Eyes on

- Thank you for a reminder to stay aware of who controls the narrative, and I'm glad to see a greater willingness to put views such as this forward. It's good to see that, despite the obstacles in their way, there are places willing to continue exposing this sort of mess.

- Interesting edit there, Madam Term Limits. With all the revision going on in so many fields, literary updates from your people isn't helping your cause. If this is meant to be leadership, my, did you lot pull the wrong card.

- It's one thing to hear about this from the radio, another to read (some part of) it here. I can only speculate that sacrificing the ability of one side to call its own witnesses rather than admitting the other to do the same implies a desire to keep those opposition witnesses quiet. (I wonder if I'm using the term 'moot point' correctly, considering this news.)

- So glad questions were raised on why one person was targeted over another (isn't one the title character for a profitable show?) and that there are those willing to provide the support the company won't. (Hang on - how is that particular message on neighbors against neighbors a denigration of cultural and religious identity? What's abhorrent is turning a comparison into something it isn't. Also, bop the smart-beep if it's not one of yours - again - because 'the very notion that one should suffer for doing or saying horrible things' should only be applied to them.)

- Way to demonstrate that transparency, 敌害.（The IME has the term second, 微软, and earth-sea in first.) Restricting the flow of information results in 眼罩 for oneself as well. (Good thing I double-checked that term against a dictionary, 微软.) Considering the number of countries that banned that network's at two, I think I've found another reason to keep at least a weather eye on this one.