religion? Fine. Call it a cult. That doesn't mean the cult members aren't lacking in intelligence and show a clear and present need for real-time fact checking as the point you raised ironically proves.

I didn't raise my point "ironically". It's frightening you missed the point so badly.

So, no. It isn't the cart before the horse. Nor is it mutually exclusive. Fact-checking harms no one and clearly is needed by some. Exactly what percentage is, of course, impossible to properly quantify, which is why you're trying to shift the narrative toward that end, but in doing so you just underscored the clear need for fact checking.

I asked a question which you did not and still haven't answered. I asked if Trump tweeted that people should inject themselves with disinfectant, how many people would actually do it?

Why shouldn't that come at the same time as the false claim being made?

Well, for one thing, that's literally impossible, unless you stop all live press events and speeches.

And the number one source of news for well over 65% of Americans. Though you'll note that Republicans are actually more skeptical now--gee I wonder why--than Democrats in regard to anything on social media.

And it's a social media company. If Republicans are already skeptical of it, what makes you think they won't disregard Facebook's 'fact checking' as a left-wing conspiracy?

You keep trying this idiotic tactic--which is endlessly ironic considering the topic--but of course Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't have anything at all to do with running such things. It's not like he's going to personally oversee every fact check before it gets posted. He'd do what he always does, hire others to do it for him and go back to his pampered do-nothing life.

I'm not suggesting "fuck face coward" Zuckerberg is personally going to vet the hundreds of millions of exchanges on Facebook. I'm saying he's the CEO and a program implemented against the CEOs wishes is hardly going to be as robust as it might be.

But, I don't believe it can be robust at all. Zuckerberg isn't personally vetting anything. Facebook would need to start with an army of not-well-paid non-experts manually checking every post made to Facebook. Natural language AI is not yet good enough to understand content to a level where it can discern between trivial assertions of fact that may or may not be true but which I assume you don't want 'fact checked' (like "I had a turkey sandwich for lunch") and the kinds of facts that you presumably do want vetted.

Low-hanging fruit is easy to fact check, which is why people do it for themselves, if it matters to them. More complex claims require significantly more resources, and the answer is not necessarily going to be 'true' or 'false', or, as with political matters, it is not clear that a claim has any particular truth value.

And he's a "fuck-face coward" for not implementing fact checking, because he has no doubt been told by the army of business execs hiding behind him that actually make all of the policies that he just rubber stamps, that adding the fact checking could impact their advertising profits. As that PEW study I referenced above--and you didn't read, but now that I pointed that out, you will, but now that I pointed that out, you won't, etc--points to Republicans having already been driven to distrust Facebook more so than other platforms due exclusively to what Trump and his evil cabal have done over the past four years (make legitimate news "fake" and fake news legitimate) so the bottom line--as always--is no doubt the prime motivator for Zuckerberg.

Oh, I walk it back then. I can see the value in Facebook implementing fact-checking for people who already don't trust what Facebook does.

Facebook already is in that position, but it's also the same position as any other news provider. That's like saying the New York Times should not have a fact checking department or an editorial policy of any kind regarding what they print in their paper.

Facebook doesn't write news stories and does not have journalists.

Whether he admits to it or not, Facebook is a publisher with an editorial policy (aka, "algorithm" in their case), and detailed TOS, not a passive "platform" that doesn't get involved in managing user content. They are, in effect, a newspaper--or, at the very least a news magazine--just in a new form, with content that they carefully and deliberately curate for you and in ways you cannot control, only they can and they do so exclusively to sell advertisements.

"Facebook curates content with an algorithm" does not equal "Facebook should fact check that content".

You clearly do, yes, but of course, not as you meant that and that's the problem. You know--and agree, as your comments throughout this exchange concede--that there are no harms to fact checking and that there is a clear need--a clear life-saving need, no less--for fact checking. You just don't want the medium that is delivering the false claims to be the one that ALSO checks those claims with reputable sources before allowing the claims to be disseminated by their service, which is, once again, exactly like arguing that the New York Times should not fact-check anything they publish prior to publishing.

I don't want Facebook to fact check claims for me. I've explained why. I've also explained why the very people you so condescendingly think need it most would be the least likely to trust it.

 

[Deepak]

I don't want Facebook to fact check claims for me. I've explained why. I've also explained why the very people you so condescendingly think need it most would be the least likely to trust it.

Well good news. Facebook isn't fact checking claims for you. The free service that Facebook is offering you can be utilized to consume Donald Trumps claims without any barrier.

Facebook happens to also provide ersatz fact checking, much like they offer Pages, Groups, and Facebook Login, all of which you can choose to use or ignore as you see fit.

What you seem to want is to tell Facebook how they should be building their product and the features they include specifically so other people cannot use that functionality.

How would you have this be enforced? A law, an executive order, a lawsuit, or just wishful thinking?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't want Facebook to fact check claims for me. I've explained why. I've also explained why the very people you so condescendingly think need it most would be the least likely to trust it.

Well good news. Facebook isn't fact checking claims for you. The free service that Facebook is offering you can be utilized to consume Donald Trumps claims without any barrier.

Facebook happens to also provide ersatz fact checking, much like they offer Pages, Groups, and Facebook Login, all of which you can choose to use or ignore as you see fit.

What you seem to want is to tell Facebook how they should be building their product and the features they include specifically so other people cannot use that functionality.

How would you have this be enforced? A law, an executive order, a lawsuit, or just wishful thinking?

No. I'm not telling Facebook what to do, nor would I support any law to force it to 'fact check' the content it transmits.Facebook doesn't even want to do it.

 

[Deepak]

I don't want Facebook to fact check claims for me. I've explained why. I've also explained why the very people you so condescendingly think need it most would be the least likely to trust it.

Well good news. Facebook isn't fact checking claims for you. The free service that Facebook is offering you can be utilized to consume Donald Trumps claims without any barrier.

Facebook happens to also provide ersatz fact checking, much like they offer Pages, Groups, and Facebook Login, all of which you can choose to use or ignore as you see fit.

What you seem to want is to tell Facebook how they should be building their product and the features they include specifically so other people cannot use that functionality.

How would you have this be enforced? A law, an executive order, a lawsuit, or just wishful thinking?

No. I'm not telling Facebook what to do, nor would I support any law to force it to 'fact check' the content it transmits.Facebook doesn't even want to do it.

Sure you are. The post in question that started the entire exchange:

What a sniveling-little-rat-bastard full-of-shit-fuck-face-coward. To admit to a need for fact checking would be to admit his "platform" is still being used for nefarious purposes. It's not like it's a public service he's providing for the good of all mankind.

So, you want and trust Zuckerberg, the fuck-face-coward, to vet content for you?

Why do you regard yourself as incapable of judgment?

You're arguing against whether fact checking in-the-hypothetical should be implemented by Facebook, not whether Zuckerberg wants to implement it. Or did you just waste as much time and as many posts as you did to state what anyone could have read in the original link?

Your argument can't be about what you claim because you don't pay for the service and you can simply ignore what you don't use. Your argument only works if you want to be the one directing what Facebook expends resources on.

 

[Metaphor]

You're arguing against whether fact checking in-the-hypothetical should be implemented by Facebook, not whether Zuckerberg wants to implement it. Or did you just waste as much time and as many posts as you did to state what anyone could have read in the original link?

I don't think Facebook should implement 'fact checking', with or without Zuckerberg. I don't understand how you find this hard to understand. I am not demanding anything of Facebook. I'm giving an opinion. As it happens, Facebook's chief agrees with me. Given that Facebook's CEO is Zuckerberg, I think if it were forced to implement some sort of 'fact checking', what it implements will be the worst version of what it could be, being that it would be implemented under a CEO who doesn't actually support it.

But even if Zuckerberg changed his mind, or a new CEO replaced him who wanted to do it, I would still say it's a bad idea, it will not achieve what Koyaanisqatsi thinks it will achieve, it will have unintended consequences, and it will be a waste of resources.

That doesn't mean I would somehow force them not to do it. I'm not the State and I don't have the power of the State.

Your argument can't be about what you claim because you don't pay for the service and you can simply ignore what you don't use. Your argument only works if you want to be the one directing what Facebook expends resources on.

If Facebook implements it and you can't turn it off and it's annoying and stupid enough, I might discontinue using Facebook. If it's not that annoying or something I can learn to live with, I won't.

It's Koyaanisqatsi who wants to direct what Facebook expends its resources on, not me.

 

[Deepak]

...I think if it were forced to implement some sort of 'fact checking'...

This is your strawman. You can have whatever opinion you have, and other people can have the opinion they have.

They hypothetical is if Facebook, like Twitter had recently done, fact checked posts ("So, you want and trust Zuckerberg, the fuck-face-coward, to vet content for you?")

 

[Metaphor]

...I think if it were forced to implement some sort of 'fact checking'...

This is your strawman. You can have whatever opinion you have, and other people can have the opinion they have.

They hypothetical is if Facebook, like Twitter had recently done, fact checked posts ("So, you want and trust Zuckerberg, the fuck-face-coward, to vet content for you?")

It was your own strawman that I wanted to control what Facebook does.

In the current situation, it is Koyaanisqatsi who wants Facebook to change what it does, not me.

 

[Elixir]

In the current situation, it is Koyaanisqatsi who wants Facebook to change what it does, not me.

Yeah I'm sure you're fine with Mutherzucker censoring only those posts that hit Trump where it hurts, while claiming that they don't think they should censor anything.