Assuming you are commenting in good faith, no of course not your empty bedroom. A person's residence is protected by law in most countries, and this has nothing to do with the legal status of squatting.
Occupying part of someone's residence while they are there, or while they are away is strongly illegal and criminal, a violation of the residence. Nothing to do with squatting: this practice of stealing people's homes does not exist (or very anecdotally) and is dealt with by the police without trial in every country.
You can for example study the mediatic cases brought forward by the french far-right media (BFM TV / CNEWS) such as the Maryvonne case or the Roland case: they have not been acted upon by the police because they were abandoned houses that were not the residence of the owners despite what they claimed in the media.
Because they demonstrate that race Y is overwhelmingly more likely to commit violent crimes against race X, while the media/government narrative is currently that race X is the biggest threat to the country.
It's the very peculiar, very strenuous insistence that children watch, and participate, as men cavort in women's clothes in a sexually charged manner.
Followed by the vilification of people with quite reasonable concerns as "transphobes" (a fireable, deplatformable, censorable offense) and "Nazis" (who have been deemed acceptable targets of unprovoked violence).
But for that, most Americans would go back to not caring. Regrettably, some don't understand the concept of boundaries or restraint, or think it doesn't apply to them. Possibly because we have many in the media/entertainment industry, government, and education system telling them that they're right.
You're implying a lot of things here, so I'm struggling to follow all of them, but I find it especially odd to suggest that being anti-Nazi is somehow unfair to them or otherwise unprovoked. I can think of at least one rather conspicuous example of a time when Nazis "started it," so to speak. Some of my relatives didn't make it out of that one.
I can tell you're struggling, so I'll try to make it even simpler.
Normal beliefs (kids don't belong in sexually charged drag shows) are being tagged as "Nazi".
Certain factions have deemed it acceptable to commit unprovoked violence against anyone labeled thusly, accurate or no.
Do you deny this, or not understand? If so, you will continue to struggle in confusion, because it's an incredibly clear concept and phenomena and harder to make much simpler than that.
You say family members died because of Nazis, then trivialize actual Nazism by insinuating that I may be one, because I dislike people casually using that term!
It sounds as though blood pressure medication isn't the only type of medication you may require.
Nazis should be deemed acceptable targets of unprovoked violence — but the least they should go to prison for that. It’s not a free speech violation when the whole ideology is incompatible with society.
For not being in the same leagues as the big boys, they have outsized power to twist and shape political narratives, they know it and they gleefully exercise it.
Consider the fact that their CEO (admittedly!) abused his admin privileges to fraudulently impersonate users, posting fake messages AS them, expressly to frame them.
We would not know about it, and he might still be doing it today if not for some observant moderators. But nothing happened to him, at all - in fact the people and subreddit he hacked were themselves banned.
THAT is power. THAT is what is meant by "big tech".
It's power, but it's not what people mean by "big tech". That is still a lower tier of power than Google, Meta, or Microsoft. It's just not close. Consider how many congressional lobbyists they command, for instance, if not their effects on speech.
Interesting result.
Will we see other companies sue cities for the results of disastrous social policies in the future? It's certainly a target-rich environment.
Or is this a unique situation unlikely to be repeated? Was this settled to avoid a legal precedent that could be used by other victims of half-baked social experimentation?
They're not fools.
They know it will be their preferred party (as indicated by employee, corporate, and in-kind donations) making those claims next cycle, just as happened after their chosen candidate lost in 2016.
