The petition on 5/26 has only 5868 signatures. Two days ago it had 5495 signatures. That's a gain of 183 signatures per day. The petition is well on the way to failure just as the 2 that we've attempted before this one have failed. This is not due to a lack of enthusiasm or support. This movement has been hijacked and it is being sabotaged.

I think you know must know as well as I do that we have way more than enough support to get 100K signatures on that petition in a month, and yet twice before now we haven't even come close.

This is not due to a lack of success in collecting signatures. I believe the petition is being deliberately derailed by fake MAGA supporters each time we put it up. I also believe that there's someone who actually has the ability to in some way electronically hijack the WH petition process. Let me share the observations I've made that lead me to these conclusions.

We successfully gained almost 400,000 signatures on our petition to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization earlier this year.

Our support base has grown, not shrunk.

The left has over 1 million signatures on a petition to force POTUS to disclose his tax returns. I saw that petition close at nearly 200K signatures earlier this year. How did it get to 1 million signatures now?

The first IBOR petition finished with less than 6000 signatures in March of this year. I noticed that someone was running a 2nd petition with different language from the one put out by the QAnons that had been put up 2 or 3 days later. They both failed with less than 6000 signatures.

When the QAnon petition failed I immediately copied the exact same text and republished it the same day it failed determined to personally shepherd it through the process but with close monitoring.

My followers started contacting me to say that they were confused about a 2nd petition being circulated (again). I saw the 2nd petition, which had changed the language to advocate rights for conservatives only. I didn't want to bog the movement down in a fight over petitions so I signed the second one and advised my followers to sign both.

One of the people circulating the second petition retweeted the QAnon version that I was circulating with a message to say that I was circulating the wrong petition, that it should be disregarded and only the one he was circulating should be signed.

I contacted him and asked that he retract his misleading message. That I was recirculating the original petition, that his was the new one and that I was asking followers to sign both to avoid confusion and he could do the same if he wished. He did not stop obstructing.

The people pushing the alt petition never had as many as 300 followers but on the 3rd day the petition they were circulating had 13,000 signatures. I have more than 12K followers but the one I was circulating didn't have 200 signatures on the 3rd day. If they were on the up and up, why would they be discouraging anyone from signing both petitions?

The original version finished with a little over 500 signatures in 30 days. Something was obstructing the signature captures on the WH site.

Q made a new post referencing IBOR on 5/15 and I was preparing to again republish the original petition but I checked first and lo and behold, somebody had immediately put up an IBOR petition again using different language from that which was used in the original QAnon petition published on 2/3. This language is really bad, worse than the first modification in that it asks for 'rights' that are not in fact rights.

We do not have a 'right' to all the best technology available. We have a right to access the internet without invasion of privacy, freedom of speech or censorship.

We do not have a right to a special counsel. What purpose would a special counsel even serve sitting on taxpayers dime every day watching the internet to prosecute who?

Report to congress on what? Having a special counsel could in fact further compromise internet rights. Placing so much power in 'a person' politically appointed who could sit and do nothing while serving as an obstruction to anyone else doing anything because the special counsel is responsible would not further internet rights.

If we get enough signatures on it we would have accomplished nothing as the demands it makes could not be granted even through legislation.

The original language used for the petition published on 2/3 is perfect. I think we need to go back to it and republish. We also need to figure out how the WH site is being compromised. I sent requests for answers using the WH petition site process to raise a concern and got no response.

Tell me how that's a 'right'?

We have a right to access an uncensored internet free of privacy invasion.

We do not have a legislative right to specify the quality of universally available technology. If you want better quality technology, better than what is offered for free universally, you have to pay for available technology upgrades. We are not advocating to topple the free market.

And I asked how is that a 'right' brainiac. You might also address how access to the most currently available technology has anything at all to do with internet freedom. Are you asserting that forcing use of the most currently available technology for the internet is somehow related to uncensored, privacy protected access to the internet?

The stupidity is overwhelming here. This is an Internet Bill of RIGHTS that we are talking about. If it's not considered to be a right, it should not be included in a Bill of 'RIGHTS'.

Is that your most intelligent argument on the subject at hand?

Well then. I don't need to expose you as a shill and a saboteur asswipe. You expose yourself.

I am a new anon in that I have been here less than 1 year silently watching, reading and learning. I fight daily for the cause and would never attack a fellow anon/patriot who is also fighting for the cause, even if I disagreed with an opinion or position taken. You obviously do not share that degree of character. Nigger? What fucking sewer hole did you crawl out of?

Here's the bottom line. This:

>#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic.

is bullshit. Dictating how current the internet software platform is in terms of quality and power has nothing to do with internet freedom.

Wants and desires have no place in a Bill of RIGHTs. Maybe you should be advocating for a snowflake bill of 'wants and desires' where what you think we should be stupid enough to advocate for would make more sense.

Advocating for an internet rights special counsel is a flagrantly obvious attempt to sabotage this movement. We have no RIGHT to a special counsel and don't need one. Having one could do far more harm to rights than good.

This is also bullshit:

>#4. We have the Right to NOT have our Internet throttled, prioritized, or restricted in any way.

We have no right to dictate how the internet platform is maintained as long as there are no differences made to selectively censor or restrict full available access.

Nobody was born stupid enough to come up with this shit by accident. It's by design. It's sabotage. There is NO actual internet freedom from censorship, the primary concern, in this fucked up bullshit excuse for a reiteration of the original IBOR petition which DID NOT NEED CHANGING.

Attack me all you want it just exposes you more for what you are – a saboteurfaggot.

I agree that we don't need to amend the constitution to pursue the enforcement of rights already guaranteed by our constitution, free and uncensored speech in the public arena (which the internet is despite the argument that privately owned 'applications' on a public platform are exempt), and; privacy.

I also agree that the fight for an IBOR governing the world wide web is a world fight and WWG1WGA. We are stronger fighting together.

Thank you for that clarification. I hated to think that Richard Duke's relatives were MAGA anons. I proudly accept the handle of newfag since I don't deny being one of those probably for some time to come. However, this newfag didn't come without pre-existing brain power.

You keep exposing your ignorance. You should get a handle on that. I said AFTER THE ORIGINAL QAnon PETITION EXPIRED I immediately republished it using the exact same text.

YOU on the other hand are obviously supporting whoever IS submitting duplicates (and did so 2 or 3 days after the original petition was published and again when I republished the original) each time changing the text to something Q would not have us advocating. Q read and blessed the first IBOR petition, NOT the bullshit substitution you're arguing for now saboteurfag.

Have a great day saboteurfag. I hope you've got air conditioning in your mother's basement. The temps have risen everywhere and we wouldn't want your brain to overheat and cause a stench now would we?

I was hoping POTUS would get rid of the patriot act immediately when he took office and admit to being disappointed when he didn't. I decided he'll get to it and I should be patient, but yes, that should definitely fall to the annals of past history under an IBOR.

It would be great to have a lawyerfag vet the IBOR language. We can do this. We need to get out from under the saboteurs, get it right and monitor our progress closely when we republish it again.

I have a real time actual signature count tracking strategy in mind.

I saw a report on Best Buy techs spying for the government months ago. I haven't seen the recent story. I'll check it out thanks.

I should mention though that I have considered the possibility that POTUS may temporarily need to use the presidential powers of the patriot act against those who enacted it for nefarious purposes.

STFU and go take a nap saboteurfag. I don't have and interest or patience to deal with any more of your ignorant bullshit. Stop trying to waste any more of my time. You've had all you're going to get.

Ditto. They think we're stupid.

You can tell I'm a newfag. I replied to the wrong anon.

Ditto, no 5G. They think we're stupid. Internet infrastructure doesn't have anything to do with internet freedom anyway. Including it in the IBOR would be a perfect way for (((them))) to get stupid anons to fight for their own murder.

>>1548138

Got it. Thanks anon

>>1548308

And where do you see that I argued differently? I didn't argue the need for an IBOR and we're not talking about a 'draft'. The document I posted to express concern about is published on the WH site. You didn't address the concerns I raised. You attacked me for raising them. There's no need for you and I to go back and forth on this. I stand by the concerns I raised. They are not reduced by this 'lawfag' who just happened to show up.

Let's agree to disagree and move on. I'm okay with you hating me.

>>1550208

We agree on most of the points that you make, especially as regards to the snowflake socialist demands some saboteurfag included in this current IBOR petition that's being circulated now.

I disagree with your take on the the right to privacy being limited to home or property locations. Congress recognized digital privacy rights on the internet with their passage of the Email Privacy Act (EPA) which expansively covers all digital communications and content.

The House amended the EPA last year to remove the 180 day limitation on the age of content protected so that digital privacy would be protected under the 4th amendment no matter how long it's been on the internet along with some additional updated provisions recognizing the current state of the internet and the WWW – https://www.multichannel.com/news/house-passes-e-mail-privacy-act-410716

The courts recognized the applicability of the 4th amendment to digital privacy at the state and local levels but there hasn't been a federal case to establish consitutionality. The EPA is intended to achieve that.

The amendment passed by the House is now hung up in the Senate. They last deliberated on it in July 2017 for the second time.

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/305042/the-email-privacy-act-makes-its-way-to-the-senate.html

Hopefully if we pass an IBOR it would serve as an impetus for the Senate to get off their ass on this.

Though our 1st amendment rights are protected under the constitution social media platforms are partisan-politically censoring this right.

The purpose of an IBOR as regards to both the 1st and 4th amendments is to enact legislation to enforce these protections not only from infringement by the government, but by the private sector as well.

The internet belongs to the world and is owned by no one. It was created by the American government but released to the world at large.

Private companies create applications that we use on the internet. They used to be satisfied with selling ad space on their platforms giving access to their users in that fashion. Now they

have gotten greedy and they sell our private information and personal content to the highest bidder. Our content is on the internet, which Google, Yahoo, FB, YouTube, etal don't own, though we format and access it through their applications. An IBOR would stipulate that they cannot usurp constitutional rights as a condition of using their platforms. We had no idea they were selling our information until they got caught. We never agreed to that.

An IBOR to enforce constitutionally protected 1st and 4th amendment rights from government AND corporate infringement is not far fetched.

>>1550208

>>1550208

>>1556605

Excellent arguments