>>9078961 lb
>vote on name of "our" news site
>24 hours would be sufficient….only need to get bakers to co-operate and leave it in the global notables for 24 hours as well.
Then it is NOT "ours" it is only the vote of a small amount of people who happen to be here in one 24 hour period and see that open question.
>Consensus is not needed among anons, only actions.
Then there is no point in voting. The site would belong to that person alone and does not and cannot represent all anons, eg, it is not "our news site."
That's the point.
It may a fantastic idea for many people to start many new sites that accept content from others.
It may also be a fantastic idea for anons to produce content and submit it to those and other established, high volume sites.
They are not mutually exclusive.
My only objection is someone starting a site and claiming it represents anons and/or Q and describing it as "our" news site; it will not be mine, it is not "ours."
Does that make sense?
Not everyone who disagrees is a shill.
I am not discouraging anyone from starting a new (or many) new sites. I think many sites is really a good idea. Everyone is free to do as they wish and what they think is best. I am free to share my thoughts here on it and so is everyone else, agree or disagree.
In the interest of clarity I'm not accusing anyone of starting a money-making venture. But you are correct - the site would belong to one person only who it represents, not all anons. That was my only point.
It reminds me of the times when one anon would suggest having a /qresearch/ twitter account. The idea was overwhelmingly rejected because anons disagree here all the time, sometimes vehemently, sometimes irrationally, but disagree we do. One account could not legitimately represent the views of all anons here.
>I agree but HE needs no consensus
But he asked for anons to vote on a title for "our" news site.
I have no problem and encourage anons and others to start their own sites! We need the diversity of viewpoints out there - that is what is sorely lacking with the Fake News.
My issue is with a site representing anons. I don't think it can be done - see the /qresearch/ twitter account above.
>There are places for you to use now. Some just don't see them.
That was my main point in the initial post last thread. If we have 'stronk friends' and [undisclosed] help, we should utilize that to the fullest. That, to me, means incorporating meme warfare and producing other content and submitting it to anon and established other sites. So not a limitation but an expansion.
Again, I wholeheartedly think it is a great idea for anons to make news sites, (and others not here, too) and utilize them to the fullest possible extent as force-multipliers.
>People are already perverting our ideas as they leave here.
This is true and I see no way to curtail or stop that. Comes with the territory.
>Would rather have an ANON actually do it
You put these two sentences together, which links them but you meant the opposite: anons submitting anons' work to fellow sites, so not exploiting the effort that goes on here.
Ideal.
>Seems like currently it is only PAYtriots
I've had multiple websites before and there are bills to pay, and considerations about that. Bandwidth is one - original qcodefag got kicked off github because it was a) an inappropriate use of the site (not intentional no his part), and b) it was using a lot of bandwidth. The scraper/aggregator sites use a lot of bandwidth because they are popular (and that's GOOD!). The owners of those sites have to pay more for hosting for that. Sometimes it becomes more than the person can comfortably pay on their own so they must resort to other means - ads, or products or paywall. I DO understand that for covering expenses. Once it goes into profit, that's different, but how do anons or the public know? But the famewhoring, gathering a following is more bothersome to me personally, which I do not believe is or will be at issue here. The owners of the scraper/aggregator sites are still anonymous. I respect that a lot.
I am not accusing anyone of chicanery or bad motives here, at all, now or those who want to make their own sites later.
>WE can do more. Together We Win.
Yes.
Yes, that's why I said that. I am not ascribing that to anyone here. I have no doubt that those expressing the desire to start sites have good intentions. I'm not being sarcastic.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
>I am not accusing anyone of chicanery or bad motives here, at all, now or those who want to make their own sites later.
When we put our minds to it and work together we kick ass. I think many sites is a very good idea - force multiplier / amplification effect.
>POTUS trash talking Sessions = nothing but 5D chess.
I agree. Kayfabe FTW.
I had never seen those before and was confused by the fast speed. I thought it was a malfunction at first.
I'm glad you are still here.
So another anon suggested a Daily Brief. I think that's a good idea. It may be the anon who is making graphics in the square format, I can't remember right now and every time I went to respond, Q posted (no offense boss) and I had ta do my dooty.
I think it's a good idea - a few topics, short articles (if one really looks at 'news' articles they are actually many time's pretty short) and submit them to various places or even places where you can submit your own content.
< it occurred to me how hilarious it would be if anons submitted content to CNN's citizens journalist section…
HEY there! Are you the one who posted a list of topics for today and tomorrow? I saw one last night. IIRC it wasn't in the square format like your graphic, just an image of a list, plan text…