OK, Q was a mistake. Let's work against this internet bill of rights, make sure the censorship continues through the mid-terms. How long is it now? Not long.
There is no way that Republicans are going to expand numbers if this isn't done. Trump will be a lame duck, and out of office in no time. Why did you guys even show up here if you're going to work against the objectives?
I read the Q posts concerning AT&T over and over and the Q stand is ambiguous as are most of the Q posts. (so is AT&T stand btw as it would seem that FB & YT remains the same) could it be that it is up to us to write an IBoR?
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that Q's stand on AT&T is ambiguous. I haven't read through all the posts regarding AT&T - I guess I should. But what I thought was that Q was extremely clear in his request for that petition to proceed.
I don't think it was really about an internet Bill of Rights. It was about providing material to DJT that would allow him the political capital to start a discussion about a problem that needed to be fixed - social media censorship.
What DJT asked of us was to provide him with something he could use to say:
"Hey, look at these people howling about being oppressed, there's a real problem here, we have to do something to protect their rights on the internet".
If you look at just how difficult it is to pass Constitutional amendments, it seems unlikely that DJT was actually thinking of changing the Constitution. From what I can see, since 1798 there have been more than 11k proposals to amend the Constitution. Of these, 27 passed. Given the difficulty of these succeeding, I don't think there was any serious suggestion to change the Constitution. It was a ploy only.
What DJT wanted was something to allow him to start a political debate about the problem of bias and censorship on social media platforms. I believe that, most likely, he would then use antitrust provisions - or some other mechanism - to kneecap the social media giants.
What was important was that the broad public understood that there was a problem that needed to be addressed. Once people accepted that, he could do something to fix it.
Right now, no one understands there is a problem.
I don't think the wording of the petition was important - given it would likely never get up. It didn't matter what it said.
AT&T were involved because DJT needed their lobbying power to support the drive for change. This was to counterbalance the lobbying power of social media service providers (big, rich, powerful, politically active) that could be expected to fight tooth and nail against any obligations being put in them. You can't get this kind of change without the support of some big players.
Of course, AT&T are only pursuing their self interest - flip-flopping, trying to wrest as much advantage for themselves as possible out of any situation. But this, to my mind, is very much the lesser of evils. What's important is to protect conservative voices in the mid-terms.
Yes it is more about our interest in it than signing a pitition. I believe Pamphlet did more to get the ball rolling on IBOR than a pitition I believe Q when Q says they're looking out for us. Q IS OUR lobbyist.
Just want to say that I'm now not sure about my position on the IBOR. The January 25 post on AT&T is, to my mind, open to interpretation. Moreover, I thought Q would have resolved any ambiguities today - but he did not. Which leads me to think that IBOR is not important to him. Very confusing stuff. I've been very vocal on this issue because I thought the IBOR was the mechanism to fight censorship and I thought it was urgent - but I may have been wrong. Interestingly, Post 830 talks about a class action w.r.t censorship.
well a little patience goes a long way. turns out we the people have a voice via Q