>>544933

Q:

REMEMBER, WE ARE WINNING, DO NOT TRUST WHAT YOU READ.

Read the MAP.

Ok…so…I think there's a hidden meaning here that is very powerful. Q tells us not to trust what we read. He also tells us to learn to read the MAP.

"Read" here has multiple meanings. One can be when you see symbols and read it. Another is when you perform the action of reading in person - you recite it.

I think Q is telling us to learn to talk to others in person and communicate this information. This is MUCH more believable by the receiver and is immune to control over digital communications technology.

I think Q is telling us to (once again) learn to communicate to others in person - like humans.

>>549163

>>549116

Yes, my point (with a lifetime of experience in the tech industry and digital communication) is that 1-on-1 human interaction trumps ANY other form of communication, PERIOD.

Talk to people. In person. Become their friiend, IN PERSON. Tell them what you know. There is no external defense against a belief built on word-of-mouth communication.

>>549211

DO BOTH. The personal interactions are REALLY, REALLY POWERFUL.

>>549287

The reason is because access to the internet is currently structured under corporate law. This puts the access "inside" of a voluntary agreement between the corporation and the customer. This is intentional by the cabal.

In order (under current law) to have free speech apply, the access would have to be made open for all without such an agreement. This could be easily done through legislation, but has not.

>>549627

>>549629

In each context, these are both correct. Therein lies the problem. Those who control the state also enjoy the protection of being treated as individuals under the state. So they monopolize access and then claim that they have rights that the state cannot morally have.

Access to communications needs to be made open either through nationalization/utility law or through forced restrictions when anything offers a service that is accessible by more than a given population density.

>>549688

Yeah. Any entity that has more than a certain small amount of relative power over public communication should be (a) nationalized, (b) made into a utility or (c) severely restricted such that they cannot interfere with the free exchange of ideas.

On the censorship issue, wouldn't it be enough to amend the Constitution such that no entity may interfere with anyone's ability to communicate based on an idea? This would be similar to the discrimination clauses which restrict anyone from interfering with anyone based on age, sex, religion, etc. Just include ideas. Does this work?

>>549744

They cannot.

>>549769

There's a mountain of law. If you have the money, you can exploit loopholes forever and drill your opponent out of money before they can succeed.

>>549772

>>549786