Klippenstein's decision to publish a 271-page opposition research document despite a media blackout highlights the tension between public interest and the rules of social platforms.
The document itself, while not sensational like previous political dossiers, raises questions about the disparity in media coverage and platform responses to foreign interference.
Klippenstein argues that the opposition research on JD Vance serves a public interest, pointing to its verifiable content compared to past discredited claims.
The situation underscores a shift in the narrative around censorship with different standards being applied to similar situations of information dissemination.
Collection
[
|
...
]