If so, not a big change
ZH thinks @Jack of Twitter is trying to be more open to dissident views. He has apparently republished a long and vague essay about myths and conspiracies, which sort of halfway considers the possibility that some anti-establishment voices don't need to be killed immediately. Later is fine.

I'm not sure it's a big change.

First: Conservative outrage at media bias is fake surprise. Media has ALWAYS served the establishment. It's natural. If you want the money and PERMISSION to operate a big business that can broadcast to large numbers of people, you MUST have the aristocrats and bankers on your side. Dillinger's Rule. That's where the money is.

Second: When I hear about the latest banning or censorship, I look at the facts. Usually the banned spokesman is explicitly advocating violence against specific people, which has ALWAYS been illegal for good and proper reasons. Then I look around some more, and I see that similar dissidents who are NOT advocating specific violence are not banned. This is how "free speech" is supposed to work.

Third: Much of the outrage is directed at demonetizing, which is NOT censorship. Before 2000, no dissident ever EXPECTED to be PAID for using the establishment's presses or broadcast studios. Dissidents were sometimes able to get their letters published in a newspaper, but they knew that they had to do their own printing, or their own word-of-mouth distribution, if they wanted to gain wide and steady influence.

= = = = =

In this specific case, we don't need to quibble about myths. The fact is murderously simple.

When one leader of one country starts killing his own people, it's not a conspiracy. It's one criminal.

When NEARLY ALL countries start killing their own people AT THE SAME MOMENT, using the same TOTALLY TRANSPARENT FRAUDULENT LIE to "justify" the killing, it's a conspiracy by ALL legal and dictionary definitions. It's not groupthink or accidental correlation.

  ¶ 7:03 AM