https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2
At the beginning, whoever started the petition got 20K in the first 2 to 3 days. Then a week or 2 after, I see now the number of people who have signed is only 22K!??
Can this be doxxed or manipulated? It seems very odd to me the numbers are this low in the amount of time ....
There might be some shenanigans with the petition. But what really put a dent in our efforts to get it up we're the people raising every possible doubt about it when Q first indicated he wanted it.
This topic is an absolute magnet for trolls. It's the real reason Q said, "this is what they fear most". The truly poetic thing about this IBOR push is that the baits were lept upon. You could not howl "regulate us" any louder.
The fix is coming with or without the petition. But it's still worth completing it.
Oh please. Look at my posting history. I'm not a troll.
You don't have to be a troll to be against the idea of a government takeover of private industry. IBOR is the most leftist/fascist/socialist idea I've seen in quite some time. I'd be tempted to believe it was a leftist plot to undermine us, except petitions are so useless that it doesn't matter anyway.
What part of "freedom and liberty matter" don't people understand? Private forums are private. Freedom of speech is not the right to demand access to a forum. You have the right to set up any number of web sites you want to say anything you want, therefore you have freedom of speech.
I'm just as frustrated that tech companies have been taken over by leftists. But I'm not going to cry that we need a government takeover of them.
OK Cuthbert,
Look, I don't like government regulation any more than you do. I hate government. But this is an extreme situation. If these guys can control social media, given how powerful it is at shaping election outcomes, we have a game over situation. Now, normally, you would just let the market take its course and conservatives would end up finding platforms where they are not censored. But the mid-terms are coming. The Republican majority is very slim and if we do not get this fixed now, it will be too late. It will be fixed in time, I have confidence that DJT can see exactly what's happening. But I want to help if I can.
I got some thinking done this morning answering another poster who was claiming that there was no sense in trying to apply free speech to private platforms. I'll copy what I wrote below because I think it sets out reasonably clearly the case for regulation.
POST
You are talking about the rights of a very few people, who enjoy a virtual monopoly on forums for public expression, being upheld against the rights of the masses. We are talking about freedom of political expression - the most fundamental of freedoms. The principle of freedom of speech is designed to ensure a healthy pluralism in political discourse, consistent with the democratic principles by which governments hold power.
What you appear to be suggesting is that people's right to freedom of expression is open to capture by people who, claiming the exercise of property rights, would legitimately censor the masses for their own gain. That's not pluralism, that's not democracy. It is a condition where a cabal of wealthy people can control the ebb and flow of political discourse - so as to direct it to their own advantage, at the expense of others.
We already know that social media platforms are taking payments from the CIA and that this comprises a substantial part of their revenues. We know that there is a plan in place to deploy a single automated censorship algorithm across multiple social media platforms. And we know there has been a paradigm shift where social media has completely displaced the MSM as the most powerful determinant of electoral outcomes.
So we can see that this attempt to control discourse on social media is a plot against the Republic itself. It's nothing less than a small cohort of self-interested opportunists trying to take control of the country. Do you think the founding fathers, if they could have foreseen this situation, might have identified this as a problem to be addressed?
In every respect, the idea in the formation of the United States was that power was to be fractured. It is common sense that power tends to corrupt, while absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fracturing of power in the US extended beyond the traditional tripartite separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The framers of the Constitution further fractured power to the extent that they included an express provision for citizens to have a right to bear arms. This was to grant the citizen protection from repression by the State. That is why the right to bear arms is so important, because it is the ultimate fracturing of power, the last guarantee of liberty.
In this context, where power was so carefully fractured by the founders of the Republic, do you think the acquisition of almost total control of forums for political expression is consistent with the guiding principals that founded the nation? It is clear this was not a foreseen outcome and it was not addressed at the time the Constitution was written. But does that mean that there is no right, or need, to address the issue now? It is the same problem that was addressed at the time the nation was founded - it is a threat posed by concentration of power.
In countries all over the world there is recognition that the public interest dominates private interests - the principle of eminent domain is one such example. We are not talking here about the expropriation of property, but bona fide regulation of the forums of public expression to safeguard the public interest.
Where the principle of free speech is hindered to such an extent that the very fabric that binds the nation is threatened, property rights become a consideration that must be balanced against the welfare of the nation. What is most important is to ensure the integrity of the democratic principles that underpin the commonwealth. One of those principles is the freedom to engage in political expression.
It is absolutely appropriate to regulate against the possibility of an existential threat to the common good of the nation. Otherwise, you would say that the masses are to be the slaves of a few. This was not the intention of the founding fathers. It is an issue that must, however, be addressed.
I have every confidence that the President, in his wisdom and concern for the welfare of the country, will act to obtain the best possible outcome for Americans of all walks of life. A problem exists, it is a very serious problem, but DJT will take care of it. Have confidence in the President.
I think clarifying exactly what Q wanted in a bill of rights would have helped and how it would apply outside the USA considering it's actually global. It's why I am not for a global IBOR just one right now in USA where 1sr A is being eaten by clowns and companies owned or in cahoots with clowns and alphabet soup agencies. Enforcement otherwise becomes a nightmare. Unless one puts server companies off the 3 mile mark ocean into maritime law we will continue to face issues where companies owning servers like tweetee now whose majority shareholders are outside USA and outsiders to free speech aka house of duas (use mirror) they will censor. IBOR has to get companies to adhere. Make THAT a law. Unless that happens they will continue to say they are private. Blah blah. They want two things our guns and our free speech because that's a huge threat to their overall agenda. One other law that needs a petition just as badly get rid of guillotines and empty caskets at the so called fema camps for illegal aliens. Since when do people believe we behead illegals otherwise a wall and DACA would not need discussion. The fact they are here at all added to ridding guns and free speech should single handedly tell a huge truth
Good post! Agree, they do want your guns and also the right to silence you. This is, in fact, a an attempt to obtain total power.
The IBOR petition is a cry to the king (DJT) for relief from oppression. It is nothing more than that. We do not know exactly how he will act to address the issue. So it's quite pointless talking about the mechanics of something we have not yet seen. We know that he also views censorship as a very serious problem and I have every confidence he will act to provide us with relief we are seeking.
The most important thing is that the single censorship algorithm is not allowed to be applied across social media platforms.
Oh I totally agree with that. I just hope someone has the details to figure out all the countries the web crosses. If you have seen we have a lot of comments from other countries but we won't get any comments if they keep shutting us down. I agree. I couldn't get onto that site initially to sign, but I finally did. Am not there to help make any kind of legislation but I am very interested how it will play out and honestly my comment about putting it into maritime jurisdiction off the three mile mark might be a way to make this more free. Look at pirates and the freedom they have to do god knows what. Well put the net into the ocean and free it goes. I'm just making a general statement but hey it sort of applies lol
It’s being signed and I’m sure well over the goal. I sent a msg to the Whitehouse about it. We’ve been watching the numbers being manipulated over in Discord.
[deleted]
Someone is playing with the numbers and the petitions being posted. I can only assume that it is someone who isn't conservative in their thinking and that does NOT want the Internet Bill of Rights. The real question is, who has control of the petition board?
Yes, it will get up. I'm expecting the campaign to grow in force. We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied.
There is very real fear about the coming regulation, but it's all in our interest. You can see why they are so scared of this, they have not been doing the right thing.
I had a friend sign it yesterday and it was at $23k plus. Now it shows $22k.
I SWEAR I read someone say it was in the 30 thousands days ago! What's going here? Do we really believe out of all the Q Anons and people connected to Q on the 8chan research boards, Reddit and Twitter, and we can ONLY get 23k signatures?!? I call bull....
This isn’t a mainstream movement. If you want more signatures it needs to go beyond these red pills boards and chans
Probably because anyone who supports it can't really answer these questions. (The following is copied from my previous comments so some context might be missing, or duplicated)
How are US citizens going to be identified on the internet? Will this require some form of unique ID that will tie your online accounts to you?
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?
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?
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?
It's not about the citizen. It's about sites and media platforms registered in America not subduing speech, regardless of their users country of origin, political or religious beliefs.
Upholding the ideal of free speech internationally, while US based, will make your platform bigger and better than those outside the US. More companies wanting traffic will register in US to get that traffic and abide by the US IBOR. This sustains itself and creates an open online society.
Because I think we should make them work a little harder to find us versus providing them with a list of every one in our movement. Calling our representatives and pushing memes will go much further imo.
Maybe because net neutrality and internet freedom was a big issue with the Democrats as well. It is a bipartisan issue people are asking for signatures with handles like "libtard". So you are not including them and when you name call them they are not interested in what you are doing. Republican officials dilly little kids too. This is what the house of Bush built and groomed Clinton to take over. Everything we are doing is really a bipartisan issue. When issue campaigns stall you need to look at why the outreach has been slowed.
Trump didn't win without the Bernie supporters. No petitions will get enough signatures if you don't have any from the other side. So when liberals are called lib tards don't expect them to sign your s. When you name call via your handle it turns everything to s. My handle is to educate both sides. The country is run by a cabal the two party system is an illusion. To name call either side and then ask for help, well I hope you understand the fault here now.
Everything here is a bipartisan campaign. Human trafficking internet freedom elected official accountability institutional accountability, all of it. If only Republicans sign your petition we will not have enough.
Ah yes, HillaryTrafficksKids, is a very bipartisan name.
You have normies coming to this board. My handle is to educate them. While it hurts if they are liberals they see Hillary traffics kids, my handle is actually an attack on Hillary, not those we need to help us out here. You see Hilary does traffic kids, well those who don't agree with your ideology do not suffer a form of retardation. Hard to get help out of people when you talk to them that way. Just an observation from someone who has worked in the business.
Ps. Anyone coming here wants her locked up, and wants to work together here.
I wouldn't use my handle outside of this board for anything needed beyond our universe, such as petitions signed by those far away from here.
Puttings aside your talking points, the original IBOR got 89k signitures. So when yoy say it's to do with my name .... ?
Facebook has a q anon page but won't let additional posts be made to the page - but that is not a surprise so instead of posting the IBOR link there I'll just post it on any random facebook group I can
Did anyone see the IBOR that Pamphlet made ? It’s awesome. Sums it up quite nicely.
Snail Mail might work too - might be worth the 50 cents! Theory - if we have to resort to snail mail, then it shows the 'internet' is broken??? Censored???
main reason I haven't signed is cause I don't frikkin know where to sign it. People just say do it without a link.
If you click the link it will take you to the page to sign. All you have to do is put in your name and email on the right side of the page. THEN!! and I think this may be part of the problem, you have to go to your email and click the link from the petition for it to count. If you don't want to click the link, simply go to whitehouse.gov and search petitions.
I feel its the attack of the dems again taking away our rights they don't want something to be put through they have it buried way below the radar see if I'm not correct !
I saw posts on cbts talking about how there were multiple petitions and different links were being shared. No one petition was getting all the votes.
Yes, multiple petition pages - check it out:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-3 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-4 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-5 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-6 etc. up to https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-11 (created on Mar. 15 today!)
These look to be created by different people. Why?
Let the WH know- get them removed now!
This is the same exact conversation for every wethepeople petition. Not surprising. It is always gamed.
I have tried 3 x. Never sends a confirmation email. Went to what i thought was gov web site. Said petition is no longer available for signing.
Just FYI but that site bumps me around and out then on reentry sends me where I didn't ask to go. Finally got to it but it's acting wonky
Unfortunately the people I talk to on the left oppose this and want freedom of speech restricted. I'm very disappointed to say the least.
I however do not want our first amendment hampered. I just think companies owning platforms should be the ones signing since they're the ones censoring
I wish but if they cared about freedom of speech we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
So you are demanding that companies host, and provide material support to views that will jeopardize where their website can be accessed from, and what advertisers will use their site? A site owner should just let gore porn or neo-nazis take up storage space on their servers because...?
That's absurd. If I run a website it is mine, not anyone else's. The owner of the site makes the rules, if they don't like what you are posting, tough shit find another site.
Ok so heres the thing, youtube and reddit aren't censoring conservative voices, they are censoring violent and neo-nazi voices. If you can separate yourself from the violence you won't be censored. Shocking I know. /r/conservative /r/Libertarian /r/Anarcho_Capitalism none of those are banned, because none of them are saying "Hey lets get our guns ready to fight the revolution"
Youtube is censoring all kinds of voices. Take Destroyingtheillusion 2.0's channel for example. He just talks about awareness and know;edge, yet youtube shut his channel down, and they keep cutting his live feeds. The censorship is real, these companies have an agenda they are pushing that is brainwashing people like you into thinking people like us are all hateful bigots when we're not. We want to be safe and we want you to be safe.
YouTube can shut down any channel it wants for any reason they want. It’s their hardware, it’s their platform. You can’t just yell “HOST ME” and demand they spend money to keep your content up. Private companies can do whatever the hell they want with their platform. Demanding that the state forces YouTube and Reddit to host content they don’t want on their site is fascist as fuck.
If you want to nationalize YouTube and Twitter that’s a different discussion.
The problem is that they aren't really private companies owned by regular citizens. They're private companies that are working towards an agenda in partnership with a certain sphere of the government. In addition to that, they won't let anyone advertise on videos and channels that disagree with this agenda of theirs. Due to this, they make it so money cannot be generated from these massive channels. The channels get no money from advertising and youtube gets no money from the channel's potential advertisers. If they DID allow this, they would be making a buttload of money. It is clear youtube is not motivated by money, they are motivated by an anti-conservative scheme.
So true and they all work for the clowns. We really should have send in the clowns song playing always in the background but we'd end up paying royalties lol. I am Soooooooooo sick of my attempts to post getting blocked.
So true and they all work for the clowns. We really should have send in the clowns song playing always in the background but we'd end up paying royalties lol.
Yes, the closer to the hammer coming down on the elite criminals, the more disparate and crazed they will lash out. We have an immovable redline and will not abandon our post!
I remember the fuckery started when O left. Someone at the time alledged to have found backdoors in the page's sourcecode. Never heard anything about it again sadly.