To be fair, I think giving 10 to the “big man”, a unverifiable email but which was vouched to by another recipient of the email (do they have a copy with a DKIM signature? I never saw that asked/answered), was the more relevant claim than the son with nudity.
If you mean that some(all?) the particular tweets mentioned as censored by Tabibbi were about frontal nudity and thus reasonably censored I am not arguing.
If you mean that some(all?) the particular tweets mentioned as censored by Tabibbi were about frontal nudity and thus reasonably censored I am not arguing.