Nice to see the accuser shill bailed after they got wrecked.

>>2248761

My advice would be to take that over to the ever censored Reddit and ask in a Russian language section, or an area likely to contain Russians or Russian speakers.

Be sure to get a variety of sources on translation. Russian to my knowledge is very colloquial, and you'll likely want to find a native Russian who speaks the lingo as they will likely be familiar with 'figures of speech' that a person who has only learned the language might not be.

>>2247036

If you're opposed to a depopulation agenda, then it very much is his job. GMOs have compromised a wide variety of food sources within the US, have been shown to sterilise insects and animals (and give tumours, as the covered up rat experiment in France shows).

It's been advocated by depopulation supporting people like Bill Gates, and used by Monsanto to enforce a 'royalty fee' patent system on genetics (the end goal being to have a patent on everybody's genes: slavery).

It's all kinds of evil. It's so evil, even China rejects GMOs, and they will feed their own people plastic fucking rice. The banning of GMO labelling (literally called the DARK act) was an attempt to prevent consumer choice (and thus true market freedom).

Instead it builds towards an anti-competitive monopoly that has caused many thousands of farmers in India to commit suicide because they're unable to repay the extortionate royalty fees when their crops fail (because GMOs do not survive better in a drought environment, so no surprise).

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/president-obama-signs-dark-act-law

https://www.anh-usa.org/updated-dark-act-will-block-states-from-banning-ge-crops/

https://www.ecowatch.com/house-passes-dark-act-banning-states-from-requiring-gmo-labels-on-food-1882075093.html

The so-called 'label' you're referring to isn't a label at all - but a QR-code that isn't human readable and requires a working smartphone, and is purposefully inconvenient to utilise on each individual product (it's similar to just say if it contains GMOs or not).

It needs to be clear, open, available to all - especially those who cannot afford technology or refuse to use it because of it's surveillance state apparatus.

In any war, the first thing you secure is the food supply. An army cannot march on an empty stomach. And with EU imports dropping (EU has sporadic bans on GMOs, and besides Russia, is one of the few places left where GMOs are not openly successful) you will need to secure your own home base.

As a reminder, Monsanto invented Agent Orange. It's a pesticide through and through. What do you think they use on so-called 'roundup' ready plants? What were they modified to secrete? What does Agent Orange cause?

Q said:

>There is no greater [current] threat to the American people than the FAKE NEWS MEDIA.

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/2264408.html#2265105

Then let us wage war on them, however, strategically, this is a difficult task. As the owner of optics, the media own the ability to distort any narrative into their own favour, and any counter-attack will not be openly broadcast by them.

I've already advised anons on their part to play against the media, however strategically speaking they don't have sufficient resources for a direct attack, so at the moment, indirect warfare for them will have to suffice.

However, in your case Q, I'm anticipating you're substantially better equipped, so I'm going to lay it out. The biggest issue I've yet to solve is how you disseminate information widely to people without a media outlet, and Fox news are clearly showing signs of swaying into the liberal big boys club.

Strategically, the fake news media has a number of crucial weaknesses:

1) They require they have a constant positive reputation with the public, an element of trust. Any massive exposure of wrongdoing, fraud, misleading the public etc diminishes that trust, and in the same move, they lose power.

2) They require all media outlets to join a 'gentleman's club' where they implicitly agree not to actively expose, subvert, investigate or dig up dirt on each other. This is why scandals are only ever reported passively, and never due to some insider sent from one organisation to another. If a media outlet was to break rank and start exposing the others, indeed, if several could, this would shatter the tense agreement.

3) When writing garbage narrative pieces, they have to make large assumptions about their audience (EG how smart they are), and creatively write (read: lie) in such a way they are not vulnerable to defamation (which is why the biggest amount of garbage comes from 'opinion pieces' as opinion is protected from defamation laws), and more specifically, creatively write (read: lie) in a way that cannot be undone by a good piece of reasoning.

4) They lack true investigative power, and are more akin to 'armchair journalists'. Most will write cushy op-eds without having even left their office. No wonder robots will take over their jobs. A classic journalist is old school: they go out into the field and investigate.

5) Due to the lack of investigative power, they also lack facts, and easily fall for hoaxes as 4chan demonstrates. Because they often leap to conclusions, especially ones favourable to their bias, they are often very reluctant to admit error or backtrack once they commit an error in reporting, until the prospect of legal risk enters the fray, at which point, the tinest, most downplayed retraction statements get rolled out.

6) Viewer numbers are their lifeblood, especially in the realm of advertising. Although propped up by billionaires, billionaires want return-on-investment, so the more eyeballs someone has, the more they will invest - including independents. For example, the Game Theorist Matpat has clearly sold out to Bill Gates and hocks support for (sterilising) vaccination programs - why does Bill need to advocate something for third world countries in a first world country? Optics: 'look at what (pretend) good I'm doing'.

7) Anchors, reporters and journalists all have human vices. The higher up, the worst the vice - because they have to sell out and lie to the publicly daily.

8) To avoid legal backlash to the company, most people resign, even though it's clearly systemic to the culture of the company. This needs to be stopped, resignation should not equal prosecution immunity for the company, as it's basically scapegoating.

9) They cannot handle any open debate involving facts or well-equipped opposition. They're so bad at it, that even after they switched to debating kids, the kids still whopped their asses in open debate. That's why the column hitpieces are always one sided, coming from one person.

10) They are attempting to infiltrate online outlets and oppose social media to stifle open debate - the one format they hate. Censoring their opposition means the media groups have an unfair field advantage, being used to censoring and manipulating everything they say. As such, they're weak to genuinely open and free social media.

(…Cont)

11) The media outlets, lacking investigative power, can never give any specific examples of flaws, and often circularly reference each other in shallow 'but they said it' type popularity attacks (AKA false consensus).

So, how do we attack back against such a dishonest foe? There's a number of ways to a better resourced individuals:

1) Make it so companies must make a rock or hard choice commital, by either being, section 230 immune to defamation and unable to censor or moderate content, or, if applying censorship/moderation, liable for speech hosted on their site (by committing to moderation, they are admitting they can control what is found on their site).

2) Encircle greater protections for freedom of speech on the internet, for example, allowing people to be able to appeal censored content, up to a legal level, if necessary. This will give people being censored teeth to fight back with.

3) Require full explanation of basis of censorship, including any proposed rules. For example, it's really easy to justify why child porn is banned - it's immoral and illegal. But how would a company explain censoring just conservatives as a rule? That means no vague or wide or broadstroke rules that give an 'opt out' for everything and requires transparency, again, with legal teeth.

4) Require retractions be far more prominently displayed, including a dedicated page tracking all know retractions publicly. The visibility of the retraction should match or exceed that of the visibility of the article that was wrong. So for example, if the New York Times published a newspaper with a false accusation on the front-page that 'XYZ IS ALT-RIGHT', then if that claim was retracted, it would require another front-page article of the same size to run on the front on an equally as busy day 'XYZ IS NOT ALT-RIGHT' etc.

There should be a clearly displayed link to the retractions page for websites. This is essentially forcing media outlets to shame themselves when they commit factual errors - and the number across articles will allow people to gauge for themselves. The retractions listed should cover all retractions historically, and not merely the current set.

5) Finance and invest in a censorship resistant technology company that favours privacy (and utilises legal immunity by working from offshore countries). This will be useful as a means for disseminating to countries that engage in heavy censorship (EG China).

6) Require right-of-reply, as previously discussed. Right-of-reply should be featured next to the article and not buried in an 'editorial page' or 'letters page'.

7) Require media outlets, on non-opinion pieces, to demonstrate which adversial information sources (EG people who disagree with their position) that they consulted. They also cannot misrepresent the contrary opinion (EG by cherry quoting or taking out of context).

8) Require that if companies ban or shadowban a person, that they delete all information that they hold on that person (because by definition they are revoking their service contract and therefore no longer have the consent of the user to hold their information, whether the user is aware of the ban or not). Limiting access or otherwise restricting access (or any other 'workarounds' for the technical definition of a ban) for speech written is considered a type of ban. Again, legal teeth required.

9) Infiltrate and expose corruption, falsified reporting within media outlets. Finance advertising campaigns that bring this false reporting to light.

10) Expose the outlets every time they fall for a hoax or don't factcheck their sources (do to them what they try and fail to do to us). When claiming something is false or untrue, they have to factually back up the claim or supply the analysis and not simply 'gloss over' by calling it whatever is the popular media slurword of the week (this week it's 'conspiracy', because conspiracies aren't real in the naive, babyish minds of the media groups owned largely by a limited selection of corporations).

11) Apply Poe's law. Liberal absurdism has reached such a level ('lily pads are feminist') that I honestly would not be able to distinguish a troll pretending to be a liberal, and a liberal. And I don't think the media outlets can distinguish either.

12) Require reporting of paid for or advised pieces (whether on a centralised page, or on the articles themselves). For example, CNN and the Humanist association takes advice from Media Matters, but you won't see that publicly declared anywhere.

In a nutshell: Require transparency, honesty, and hold them to the same standards they declare other people aren't at.

Q said:

"How do you hide a message in clear sight?"

I'm guessing what he's hinting at is the photos he's uploaded - with the large amounts of black area on them - contain hidden sternograph'd messages.

And I do believe those random alphanumeric codes he occassionally writes are possibly the key for decrypting such messages.

The real question is, which key for which image?

Unfortunately, because PixelKnot uses the ever damnable Android (or heck, any smartphone), this is actually something, for once, I'm powerless to investigate.

In theory PixelKnot could be reverse engineered to work on any computer given it relies on Java and is open-source, but I am in no mood to take on any more programming work.

>>2296461

From a legal standpoint, it's extremely hard to pin 'insider trading' on anyone, not most notably because investors tend to be legally well resourced enough with lawyers slimy enough to argue insane technicalities that would make even the IRS' head spin.

Fundamentally, it relies on the tenet of 'public knowledge'. What is 'public', or for that matter, 'knowledge'? It might sound like first year philosophy class, but this is a serious consideration in a courtroom.

For example, if I had stocks in FB right now, and I sold it, that's on the basis of what is published in media. Obviously public.

Now, what happens if I was to roll back a few months, and sell off on the basis of Q's writings? Yes, it's accessible to the public, but is it publicly known?

For example, lets say I created an impossible-to-guess URL on a website that told you what I planned to do with a company. The URL is accessible publicly. Anyone in the public could in theory stumble across it, but it wouldn't be 'public knowledge'.

With such a flimsy definition, you can see how hard it is to prosecute on an ambiguity.

Maybe you could get Mark Zuckerberg, because he sold off long before any committee, and did not announce any specific reasons for the sell-off, and it's well documented he's done the sale far in advance.

For everyone else, that's going to be difficult to prove.

For people who rely on FB as an investment, when it collapses, their organisations will go down in flames. I do believe Media Matters have their homebase there, so by screaming about Cambridge Analytica they have literally shit in their own backyard.

Most people will migrate to alternative social media outlets. I strongly suspect ones that better enable privacy.

>would it be considered insider trading to get stock options in the form of a Put to make $$ when the stock crashes?

Given it's obvious FB are imploding, I don't see any private information, and thus wouldn't call it insider trading. So long as you can justify your decision using open source means, you're fine.

If Mark Zuckerberg leaves, you can anticipate a rebound, however.

>Moral implications?

Of what? Profiteering from the demise of an evil company? In a lot of people's books that would make you a damn hero. If you don't mind being labelled a vulture capitalist, of course.

Of course, if you have any direct ties or influence to it's downfall, then there's an obvious conflict of interest, and you could be labelled as the guy who destroys businesses for profit.

To be fair, that would still make you some sort of hero in my book if you targeted the bastard organisations who make people's lives hell.

>Op implications?

Op? Not sure what you mean by that word.

If you want to really profit in a sound manner, I'd say invest in an up-and-coming social media startup that is likely to take the lion's share of FB's refugees (ideally one that protects their privacy, rights to free speech etc).