When Q trolls 'em, they squirm.
For example telephone/email/text allies.
Make airline reservations.
Move money to different accounts.
Liquidate assets.
etc etc.
Producing further evidence of guilty knowledge.
The analogy is with a regulated utility.
Google, Facebook, Twitter defined success as becoming dominant and ubiquitous.
They succeeded.
Now their position is comparable to a telephone company, a water company, an electric company, a cable provider, a public thoroughfare.
Most anons probably do not remember the breakup of the Bell System telephone monopoly into regional operating companies.
It was a big deal that completely changed the competitive landscape.
It created competition where before there had been none.
The dominant monopoly position of the social media needs to be looked at from a First Amendment perspective by lawfags. Existing law may cover the situation but I'm not sure it does.
Eventually we need to get to the point where my right to free speech on the internet is treated as equivalent to my right to free speech in a public park or on a telephone or in a newspaper article that I write.
What we are doing in pushing for IBOR is probably not going to result in an immediate IBOR, but it may set the stage for future court cases that could ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. It is definitely creating a lot of evidence of censorship, evidence which might support new legislation (if needed) or litigation if that is the right path to take, or perhaps some kind of regulation or enforcement action by the FCC.