Blue check notes that the whiny free speech babies have found his tweet about a bogus study

Christopher Ingram is another one of those blue checks who seems to be upset about Twitter’s “content moderation” being relaxed a little bit. After all, studies prove that conservatives are far more likely to post misinformation, hate speech, and garbage and therefore get banned more. We’ve seen liberals post plenty of misinformation, like, say, this study, or Hillary Clinton’s tweet about Donald Trump’s secret back-channel connection to Russia’s Alfa Bank (misinformation which people are currently being prosecuted over).

This has actually been studied over and over again, and the conclusion always ends up the same: conservatives are more likely to get banned because they're *far* more likely to post misinformation, hate speech and garbage in violation of platforms' TOS https://t.co/2MzzXj2TzB https://t.co/IacFIkFkfa pic.twitter.com/iuBZd8OL7B

— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) April 16, 2022

"platforms keep banning us for posting Nazi memes" maybe isn't the winning argument these free speech guys think it is

— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) April 16, 2022

Here’s a second person this week making “free-speechers” or “free-speech guys” a term of insult. Oh, you’re one of those “free-speechers” who just wants to post racist memes, that’s all it’s really about.

The whiny free speech piss-babies have found this so I’ll add one more point: the study measured trustworthiness two ways – via professional fact checkers, and also via a bipartisan panel of regular people. Results were the same!

— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) April 16, 2022

“Free speech piss-babies.” OK, the first clue that what Ingraham is saying is complete B.S. is that he cites “professional fact-checkers” as a judge of trustworthiness.

This guy posts a ridiculous partisan study and then responds by calling critics "whiny free speech piss-babies."

Which exactly proves their point that he cannot be taken remotely seriously as a mature, credible, nonpartisan judge of political arguments. https://t.co/YZd7ujaHhf

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) April 16, 2022

These analyses are generally partisan garbage because the study authors get to determine what constitutes "misinformation" and "hate speech."

And we've seen how the self-appointed "experts" do not exactly have a sterling track record of avoiding their own biases there. https://t.co/5ZqYHNdE2v

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) April 16, 2022

The mask is off which is good to see. Clarifying. Whiny free speech piss babies LOL. These people hate you, hate America, hate God and so it's no wonder their brand of evil demands censorship and control. https://t.co/ZkKwD1tFeN

— Rudolph Troha ⚔️ (@RudolphTroha) April 16, 2022

If you’re pro free speech, @_cingraham despises and mocks you. https://t.co/mIoyNCzH1b

— Stupid Should Hurt (@StupidShldHurt) April 16, 2022

It is amazing how these assholes use "free speech" as an insult and also think normal people are on their side https://t.co/Xj2bs6m92Q

— Whitton Dene 🇺🇦 (@whittondene) April 16, 2022

“Professional fact checkers” https://t.co/HjKmo71ovN

— TheGreatCdnTalkShow (@TGCTS) April 16, 2022

Yes, professional fact-checkers, like Snopes and PolitiFact. Let’s continue to run all social media posts by those two so they can filter out the misinformation.

Related: