Anonymous ID: 86c908 March 5, 2018, 3:19 a.m. No.556229   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6234 >>6244 >>6247 >>6282 >>6287

>>555647

 

OK!! This is exactly the POINT. A bill of rights on the internet, much like the constitution (or one of many statutes or Brussels laws or Human Laws as it pertains to my place of residence) would allow Tracy to have and voice this opinion, and allow her articles and youtubes be transmitted and heard, as opposed to perhaps in the future the vested interests that we know are continually encroaching on our existences decide that this is counter to their narrative and make it subject to their new censorship algorithm, much like they have done, but to the point where alternative views are just is not available for those people who want to consider them.

 

A bill of rights is just that - it is not a set of guidelines that prescribe what cannot be done, what will be stopped or what will be tolerated. A bill of rights is exactly that - it is a humanity-centric set of fundamental privileges granted to the passive and formulative users of our global, shared communicative and thought space that we and no doubt our children and theirs will learn on and be present in and speak on and explore, it enshrines fundamental protections for our thoughts and our message and our curiosities. Our rights are our plough, our armour designed specifically to toss aside any inclinations of maliciousness or subversion that might be implemented by unaccountable and scheming entities and their conflicting, insideous attempts to subvert our access both as a consumer and as a producer to our global sandbox, our digital home.

 

We are already seeing it in the new censorship algorithm, and the recent scare regarding the chans being shut down for trafficking. One more step and it's not hard to see how Tracy and the chans could literally fall foul of the same algorithm if it were allowed to grow and cover the wider net.

 

A bill of rights is customer-centric and enshrines what we are able to do, not what we are not able to do.

 

Censorship, control and malicious interests will inevitably take these rights away - we are facing the very real threat as we speak. We need rights. We need a constitution for the land of the free, the land of the brave, the land of the pixies, the land of the tinterwebs.

Anonymous ID: 86c908 March 5, 2018, 3:51 a.m. No.556315   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6317 >>6646

>>556287

OK well could we look at what the 'Public Utility' categorisation means in terms of both the benefits AND the restrictions that are possible. For instance - could a correctly propositioned Bill of Rights be accommodated within the FCC's 'Public Utility' framework? The fact that they are classed as 'Public Utility' could be of benefit also; let's have a look?

Anonymous ID: 86c908 March 5, 2018, 3:59 a.m. No.556339   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6369

>>556318

I think the view is that everyone has a right to be able to meet their own basic resources.

 

There should be a gold-backed international dollar coming in soon anyway, right? Which means real money, not fiat, eliminating all majic in one foul swoop.

Anonymous ID: 86c908 Competent Shill March 5, 2018, 6:06 a.m. No.556723   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6734

>>556055 (previous bread)

 

OK who's this shill he's the one who was pretending to be rothschild the other day - on suicide weekend - when q's post alongside the suicide weekend post was as below:

 

Feb 10 2018 02:33:30

Q

!UW.yye1fxo

ID: f81874

320333

Top 10 player [here now].

50.22.218.5

Q