If you read the original post you were replying to, then read your post, your post appears to be only tangentially related, utilizes sarcasm and implied political hostility, and makes an accusation that doesn't seem warranted. The post you were replying to seemed to be genuinely referring to the same platform's famous fact-checking of Trump, merely as a point of comparison. There was no implication of some kind of hypocritical opinion regarding whom should and should not be fact-checked.
That's what causes these kinds of rambling forks in threads.
> That's what causes these kinds of rambling forks in threads.
I’m of the opinion that people reading too much into things, like you appear to be doing in your previous (long) paragraph, is what causes those kinds of rambling forks.
> Can you point to what specifically is misinformation in the article about Biden's order? Let me guess, you like cryptocurrency and it said things you don't like.
You also said that Biden has a monopoly on what we see in the press. Um, that's pretty far from true, and anyway, he is the president so I would expect his messages to be shared widely.
‘nuff said. You are clearly lashing out, so it would be better to discontinue this conversation with you at this time.
The ads being put out in the daily newspapers and radio on his behalf are one good example. He has a near monopoly on what words and concepts are broadcast. Those things should probably be just as fact checked as any other thing.
it's an article about an executive order that was signed today and accurate describes the landscape. It's pro-establishment but not propaganda. Why do you think it's propaganda?
