"Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement."
Why would biological facts be considered "political statements"? (assuming gender = biological sex, which is the usual usage from regular talk to identity papers throughout the world).
Judging from the last sentence, it seems like you're aware that the word "gender" as it's used nowadays often doesn't refer to biological sex, especially in the context of gender identity/expression. Setting aside the semantic argument, is there even anyone out there saying "there are more than two genders", and actually mean biological sex? What would they even mean by that? From what I can tell, anyone saying "there are only two genders, it's a biological fact" seems to be deliberately shifting the goalposts for the sole purpose of being inflammatory. Otherwise I'm not really sure I understand. I've never heard of anyone saying they were genderfluid as a result of their chromosomes.
"Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't"
There are already laws and means to deal with plotting armed violence. None of them include (or should include) banning the phone company / app company / phone maker / etc.
I had to make an account just to point out that your analogy doesn't make any sense :D
RT (like CNN) is a network (mostly) aligned with the interests of the power structure of its respective country.
Chomsky is a dissident and critic of the power structure of his country, therefore broadly in disagreement with the CNN world view.
What I don't understand is why people are claiming CNN doesn't have a bias: if a news media outlet exists, it is biased, and that is an immutable rule.
Which makes the use of the term "bias" worthless. I do see quite obvious differences in the bias of say fox (not the news section) vs cnn.
Fox just lazily omits facts and arguments that don't fit while cnn presents both sides most of the time. I do not care if the information is framed in a specific way since i have to make up my mind anyway.
Yes, I can admit that I've created an alternative account. Because the American political atmosphere is endangering my ability to freely express the alternative that's other than the popular opinion.
I only come to hope to bring certain other perspective in peace and hoping for scholarly discussions on perspectives that I've not personally considered.
But of course it's all in the willingness of yourself to believe that there can actually be legitimate and unsponsored grassroot opinions not in favor of the West's perspective.
You are not alone. We are on the same boat. Invisible censorship is more deceptive than visible censorship. I don't blame the system. Freedom of speech? It's not easy although it's a wonderful idea.
The tweet "Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong" is the exact slogan violent protestors in HK uses every day. It's not "freedom of speech" but an implication of HK independence. You cannot take the words literally. I will give you another analogy -- no people in China understands why "All lives matter" offends the black community in the US, because why on earth would anyone object to all lives matter, right? Do Chinese NBA fans have legit rights to be offended by his tweet, I personally think so. Does this legitimize Chinese government's NBA ban, absolutely not.
"Twitter, Facebook, and any other entity that deplatformed Alex Jones are private companies and can deplatform whoever they want"
Would you feel the same way if the deplatforming was done by, say, AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile? Because Twitter and Facebook specifically get the same protection as if they are communication pipes (as opposed to being publishers).
In communist Romania of my youth, where toys were sparse.
In Egypt nowadays, in poor families who can't pay for toys.