>So is alex jones, and the onion, but no one freaks out when they go into the notables.
That's because they're already generally recognized as parody/entertainment.
The same 'growing pains' occurred years ago with AJ, until Q confirmed AJ's business is a mossad front (Free Speech Systems, LLC)
RRN is being posted as truth, which is totally different.
>No one has given a solid discredited to this
It's really not the burden of proof on anyone to 'disprove' anything. The burden of proof is on the claim RRN is legit truth.
>>If anons want to archive a fake news site, sure, it's their hard drives
>Who are you to decide what is true. Are you Q??
I just said if anons want to archive they should be free to do so. I was supportive of your recommendation.
>Again, what harm does it bring? And is the response of those against equal to the harm adding a parody news site to the notables would cause?
If there is no harm in posting pro-X, there should be no harm in posting disagreements with or questioning of X.
The question I have is: Out of zillions of sites and sources that are criticized, dismissed, attacked, ridiculed or mocked, why does the criticism of RRN attract such 'attention'?
Seems like bashing everything BUT RRN is okay and no reason to freak out, but criticize RRN? Oh lordy look what happens!
That's NOT a coincidence is it?