[Schmerika]

> None of these antitrust cases were dropped for doing what was in their mutual interest.

I'm not understanding either what you're claiming or why you believe it. Keep in mind that I don't believe in always taking what the government says at face value.

> You're grasping at straws.

Why would I be desperate? I've no skin in this game, beyond a general wish not to have legitimate and important speech suppressed and censored.

> Zuckerberg said Meta didn't do everything they were asked.

They didn't do everything, they say (did they ever say what they refused to do?), but they did a lot. As did Twitter. We know this for a fact.

[lern_too_spel]

> I'm not understanding either what you're claiming or why you believe it. Keep in mind that I don't believe in always taking what the government says at face value.

There was no punishment for not following the government's recommendation or reward for following it.

> Why would I be desperate? I've no skin in this game, beyond a general wish not to have legitimate and important speech suppressed and censored.

You're desperate because you claimed that the government had censored COVID speech, and I showed that it had not, which makes it difficult for you to advance your nonsensical "both sides" narrative.

[Schmerika]

> There was no punishment for not following the government's recommendation or reward for following it.

You don't know that, and it's not reasonable to assume that. They all mostly caved, hence the letters of regret and the Twitter files etc.

> You're desperate because you claimed that the government had censored COVID speech, and I showed that it had not

You certainly did not. You showed that you don't even know what happened, couldn't be bothered looking into it, and yet are happy to pronounce 'the truth' as if it didn't contradict well known and documented reality.

That's called 'arguing in bad faith' and it's highly discouraged here.

[lern_too_spel]

> You don't know that, and it's not reasonable to assume that. They all mostly caved, hence the letters of regret and the Twitter files etc.

I do know that, and what's more, I assert that you know that too. Hence, why you wrote "mostly" and why you have so far been unable to show any punishment for the "some" who didn't "cave" to the suggestions given without any threat of punishment.

The Twitter files also did not show any threat of punishment. The letters of regret came from Zuckerberg, who, as we have already seen, did not claim any punishment was threatened or meted when he did not agree with some claimed recommendations.

> That's called 'arguing in bad faith' and it's highly discouraged here.

Pot calling the silverware black.