Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech”
asteroidrainfall@kbin.social to 
Technology@kbin.social – 0 points – 
arstechnica.com
A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content."
You are viewing a single comment
They had data showing otherwise. They were silenced. I'll keep bringing this up, but the director of the CDC at the time said there was significant evidence to investigate the lab leak theory, but was forcibly sidelined. They seem to have gotten your model backwards. This wasn't the only time it happened, but people will keep crying "sources" since they know it's now difficult to find information that was removed from journal sites, etc.
Uh, sources? Specifically about the forced resignation.
Oh, that's the easiest one.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64891745
You didn't read that article, did you? It doesn't support your stance.
The CDC director wasn't forcibly sidelined because he suggested that COVID-19 could have come from a lab?
Not according to your link, no.
You've got to be kidding:
"Dr Redfield, who led the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when the outbreak began in 2020, was an early proponent of the lab leak theory.
He told the House select subcommittee, formed by the new Republican majority in the US House of Representatives, it was "not scientifically plausible" to him that the virus had natural origins.
He claimed he was "sidelined" at the beginning of the pandemic and excluded from meetings as his views were not in line with other major scientists like Dr Fauci, the de-facto face of the US pandemic response."
A claim is not evidence.
There was no evidence to rule out it either, but they did it anyway.
My dude, what are you doing here?
There is no evidence to support your stance that this dude was sidelined because of his views. All you have is his claim that they sidelined him for his views.
This appears to be another conspiracy theory.
Focus, man.
He said it himself. There was a whole panel about it which you can watch for yourself where evidence was presented. Are you suggesting he was lying?
Someone has to be, since we have conflicting claims.
Please repeat your claim, just so we're clear.