.jpgs of a twitter post with no substantiation of claims also don't constitute proof and OP is a faggot for claiming it proves anything at all.
We've known this shit has nothing to do with protecting children and never has. Unless there's documented evidence of politicians openly admitting it to the public this doesn't really mean anything.
This is why I stated my reason, I'd rather not have multiple posts on the same subject UNLESS there's an update that significantly changes the context.
Both posts just stated Bluesky was getting exempted from the UK ban despite its VERY KNOWN issue with CP and full on grooming, just different sources.
.jpgs of a twitter post with no substantiation of claims also don't constitute proof and OP is a faggot for claiming it proves anything at all.
We've known this shit has nothing to do with protecting children and never has. Unless there's documented evidence of politicians openly admitting it to the public this doesn't really mean anything.
This is why I stated my reason, I'd rather not have multiple posts on the same subject UNLESS there's an update that significantly changes the context.
Both posts just stated Bluesky was getting exempted from the UK ban despite its VERY KNOWN issue with CP and full on grooming, just different sources.