>>1432139

The thing is, that if Russian sources did take part in the campaign, that is still not really INTERFERING in the election. The things that REALLY INTERFERE in the election are the things that prevent the voters from getting information. After all, the voters make the decisions. They look at all the info, ignore some of it, think about some of it, think about what is good for America, for their community, for their family. And then they vote based on a full review of the info. A campaign blasting one-sided info is not necessarily going to change anyone's mind. If the info is fake, voters will figure that out. And if it is true info, it doesn't really matter whether the voter learns it from a source in Russia or from their neighbor. The facts are the facts.

But what REALLY INTERFERES with an election is when the voter is PREVENTED from receiving information. When Facebook, Twitter and Google censor the information that voters receive that is DIRECT AND CULPABLE INTERFERENCE and is against the Constitution. The right of free speech is not there just for the speakers, but also to protect the rights of the listeners to be fully informed. And what makes it worse is that Twitter, Facebook and Google are censoring information FOR PARTISAN REASONS. They are explicitly attempting to get the voters to vote for the Internet company candidates by preventing the voters from getting info that might make them vote for somebody else.

We should welcome Russian interference and Canadian interference and German interference, because these are just outsiders expressing their own opinions, which we are free to ignore. But we cannot accept that Internet communications companies should interfere in any way with the messages that their customers want them to deliver to us. This is fundamental and it comes from the COMMON CARRIER laws that said freight companies cannot look inside packages to decide whether or not they want to deliver them. Before the COMMON CARRIER principle came in a freight carrier could look in a package and if there were newspapers with a political view they did not like, they could refuse to accept the shipment. Back then subscribing to a newspaper or magazine was a hit and miss affair. We do not want to go back to those days.

>>1432140

Clown shills on this board are always urging us to BLAST OUT THE MESSAGE or similar language. This article should make it clear that this kind of behavior is counterproductive because FEWER PEOPLE will read your messages. But that is exactly what these clowns want. That, and easy to use signs that you are a conservative or a Q follower.

For instance the hashtag #IBOR is a sure sign that you are one of the Q groupies. No normal person would use that.

But Q said we should use #InternetBillOfRights which is something a normal person might use also. It is harder for them to block messages when they seem too normal.

So, the key is to write more variety of messages, to engage in conversations on other hashtags and to use fewer hashtags on your message. If you want to say something directly about Internet censorship, use the tag that Q suggested. But if you want to bring censorship into another conversation, reply to a message on another hashtag, and add the #InternetBillOfRights one. That is only 2 or three tags which gives the Twitter filters less material to use to identify you as a conservative.

And if you want to convert liberals, then you need to start talking like one of them and add censorship to the conversation. Because in the end, if Congress acts because we complain, or Congress acts because a liberal is concerned that Twitter might be filtering controversial discussions about protecting the environment, the legislation ends up the same. An Internet Bill Of Rights.

This is the game of politics. If you want to be right then leave now. But if you want to win, then learn how to play the game.

>>1432452

Are you saying that left eye ptosis is a sign of MKUltra mind shattering?