Kind of scary.

I still find it funny that despite having alienated half of his user base for years, it was the $400k donated to fraudulently elect a vegetable that marked the beginning of Zuckerberg's downfall.

You know what circle I still can't square about the whole Q thing?

Journalists whose entire beat was covering Q and using it as a cudgel to attack dissidents lied profusely about it with every article.

Being on that beat, they knew the difference between actual drops and Glowies™️ whose job is was to wildly mischaracterize them and feed the media narratives to build said cudgel.

So what was the point of these journos lying & obfuscating so much?

Is their propagandist code so enshrined in their subroutines that they couldn't help but lie?

Did they know their audience was too lazy & stupid to look for themselves?

Or did someone tell them to do it?

If so, why?

If there was nothing to it, why expend so many calories & word counts on spouting thinly-veiled BS & risking that people seeing through it?

An interesting quandary.

Just like the Ministry of Information they tried to create, it seems the IRS Venmo scheme may have been merely to cover up something the GOV was already (illegally) doing.

Your tax dollars at work.

Are all the media outlets who covered the Andrew Tate arrest reporting with the same fervor about the LGTBQ activists arrested in Atlanta for pimping out their adopted boys & selling child porn?

If not, why not?