>>584016

But what does the hash mean?

What is the campaign for?

We do need amendments to the Constitution to reflect the experiences we have with the internet. We need to both secure the freedom of the internet and the right of people to be protected from fraud. Something needs to be done to ensure that people are not misled in the future by cabals looking to censor their understanding of the world - but to also ensure the government has limited ability to censor private entities, as well.

Having the chans wrangled into some weird government requirement that can be used to shut them down, for example, to keep people on Twitter and other compromised services.

I am not entirely sure how to do this - which is why an amendment process and drafts thereof should be initiated. The campaign should be to raise awareness of the fact that we do need to have a sort of internet bill of rights and that a process to create these amendments needs to be started. We need to draw in the creative and the analytical minds to the task of creating something truly in our interest as citizens who love the internet as a tool and medium of information exchange and discourse.

We need to try and organize this initiative.

>>584413

It helps to have a coherent idea of what it is we are supporting.

People like myself will start shooting people and things if the AT&T thing goes through. People are better off without the internet than to have Twitter declared a utility.

On the flip side, I completely support an amendment process to draft legislation that actually serves the purpose of an open internet. Where private companies can be private, but also can't lie to their customers about what they are doing in regards to filtering.

As Q said, the MSM is dead. The internet largely killed them. Their era is over. But people now spread news on social media and it is filtered. This is a massive security and sovereignty concern as it means private companies can now act in much the same way as kings with regard to censoring speech and imprisoning people for saying controversial things.

The power of the government is dangerous and, itself, need be carefully applied. Which is why we must be very clear about what it is we are trying to accomplish with this hash.

The shills are out in full force, it seems.

I'll simply speak and hope Beanz runs across it. See my prior posts. As Q said, we forgot how to fight. We forgot how to do what our founders did and self-govern.

I do not take Q's message as an attack against you, but a strike at the fools on this board who do not think logically. He asked why we would oppose AT&T's "internet bill of rights." And people like myself answered.

What Q is proposing is not what AT&T is advancing. We need to learn from our experiences with the Internet and apply it to the Constitution. Either to amend existing amendments, or to grant new provisions where necessary.

I can agree to and support that, fully. That process needs to be started as the Internet begins to transcend even national boundaries and identities. It is our duty as Patriots to establish a framework to secure freedom in the new age, as well.