>>560074

This should not be written in the passive voice. We're asking for change, not informing of problems. These should indeed be demands.

#1 wording can be compressed (space is limited) Hence the wording unalienable right (or natural/god-given right) which should protect the rights given by the constitution from being taken away by companies.

#2. Yes, there should be a penalty clause.

#3. I would say this is up for debate. The US would be forcing its will against other countries as they have done on to us.

This has been significantly diluted from this mornings revision. Perhaps shills have contributed.

"5. Providers of a Public Internet Forum or Service must allow users to opt out of personally identifiable information data collection."

>>560513

this

>>560294

>>560309

>>560074

This is a petition for change, not a bill, and not a plea for help.

We only have 800 letters to do it in. We need to be terse and accurate of the rights that are being violated and how they can be fixed.

To simply state this. The bill of rights is being violated by organizations of a scale which did not exist when the constitution and bill of rights was written.

There are also limits to what we should be asking for. Consider from the standpoint of what services are provided to us here. We can ban, but everyone knows it happened.

From reddit came the shadowban, which is now in widespread use. This should not be allowed.

Google censors our searches covertly. This should not be allowed.

Facebook paved the way for stealing our private information, this should not be allowed.

Remember that shills are actively working against us here. Disagreement will happen because the shills do not want this. Do not cave to a shill.

>>560743

>>560763

kek

>>560762

>>560759

we have 800 letters to work with