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
To say, as in to state as fact, yes.
To question, no.
There's a wide gap between "covid originated in a lab" and "covid could have originated in a lab".
Yet the then director of the CDC was forcibly sidelined simply for asking that they investigate. Interesting take.
Source?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64891745
Is that your source for "Forced to resign"?
That article is based on a panel where evidence was presented, you can simply just watch the panel yourself, although it's pretty long.
Can you at least let us know the time stamp of where they force him to resign?
You found the panel and are unwilling to watch it? Don't be lazy lol.
I don’t trust you that the video contains the content you claim it does. apparently you have this information, but are refusing to share it with people, so how lazy are you?
He details around the 1:10 minute mark about how he was sidelined (which I incorrectly interpreted to mean he had been forced to resign) for suggesting that both lab leak and natural origin theories should be investigated. Apparently he was simply left out of the discussion entirely after sharing his position, and resigned later, but I haven't actually been able to find any details or the exact reasoning behind his exit from the CDC.
That being said, him being sidelined is, in my opinion, still extremely concerning. It's pretty clear to me that him disagreeing with Fauci lead to him being pushed out, but there doesn't seem to be any info anywhere on the subject.
You do realize that’s why most people are arguing with you, right? Because you made a false claim that you couldn’t back up while repeatedly claiming you've proven it to be true by posting a link to an article that doesn’t say what you claim it says (which is the very definition of “unscientific”)?
Agreed. I misinterpreted it, but my main points still stand.
What exactly was your main point then, if not that he was forced to resign? Everything else you posted seems to be in service of defending that claim.