TRUST KANSAS is about voter fraud law suit!
>>678386 look into the case. It will handle all of the commission's voter fraud investigations
I think Q is warning that devices will get locked out of social media sites. If that happens then we each sue our ISP for lack of full service while being charged full price. FCC laws would not permit Twitter to block devices paying At&T ( as an example) At & t would have to cut Twitter off as free access. Twitter would have to pay and it would be the death of them as a free social media.
bring on the rain means flood SM with conservative views and get yourself cut off. ISP could not sit by and charge you for internet access but only give you partial access. FCC laws would be violated so the war would be between all ISPs and SM not us as the little guy! The Federal Government could get involved if FCC laws were being violated by private comapnies
trust the voter fraud lawsuit happening in Kansas about POTUS' commission
>>678642 NO! We bring the rain! Rain down on SM and force them to ban us. After they ban us, we demand a refund from our ISP for lack of full service. They have to refund us in mass or be violating FCC laws. They won't be able to keep up or determine a refund amount so the Federal Government has to step into the dispute on behalf of the people
it's an NPR article so it won't look good. lol. The subject is far reaching about voter fraud as it relates to illegal aliens. It will be an important case to see the language . Win or lose. The language in the opinion is what is important
It would be fraud ifyour ISP charged you for full access to internet but only provided partial access. They would then be forced to itemize your use and charge you only for what you accessed. OLDFAGS like me will know what I'm talking about when I say it would be just like when long distance calls coast $.10 per minute and you were charged for local calls too. Every call had to be itemized on your bill. Imagine At&t listing every site you clicked on to calculate broad ban used. If SM sites are free to the general public but you are blocked/banned, you can't be charged for full access unless they want to charge you for ONLY the sites you go to. DOES THIS CONCEPT make sense to everyone? This is the key to our fight for IBOR or a shit load of federal lawsuits against ISPs. The FCC laws would not allow partial access to the net ( especially for sites that communicate emergencies) while charging full price. It is fraud on a massive /federal scale