>>>1375288

(Previous Bread)

Interesting that the topic of making money on the movement is on Q's mind. I just got the attached tweet notification. See a parallel? I do.

But making money to justify the hours spent on spreading the movement I believe is not the same as the big corporations making WAY MORE than needed on meds.

The reason why I support some of the YouTubers/writers/etc that may be making money is because many are doing it to spread the word, so what if they make a couple bucks while doing it to help pay the bills? How is my having to watch 5 seconds of an ad so bad?

On the other hand, the underlying agenda that these corporations have is why they charge more. They have to pay for lobbyists for agendas that do not usually align with what is best for the American people. They pay to keep some of these conditions occurring, so in turn, they can make more money. Their underlying agenda in many cases is evil, or at the least not in our best interests.

If it was done honestly, they would charge much less. But I am ok with someone profiting from the drugs, just needs to be in proportion to the service and with no hidden agendas.

Take Corsi for instance, it is believed that he has a hidden agenda. That is what I am talking about as being bad, not necessarily the monetary part of it.

But if he was being non-subjective and just helping spread the message, I could give two shits if he is making money. He would be providing a service- helping people stay caught up on Q with summaries. He is also providing a service to the Anons putting in the work to display their findings here by getting their work out to be seen by even more people.

Unfortunately, it appears that Corsi is not doing that. I wouldn't fully know, never followed him.

>>1376056

That is where you are wrong.

I am not making money from the Q movement. I am just making statements from my observations.

If you start to equate making money with making someone bad, then you start to side with political systems such as socialism. Instead, look at the underlying purpose or agenda to determine whether someone is bad. Capitalism is not evil.

>>1376258

I am not siding with JC, never followed him.

I am just saying that making money is not what makes someone bad, even if the information is and should be free. Putting the information in a format that people can better digest it is providing a service.

My statements are unrelated to JC, who supposedly has an underlying and misleading agenda. That is what is wrong, not the profiting part.

If one is open and saying information in this book is free, does that make the author bad for selling the book for $20? By putting the information together in one source, that in itself is a service that may be worth $20 to some that do not have the time to go find that free information.

What about someone like Drudge? Making money by being a news aggregator. Should that be frowned upon?

I am just saying people are equating making money with being bad. It is not the making money part that is bad. It is the agenda. JC's agenda seems to have been misleading and not good for the movement. The money part doesn't even need to be in the equation.

>>1376400

You may not be, but I have been getting that complaint from too many over the last couple breads.

>>1376467

Not denying your very valid points anon. It is a service that many are providing here for free. It is a very admirable thing.

All I am saying is that for some, $$$ is a motivation. If it is for the greater good, I have no issue. What motivates you may not motivate others. It doesn't make someone bad if they want some extra bucks in the bank. Maybe the underlying reason to want those extra bucks is to better provide for their family, which is an honorable thing.

If the $$$ making apparatus prevents the info from getting out (pay walls, hidden agendas, misleading, etc), then I have issue.