They might not be (entirely) natural. Celebrities often have work done to keep up appearances in their prime (face lift, botox, etc).

I've seen 40 year olds look 80, and my parents (nearly 80 themselves) look about 60.

Smoking, poor diet, hydration, sun, exercise, skin care, all factor in how a person is going to age. There is no set way.

People don't exactly choose how they age. One day you're gonna look like that when you're 63

What are you comparing this video to? Did she look significantly younger recently?

She’s already been, actually

Also when you get older

It’s a crescent moon currently

What else is needed when the perp is in cuffs?

I found this commercial kitchen near me which is rented out by this woman who makes traditional Chinese fair but with high quality ingredients. It’s much better than processed crap like Panda AND she gives you those ridiculous portions. I ordered crab Rangoon and some Szechuan chicken and it lasted me four meals

Still really confused on what that point is

because they are colluding with the government agencies that tell them what they can and can't report

Is this confirmed to be what’s going on here or is this presumption?

…then what’s the point in the whole “free speech” irony?

I understand that but that’s not what’s happening here. The government is clearly letting him speak on one of the world’s largest social media platforms.

Well you can insult me or you can actually have a real response.

Where am I wrong here?

I’m just not sure where the free speech violation is. Tv networks are not public forums, as we both know, so they are under no obligation to broadcast anything they don’t want to

we don't live in a time where someone goes to a physical town square, stands on a podium, grabs a paper megaphone, and freely shouts out his message to the ears of all within hearing distance.

But we live in a time where you can and you won't be persecuted for doing so. That's what free speech means.

Which is a free speech infringement 1) Restricting a person from speaking? 2) restricting a person from being heard? I say both.

Both, yes, but by the government.

What we know is that MSM outlets don't want to air this Tucker Carlson interview. What we do not know if it is because of pressures by the government, or it was a decision made by the executives at these networks to protect their own bottom line. We can't be certain if it is the government that is forcing these networks to not air the interview.

You can be suspicious of it, and it may be possible, but it isn't certain

Implications and direct interference are different things.

It’s one thing to say “this may have been happening” and it’s another thing to say that it is a direct infringement.

Fact is, Tucker has information he wants to share, MSM outlets wouldn’t show it, so he found a new outlet that would. That’s the literally definition of freedom of speech, being able to find a platform that can broadcast his channel without being persecuted for his words

So the way I see, there’s no real free speech infringement at play here

You’re just assuming everyone is too scared to talk to Putin?

Yeah I agree with that. Dunno what that has to do with what I said though.

Feel free to refute what I said. If you're just gonna resort to insults then I don't really know what else to say

…you didn’t know that tv networks weren’t open forums until now?

journalist are suppose to adhere to an ethical standard of their trade.

Sure. That doesn't mean they have to research/interview/promote any specific story. Whichever story they choose to write/talk about though should still be within the confines of ethical standards.

Tucker has the freedom to promote it, and he's doing so on one of the most popular social media channels in the world.