“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.”

    • RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which is exactly what they want. If they can get trump to ban them they’ll easily show that they are a bunch of snowflakes who are full of shit when they talk about free speech.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        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”