>>2997046

Remember, 70k 'users' actually means 70k accounts sub'd.

It does 'not' mean 70k concurrent connections - or even 7k

More likely, Voat (or here) will see an influx of ~250 to 1k concurrent users, a majority of them will be lurkers, not posters.

It's bad - don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to suggest it is not - but it's not catastrophic, to accept in users.

Besides, lets be honest, some won't bother to go anywhere but twatter or fb. Some will come here. some will head to /pol/ (poor cucks) and some will head over to voat/gab/etc.

>>2997346

you're clearly new here…

part of the acceptance of newfags is them learning how to navigate and post on their own.

We aren't particularly interested in open-arms/open-boarders bullshit… If we were, we wouldn't have came here ourselves, to begin with.

>>2997486

You're not paying attention and certainly not thinking clearly.

The entire Q movement (us, not Q+ team) is a directed, coordinated surgical attack against (((them))). Drawing the information brokers and gate keepers into doing exactly what they are now - banning/censoring/EDITORIALIZING their publishing 'platforms'

(they're now publishers, no longer platforms and as such, they are directly in the gun sights of every legal means of recourse that could be brought to bear against you or I)

(((They))) willingly walked up the ramp, knelt down, leaned forward and placed their own heads in the guillotine and are now grinning blithely as the blade falls.

Just give it time fren, we actually 'are' winning.

If you are ok with, or can come to terms with, the concept that we were all used as a diversion, distraction, and bait then you'll be just fine. But basically, yes, that's precisely what we are.

Bait to draw out the stupid information gatekeepers.

>>2997589

I … fail to see the problem

>>2997695

I smell a rick

>>2997756

I wonder.

Do these sanctions apply to interference from domestic sources as well?