[wtcactus]

> You're linking a US media website, one famous for having its head way up the american exceptionalism hole.

Oh, I didn’t notice we are already in the censorship phase and we can’t even link Fox News. It’s a factual news (but you are free to contest it) and if Fox is the only one willing to publish it, it says more about European descent into madness than you think.

> Also, didn't you vote to not call yourself European or something-something?

What are you even talking about? You people are insane. You need to be stopped before you destroy us all.

[zipy124]

If Fox is the only one willing to publish it, it says a lot about the news story itself.... Whilst they may time to time have some journalism I'm sure, it's not a respectable news organisation in the same way as AP or Reuters and such. If it was a decent story it would be picked up on and re-reported by other outlets. There is not some conspiracy where all other journalists refuse to publish the 'truth'...

[carlosjobim]

> it says a lot about the news story itself

What does it say then about the news story itself?

[scrollaway]

It says it’s a non story.

As I said above: Fox is not reputable, and if they’re the only one willing to run a story, that’s not someone speaking truth to power — it’s the equivalent to a wacko conspiracy theorist being the only person agreeing with you. Not a good sign, and not one that will get you taken seriously.

Whether the story has legs can be evaluated independently, and others have done so (it is indeed a non-story that was simply used as rage bait, which you and the other guy are falling for hard). But a lot of time can be saved simply dismissing fox as a sole source, because they have this reputation, and it’s earned.

[wtcactus]

When your only problem with a news, is who is willing to give it instead of the facts on the news, says a lot about your notion of "truth".

[scrollaway]

Fox News does not have a reputation of reporting on facts, which seems to be your only claim here that this is “factual”. If it were, you’d find this in a neutral source. It’s a waste of time to even argue with you as I had predicted.

[wtcactus]

The facts are simple:

1. German authorities demanded GAB to disclosure the real identity of a user that called - a morbidly obese - politician, fat, so that they can persecute him.

Now, you can go on with your little show, pretending to be in your high horse where news that shows from Fox News don't count, so that you don't have to actually address the facts.

Go on, deny the actual facts if you dare.

[shaky-carrousel]

Those are not "facts", that's a caricature.

In Germany, Beleidigung has been a criminal offense for decades. Courts (not "authorities") can compel platforms to identify users after due process. No one is being "persecuted", no one is going to a "gulag", and weight is irrelevant.

If you want to argue that criminal defamation laws are bad, do that. But stop dressing an old legal reality up as dystopia.