> The design alone of that website looks like a fake news or "alternative" news website.
So this must mean that this story is untrue right?
> And in general ALL social media platforms are private companies they can ban whoever they want for what ever reason.
> Social Media companies are not your friend. They don't fight for your freedom. They don't have a soul or anything in that direction.
Correct. Private platforms can do private platform things like bots banning people instead of humans, removing apps off of platforms for any reason or none or de-platforming anyone they don't like even if the content is not on their platform. They can all do that and keep all your money. They are not your friends and they will never change.
However, is there strong evidence that this particular story is untrue, misinformation or simply outright 'fake news' only because of the strangeness source itself? Unless cross-referencing the sources from Twitter, Patreon and the screenshots are somehow also faked?
So this must mean that this story is untrue right?
> And in general ALL social media platforms are private companies they can ban whoever they want for what ever reason.
> Social Media companies are not your friend. They don't fight for your freedom. They don't have a soul or anything in that direction.
Correct. Private platforms can do private platform things like bots banning people instead of humans, removing apps off of platforms for any reason or none or de-platforming anyone they don't like even if the content is not on their platform. They can all do that and keep all your money. They are not your friends and they will never change.
However, is there strong evidence that this particular story is untrue, misinformation or simply outright 'fake news' only because of the strangeness source itself? Unless cross-referencing the sources from Twitter, Patreon and the screenshots are somehow also faked?