>>548200

I admit I am skeptical.

The problem is that the "bill of rights" is reactionary to a symptom of the problem. The problem is that we have a lawless cabal. Writing a law to stop them from mucking in the internet seems to miss the point. Facebook doesn't do what it does because it makes sound business sense. These are not businessmen running these establishments. They are social engineers who see the business as a tool toward an end - a consumable tool, even.

While I agree with the idea of consistency through the internet, with the idea of companies having open internet policies, etc… I just don't see how the government is to enforce these standards any better than it does anti-discriminatory cases. I also am wary of handing the government a cudgel to beat companies with. It is all well and good until you have the government fining you for banning porn spammers, or something justified on a tangent.

I don't feel the government needs to protect me from my own purchase and affiliate decisions. I can see what Facebook is doing and seek an alternative. I don't need to get the government to go claim the rights to another man(s)' company and tell him how to do business.

The only real issue I see is one of security and due process/sovereignty. How can a nation be secure when its population is being deluded by a virtual monopoly on information? How can there be any due process or a truly sovereign state?

Here, again, the IBoR doesn't really fix the problem once a cabal is allowed to form. The only real defense against this is a vigilant state of mind for those keeping watch.

I like the idea - I certainly think every company should conduct itself according to those principles, but it seems to me like the free market can solve the problem by providing the alternates people are already demanding. Why keep Google in business as a shackled beast when they can be tossed into the lake of fire and replaced with people and businesses who genuinely believe such values?

It seems like the same plan as "net neutrality" repackaged to sound more appealing fo the conservatives. Both ends against the middle.

>>550216

There is the possibility that this is an operational mid-step. Because the cabal has become so entrenched and has so many people completely under its spell, the only practical solution short of blasting their servers or the fiber relays of the internet is to implement a bill of rights as a tool for legal prosecution.

I could be looking idealistically at a problem that is in operational flux and missing the tree I am about to walk into for the forest.

The other possibility is that Q is pointing these out for other reasons. If I were to borrow Q's mindset, for a minute, this could also be a statement. Q mentions an internet bill of rights and some people pile on… But compared to our other hashtag campaigns and others, the response has been incredibly weak.

That is a statement to the cabal watching and shilling the boards in and of itself.

"I, their 'idol' can point at a wrong path with no further context and they do not blindly follow. I can disappear for a week and they still persist. This is not something you can stop any longer."

We often take Q's statements in the context of second person instructions - but I think it is more proper to consider them in the purely third person. Always speaking to an audience the actors aren't supposed to see.