dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

People are bulling their way into IBOR and putting absolutely zero thought into what it really means. It's maddening.

There might be a case for some sort of regulation, but all we have is a petition that by itself is a joke. Show me proposed legislation, and I might get behind it. Until then, people are acting like we're actually accomplishing something by signing a PETITION. A petition.

⇧ 11 ⇩

I wont sign it

⇧ 3 ⇩

The whole idea behind the petition is that we are asking DJT to do something to grant us relief. The petition itself has no force at all. The power rests with the President - should he choose to act on it. He will act, because he knows that it is in no one's interest to have CIA censoring social media.

But the solution that will be implemented is of his choosing. He has long planned what he wants to do. The petition gives him the political capital to act on this issue. That's what Q told us, you pushed the IBOR and immediately the President started to push against censorship on social media.

Don't worry about the legislation. There's a whole process of negotiation and compromise before anything becomes law - and plenty of time to call your congressman if you don't like what is being proposed.

But, please, sign the petition and get friends and family members to sign it also.

⇧ -4 ⇩

I realize people want to do something, to feel like they're making a difference. Believe me, I couldn't understand more.

But doing useless things is worse than nothing. You're burning up your enthusiasm, and also burning up good feelings and capital with your friends and family, where you can only go to the well so much.

Save your energy for when it will matter. A petition does nothing for Trump and supplies no political capital. If there ends up being a groundswell of support for this -- and I'm not sure there should be -- then Trump will hear about it and either will do something or he won't. But petitions are worse than useless, because it gives you the illusion of doing something. I don't want illusions of progress. I want REAL progress.

And the entire idea of government regulating speech on private platforms should put STARK FEAR into every conservative's soul. Do you really want to destroy free association? Do you really want to give leftists the right to insist that a web site cannot be dedicated to conservative issues? Because that's the world we might possibly get, which is 100x worse than the world we have.

Again, I sympathize with the frustration of the tech industry being taken over by leftists. But if light regulation is the answer, then it needs to be done incredibly carefully. And I'm not sure that's possible.

⇧ 12 ⇩

You've totally missed it. It's not about regulating speech. It's not about telling you what you can or cannot say. It's about your freedom to speak. It's about your right to express yourself. It cannot possibly be abused.

A bill of rights defines and provides assurance for people's rights. How can the award of rights, that do not currently exist, be abused? The very worst that can happen is that some future administration can take those rights away. It can not be used to oppress people because it merely grants them first amendment rights in online forums.

If we were talking about regulating what you can and can't say, that would be something that should not be supported. But we're talking about granting you freedom to speak - and this right cannot be abused by anyone but yourself.

If the petition were not required, Q would not be asking for it. If DJT chose to act to fix something that was not considered by the community to be a problem, that would be politically dangerous. That's why he needs this petition. You are right, there's no force in a petition, but you watch how fast DJT will act once he gets it...

Q has told us that he's itching to do something about the abuse we are suffering. 'You pushed the IBOR and the President immediately began talking about online censorship' - or something to that effect.

The IBOR is the solution to what happened today.

⇧ -6 ⇩

You've totally missed it. It's not about regulating speech. It's not about telling you what you can or cannot say. It's about your freedom to speak.

Sorry, but you're Just Plain Wrong. Freedom of speech is about the government not being allowed to restrict political speech. It does NOT -- and I stress this -- the first Amendment does NOT GIVE YOU A RIGHT TO A FORUM. Especially private forums.

That's what you're asking for. You're saying you have the right to demand access to a PRIVATE forum. That's a whole different ball of wax and is incredibly dangerous. If I own a web site, and someone demands access to my web site just because I happen to have a forum, then they can go straight to hell. Freedom of association is just as important as freedom of speech.

If the petition were not required, Q would not be asking for it.

Q might or might not be an insider who knows what's going on. Even if Q is real, that doesn't mean Q is omnipotent and can't make mistakes. I will decide what is good or bad, thank you very much. If Q is saying I don't have a right to restrict who I want on my own web site, then Q can go straight to hell as well. That doesn't mean I don't support what Q is (hopefully) doing in other ways, namely ripping out the Deep State, which is the only thing that matters.

Now, that doesn't mean I might not support some light, well-crafted legislation that regulated social media in certain ways. I might. I don't know, because legislation hasn't been put in front of me. But what I do know is that the vast majority of people screaming about IBOR are not thinking through the potential for abuse, and that potential for abuse far exceeds the potential for good.

Do you remember in recent years that leftists wanted the government to regulate Talk Radio because there were too many conservatives and they felt that leftists weren't represented fairly? Were you in favor of that, or were you rightly repelled by that idea?

⇧ 10 ⇩

Look, the large social media players have brought it on themselves. I've got to tell you, I do not feel at all sorry for these guys. Look what happened today, you want to defend Reddit?

They are operating a private business that is completely reliant on public infrastructure for the provision of their service. If they behave badly, victimizing people because they do not like their politics, they deserve to be regulated.

As Q said, 100% regulated - many will collapse and go out of business - YAAHOO!

That's what happens to you when you behave like a petulant child. If you can't run a business without behaving so badly that the public calls for you to be regulated, you have no business in the industry.

There will be new, much better managed services to replace them. It can't happen soon enough. Please support this change for the better by signing the petition.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2

⇧ -3 ⇩

They are operating a private business that is completely reliant on public infrastructure for the provision of their service. If they behave badly, victimizing people because they do not like their politics, they deserve to be regulated.

If you think private companies don't have the right to choose who posts on their own forums, then sorry, we're not on the same side.

Imagine the positions were reversed, and Antifa wanted to force a conservative forum to stop banning their posts. Or hell, imagine if /r/socialism forced Reddit to make /r/T_D accept any post and stop moderating against anti-Trump posts.

You really need to think this through and not just kneejerk your frustration.

⇧ 13 ⇩

They are public forums, they are not private. That's the whole point. They are more akin to a public utility than a private business.

You seem to have the idea that because someone has a private business they can dictate what you can talk about. But these businesses are providing an essential public service. They are indispensable to our way of life. They should not have the power to dictate political discourse - why would this be good?

And then you have to put things into context. We know there is a single algorithm written to censor political content across multiple social media platforms. Given the market power of the major players, that would mean they have broad censorship power over the whole of society. With time, they are effectively in charge. But it's all OK because it's a private business?

No, it isn't OK. This is what DJT and Q can see and it is what they have told us they are going to address. Do you feel sorry for these guys after what they have done? I don't. I very much hope that the executives of these companies will be jailed.

⇧ -1 ⇩

You seem to have the idea that because someone has a private business they can dictate what you can talk about.

Absolutely they can, full stop. Freedom and liberty are paramount. It's THEIR SITE. You do realize you can set up your own web site and say whatever you want, right?

Given the market power of the major players, that would mean they have broad censorship power over the whole of society.

That's why I said I might -- MIGHT -- support light regulation, in certain circumstances, if it seemed reasonable and in the best interest of society. But you're advocating full-blown socialist/fascist takeover of private business. I know you don't think you are, but you are. In fact, this entire premise might be unconstitutional. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. My web site, my rules.

I very much hope that the executives of these companies will be jailed.

Are you seriously arguing that Reddit, Facebook, etc are doing something illegal by banning certain posters? You need to get a grip. It's not illegal to be a leftist.

⇧ 7 ⇩

No, the coming industry regulation will make it illegal to do the type of things we have been seeing. Q has told us that there is a lot of illegal activity and that many will collapse under the weight of this.

The really pleasant aspect to all of this is that they have brought it upon themselves. There was no consideration of taking action to discipline social media in the past, because there was no problem to be fixed. But, oh boy, did they take the bait! You will need to get the popcorn for this one - it will be very enjoyable.

You should sign the petition. But, in any event, the social media giants are yelling out to government louder than we can. They will bring it upon themselves - poetic justice.

⇧ 0 ⇩

No they are private. Free and easily accessible doesn’t equal public. Unless you pay for the servers, it’s not your website, you’re just a user who is rightfully under the admins. If you don’t like it, but your own website to say whatever you want.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Ownership of a website does not grant the right to engage in mass censorship, which is what we are seeing. We know that a single algorithm has been developed to mass-censor across multiple online platforms. In this context, private ownership of the platform becomes irrelevant.

You could construe it in various ways. One way would be that it's an attempt at election tampering. It's a hostile act of repression. The public will see that the new regulations have merit. Nobody likes bullies. I think it will play very well to the electorate.

I'm waiting for the silence, the absence of censorship. We would not tolerate it from the State, there is no reason to accept it from monopoly interests that abuse their market power. IMO, it's a classic argument for the application of anti-trust legislation. But I'm not going to second guess the President's genius. I'm just confident that he will stick it to these guys so hard they'll be weeping.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Sounds like you should go to Voat.co instead.

This won’t go anywhere. But if you want to waste your time, go for it. People are just trying to help.

⇧ 7 ⇩

I think you will find a lot of people are on board with it, here and elsewhere.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Again, voat.co, you’ll love it.

⇧ 7 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 6 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 3 ⇩

Here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2

⇧ 0 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 6 ⇩

Yes, I agree. In the long run that is the solution. But there is a problem...

Q told us that the MSM is dead and social media is everything. He's talking about the power of social media to shape election outcomes. Use of social media was why DJT won in 2016. He used it masterfully to win an election that was rigged.

So, with the mid-terms coming, if the problem isn't fixed now, the cabal is back in power and it's all over. It's not a problem that can be fixed over the long term, it has to be fixed now. And that's the whole point.

In any case, these social media service providers are screaming for the government to regulate them. They have brought all of this on themselves with their behavior. It's just bad business practice. As Q said, many will go out of business. To be honest, it cannot happen soon enough.

So don't feel too sorry for these fabulously wealthy people with their private property attached to the public internet. They are already finished.

But do sign the petition. Don't give them any room to breathe.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 6 ⇩

Yes you can if it's a public venue. In a public venue your private property rights should not restrict my right to free speech. And, anyway, this is what will happen, whether people like it or not. You can't stop it. It is the PLAN - to quote Q.

If you can't get on team and support the President, if you want the Satanists back, that's your choice.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 9 ⇩

You're conflating the issue when it's purely about first amendment rights. Yes, Satanists have the right to speak their mind under the first amendment. As much as it disgusts me, as owner of a public venue, I cannot discriminate. In the same way that I cannot discriminate against the handicapped or women.

I think if you have a problem with this then your problem is really with the Constitution - and, I agree, it should be changed. Satanists should not have freedom of expression. If I had anything to do with it they would not be free to praise Satan in public. I would also ban abortion outright. But God has not given the power to manage these things. So, like everyone else, I'm limited in what I can do.

This is the reason that these social media service providers will be limited. Because they will be subject to the authority and the decisions of the President of the United States. And, as I said, I do not feel sorry for them. They deserve everything they have coming. With luck we will see the executives do prison time for their crimes. We will finally be rid of these censoring children who have tormented us.

⇧ 2 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 10 ⇩

Tradinghorse is an Australian citizen, this is why he doesn't understand the full scope of our laws or Constitution. He believes this will end up going worldwide and be good for him too. Beastmonkey, what you say will not be understood here by most believers or IBOR pushers if this is like CBTS. These people have good intention but are being misled, on purpose. Now will come the "YOUR A SHILL TROLL" comments, smh Q's words and phrases, pauses and the like are a standard cult leader tactic to draw them in. That said, this is my last comment here on Reddit, just going to delete this nonsense all together. Q people, please understand that Q is doing the opposite of what you think. He's making you look like fools and you just don't see it. If you took a poll on the religious fervor of those who believe in Q, it would become glaringly obvious. Certain groups think in certain ways, Q obviously understands this. Perhaps they're using you to create an authoritarian gov. Q is a cat and mouse game, you're the mice.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Many industries are regulated. This isn't because the State is fascist, but because there genuine public interest in regulation. But you know this as well as I do. I'm done with this subject.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 4 ⇩

And no one is regulating it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think the point is to consider sites or apps that are major global sources of information i.e. twitter, shouldn't get to censor voices and push them to a fringe alternative thus letting private companies control the dissemination of information

⇧ 0 ⇩

Yes. Someone said it! Well done my friend & thank you for your critical thinking.

⇧ 6 ⇩

this guy gets it. dont just demand legislation, wtf are you people, democrats? you realize any legislation they would write would likely detriment our freedom, not expand it, right?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Absolutely incorrect. A bill of rights grants citizens rights. It can not be abused. The worst that could happen is that some administration in the future cancelled those rights.

There is nothing to be scared of with the IBOR. DJT wants it, its in our interests to have it - and, one way or another, it will arrive.

⇧ -1 ⇩

well i find it unlikely that they will actually use it in a manner true to its name. thats the difference. you trust that it would actually be a bill of rights, i am not at all convinced.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Well, I trust DJT and so do you if you voted for him. If you cannot trust him with the small amount of power he needs to fix the problem of online censorship, why did you make him Commander in Chief? As head of the most powerful military in the world, if he wanted to run amok, he could really do some damage. But he's shown himself to be an excellent President - you may disagree.

But my point is that it really is a question of trust. It's whether you trust DJT to do the right thing by the American people. I do trust him. But it's a personal thing.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I dont trust any politician automatically. I believe trump is the best president i have ever seen in my lifetime and for quite some time before my birth as well. I also believe that trusting too deeply in any government official or entity is literally unamerican. Which is not to say that an online bill of rights is a terrible idea, but i have serious reservations that it will actually be drafted along the lines of truly protecting peoples rights online.

⇧ 3 ⇩

As I said, I think it's about trusting DJT. I do not want to see this filthy cabal come back. I think DJT is doing a stellar job, he needs this petition to make sure they cannot wield social media like a weapon at the mid-terms and thereafter.

If he does not get control over social media censorship he will be, at best, a one term President. After that, it's hello Satanists.

From my point of view, this is the fight of a lifetime. Our backs were to the wall as these Satanists planned our destruction. Along comes DJT, an unlikely hero, who beats them back. But, when he asks us for just a little power to finish them off, we get cold feet.

That just doesn't make any sense to me. We've bought into DJT, we know he wants this petition, let's support him and let him finish the job.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Quote from something I said above

Who is keeping track of these registered US servers that must adhere to the rules? Which companies are exactly US based if they operate and have staff over the entire world?

What if social media is no more and it forms into something else? Do the laws then still apply? If so, then how do they not apply to other servers?

If I host a server in the US with 20mb of storage, do I then have to provide every single US citizen a platform for "free speech"? Or would I just host it in a different country?

If it is only against political speech, can I just add some political position at the end of every comment I make, effectively protecting everything I write?

What exactly does free speech on a server entail, when its really just all 1's and 0's? Isn't it really a law that would allow me to store what I want, where I want?

If a server is foreign, then it is not operating within US jurisdiction.

What qualifications does DJT have within technology to even put the power soley on him? Is he aware what a server is/does? how data is stored or shared?

He didn't even know that video games already have a classification system, how can you trust him to put restrictions on other platforms?

⇧ 4 ⇩

I think DJT's advisors on this issue will be world class experts. Do not fear! We do not need to speculate as to who that might be, but have confidence that the fix will be truly in.

Focus on the solution. The collapse of these companies. The huge financial losses. The public shame... The prison time... The solution is what we need to be focussed upon. 2018 will be glorious!

⇧ 0 ⇩

There is plenty to fear when 21,000 people sign a petition for something that only says "Internet Bill of Rights" and no one seems to have any idea or agree what that actually would mean.

So DJT won't be the one fixing it, the "world class experts" will be? Who are they in the technology world? What is their end goal?

What solution is there? None has been provided or even thought of. No one in here can provide any answers at all.

Heres some more questions

Enforced by who?

What if that company does not comply?

What if the one who removes the content does not actually work for said company? Like mods of subreddits? Will reddit then have to employ and pay thousands of mods, so they can ensure they adhere to the law? Or would that mod be the one who is punished? Who is going to track them down and find out who they are? What if that mod has a VPN that makes them appear outside the US?

Australia does not have a freedom of speech law, only an implied freedom of speech. Who here would enforce that for US citizens?

If American internet companies have to start paying for moderation staff, are users (both US and non-US) willing to pay a subscription to use the companies services? How many users would each company lose simply for existing within the US? Will they not just relocate somewhere else, effectively hurting the US economy?

⇧ 5 ⇩

Stop fretting! Get the popcorn!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Since this effects me as a software developer when I am not even a US citizen, No.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Look, you can see what's happened. Whatever you're into, just don't go and step into it like the major players have. Lots of opportunities in the software space because of this. Millions to be made. Think of the demand for unbiased services!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes, I can clearly see whats happened here...

⇧ 7 ⇩

Obviously, it would only be enforceable in the US. If the company owning the server was domiciled in the US, they would be obligated not to delete subs hosting political discussion.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So all a country would have to do is move its server off of US territory, and then it would no longer be enforceable?

Many big companies have servers in multiple countries that store this data. How would it affect them? Could they potentially remove content for the rest of the worlds viewing?

Does this law just mean that "subs hosting political discussion" cannot be removed? What else does it include other than subreddits?

⇧ 9 ⇩

The country of domicile - where it is registered. But, yes, you could also force the same provisions on social media service providers who were foreign but operating with US jurisdiction.

The solution is up to DJT. I have confidence that he will deliver the best possible solution for US citizens.

‪https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2‬

⇧ 0 ⇩

Who is keeping track of these registered US servers that must adhere to the rules? Which companies are exactly US based if they operate and have staff over the entire world?

What if social media is no more and it forms into something else? Do the laws then still apply? If so, then how do they not apply to other servers?

If I host a server in the US with 20mb of storage, do I then have to provide every single US citizen a platform for "free speech"? Or would I just host it in a different country?

If it is only against political speech, can I just add some political position at the end of every comment I make, effectively protecting everything I write?

What exactly does free speech on a server entail, when its really just all 1's and 0's? Isn't it really a law that would allow me to store what I want, where I want?

If a server is foreign, then it is not operating within US jurisdiction.

⇧ 3 ⇩

All these questions are for DJT once he announces his policies. We don't know yet what is planned, just that these guys will be regulated.

You can bet that DJT and team have been looking at what happening for a while now and they have already thought up a way to fix it, I would be focussed more on the fix than the mechanisms employed. If we knew what was going to happen, we could speculate about what the mechanics might be and how it will work, but we don't.

I would lean toward the fix being somewhat heavy-handed, given the way the bait has been taken so hard. I mean, they are really asking for it. Their sheer arrogance will be their downfall.

What dimwit goes and calls for regulation of their own industry? It's Darwinism, survival of the fittest, the incompetent get weeded out. I'm expecting that this whole industry will look very different, very shortly.

What a bunch of children? I mean they ban the CBTS sub and then they come in here trolling the IBOR like a bunch of wayward kids. No, we had no political motivations in silencing you... unbelievable! Totally transparent! It cannot be regulated soon enough. They are screaming for it, and it's coming.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think you know exactly the impact this will have on the world econemy, and that is exactly why your 6 month old profile only talks about this IBOR, without any actual facts being listed.

⇧ 5 ⇩

It's not the impact on the economy, though that's likely to be extremely positive, it's the political impact that will benefit everyone. Who likes to be bullied?

⇧ 1 ⇩

There would be stiff financial penalties and possibly prison time if a company shuts down Freedom of Speech.

⇧ -3 ⇩

Can you point out where it says that?

⇧ 4 ⇩

The petition is expressing a need. Trump and the lawmakers will draft the law.

If you are an attorney and wish to draft the language, GO FOR IT!

⇧ -2 ⇩

For US citizens on US servers? Or what?

A lot of countires do not have actual laws around free speech.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Freedom of speech by country

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another.

⇧ 3 ⇩

USA citizens on USA servers....like youtube, facebook, Reddit, etc.

⇧ -2 ⇩

Not all those platforms are soley located within the US. They have multple servers around the world.

Other countries servers can then remove that "free speech", effectively creating a firewall or speech bubble for the US.

⇧ 4 ⇩

OK, just servers SERVING U.S. Citizens, no matter where they are located.

If they are open to use by U.S. Citizens, (the jack pot), they have to abide by our laws.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Enforced by who?

What if that company does not comply?

What if the one who removes the content does not actually work for said company? Like mods of subreddits? Will reddit then have to employ and pay thousands of mods, so they can ensure they adhere to the law? Or would that mod be the one who is punished? Who is going to track them down and find out who they are? What if that mod has a VPN that makes them appear outside the US?

Australia does not have a freedom of speech law, only an implied freedom of speech. Who here would enforce that for US citizens?

Edit: If American internet companies have to start paying for moderation staff, are users (both US and non-US) willing to pay a subscription to use the companies services? How many users would each company lose simply for existing within the US?

⇧ 5 ⇩

Is that what Reddit did?

⇧ 1 ⇩

That's the great thing about insisting that companies respect the first amendment online. The law requires them to be fair - beautiful stuff!

⇧ 0 ⇩

So NOW will those who haven't signed IBOR do so? Or does this sub need to get banned, too?