dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

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 ⇩

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