The original comment and I said “foreign adversaries” in reference to the article and I specifically distinguished them from normal uniformed trolls that you could debate. Yet you continued to defend the foreign adversaries. I have to assume you didn’t read the article about what the foreign adversaries were actually doing.

I was speaking generally about foreign adversaries, and not the ones in the article (that I did read). Its not something we should really be arguing over, or for you to be so nitpicky over. Its not worth either of our time to do so.

The ORIGINAL comment that I replied to ...

Freedom of speech should not extend to foreign adversaries.

Hot take incoming…

Actually, I would argue the opposite.

Now that we have global access to each other, we should be speaking to each other, and finding common ground. We all share the same planet.

And when speaking to adversaries, we should consider what they’re saying for truthfulness or if it’s just an attack, before deciding to ignore/block it or not.

And your first reply to my reply to the original comment ...

A foreign adversary isn’t a uninformed troll engaging in debate. Their job is to attack a target. Supporting their right to attack is like supporting telemarketer scammers right to robocall everyone. You aren’t going to debate them out of scamming. They have a job to do.

You didn't mention specific foreign adversaries just from the article. You used the generic terminology for all foreign adversaries.

My only point was that not all foreign adversaries, regardless if they were mentioned in the article or not, act in one single way, that they have multiple motives/actions. Thats all. No mention was made by me of specific foreign adversaries. You assumed as much, incorrectly, but I did not refer to them. I spoke generally.