>rrn
I'm here, looks like we're talking about RRN.
Again.
Every board has content guidelines based on the focus.
Focus here is the info given to us by Q, also the inspiration he provides and has provided since the beginning:
WWG1WGA
Don't let them divide you
"We are the news"
RE "we are the news."
The news is what we put into notables.
It is not censorship to set standards for notables - such as decent sauce.
That is, something that can be corroborated by another source or multiple sources, a scientific study, etc.
There is no perfect form of corroboration, almost anything is better than RRN, which is why it does not belong in notables.
If notables are nothing more than stuff printed by rumor mills, might as well stop generating them.
>global
Just because something drops out of globals, doesn't mean it vanishes
most important or recent info is in this Global bun for bakers
there is more in Dough Resources
BO owns the board.
Site owner determines policy for the site, BO determines policy for the board (must also align with site policies).
Because this is Q Research, base policies are designed to align with things Q has said or hinted at. Vast majority of content is allowed, even slides and shitposts unless they become spammed or purposefully abusive.
Free speech is not license.
see
By your definition, any kind of content guideline would be censorship. This is the IDENTICAL argument being used by the DS right now to characterize parents who don't want oral sex manuals given to children as terrorists.
There are always guidelines except possibly in the world of anarchists. The question isn't whether they exist but what criteria is used to develop them.
RRN can be posted on this board. It's not prohibited. As far as notables goes, it's not ok unless corroborated. That is common sense, given its reputation. We do the same thing when getting BREAKING NEWS that's not corroborated - wait until a second or third source has the same story.
>RRN has about as much authentic verifiable news as the rest of the MSM.
not true
the problem with the msm is that they tend either to NOT cover events thay they should or to cover them with so much bias that we may want to say HIT PIECE when reporting
one reason to use MSM is it shows what the public at large is seeing - THAT ITSELF is news
another reason is that for less political topics, it's often accurate (careful diggers can figure out which reports are best)
a third reason is to show the claim they are making so anons can prove it false
MSM is corrupt but even so, often has material worth notabling, which is why anons seldom object to it being in notes
This objection is theoretical, not actual.
That is not so. You are shitposting only, how would you know?
As anon mentioned, anons also supported no RRN in notables.