Oh, sorry did I overwhelm you.

Perhaps it would be easier for you if, instead of galloping, I just focus on one single point. Then you don't have to work your brain too hard. One single point, and I can hardly be accused of galloping.

My one point will be the word "censor". This story, which chipit linked, is fake because it accuses them of censorship. They are not in the business of providing a platform for speech. It's wrong to accuse them of censorship because they do not control access to anyone else's speech.

On the contrary, rather then censorship, they offer an optional service whereby interested parties can visit their domains for supplementary info and ratings of publications. You could spend your entire life interacting with some internet publisher and never come into contact with the newsguard score for the outlet. It's simply not censorship according to any definition. But if, on the other hand, chipit were to demand that newsguard quit using their freedom of speech to rate outlets, then chipit would be guilty of censorship. Likewise, gatewaypundit decrying newsguard's exercise of speech, is equally censorious to newsguard's output.

Isn't that so? What's different between newsguard writing bad things about gatewaypundit, and gatewaypundit writing bad things about newsguard? Aren't both acts equally censorious?

There, now we have rested your tired little brain by only examining a single thing wrong with this op post. I trust I remained non-gallopy and you weren't too stressed or triggered from reading that.