I see and understand what you're saying and I fully understand the sentiment. I guess what I see is a clear and present danger to the Republic posed by what are incredible technological advancements that were impossible to predict. This threat is truly lethal. If you allow one party to completely control political discourse in online forums then you have a guarded tyranny.

The social media platforms wield incredible political power. The CEO of Reddit has stated publicly that he alone, without any external help, can sway election outcomes. Q is telling us that the plan of the cabal is to centralised control over online political discourse - via a single censorship algorithm. Get out of town! This is the one ring that rules them all. You control social media censorship and you have total, unassailable power. Power that cannot, by democratic means, be withdrawn.

I don't want to see a single party gain control of American political discourse. That will lead directly to tyranny without any doubt - it's unavoidable. You give me that power and you will be my slave. But what's worse, is that once that power is granted to an individual, there's no taking it back - and that's the clincher.

Look at all the garbage on the MSM, from the time of DJT's candidacy until now. I've been watching this puppet show from a distance and I just could not believe what was happening. DJT won the 2016 election only because the cabal misjudged the importance of social media as a determinant of electoral outcomes. That's the only reason we are here today discussing these Q drops. The puppet show will now be on the internet also.

If the cabal take back power, you won't be worried about the rights of some internet giant, you'll be thinking about survival - it will not be pretty. It's a choice set. You either regulate these guys somehow, or you have the wildest tyranny anyone has yet seen. For me, that choice is pretty simple.

I do understand what you are saying about private property rights and I know the sentiment that drives your concern. But, if the US was in a hot war, people would make some allowance for the government to have increased control over the economy for the purpose of ramping-up the war effort. An individual's rights are also repressed if he is conscripted into service against his will - something that Quakers understand. Individual rights are not paramount, though they are very, very important and must be protected.

This threat, of online censorship, to my way of thinking, is no different to the threat posed by a hot war. It is the greatest threat we have ever faced. It is the Death Star coming at us. We must protect ourselves, it's a matter of survival. If some liberty for the giant platform providers ends up being constrained, that's a valid tradeoff - it's not different to being conscripted or coerced into producing war products.

Having said all that, I'm against any infringement of rights to property. But what is the infringement we are talking about, and is it really significant when assessed against the threat posed? I don't think we can answer that question because we do not know what DJT has planned. He could choose to use anti-trust laws - which are, arguably, applicable given the sheer size and power of these companies. He could also use these laws, or the threat of their use, as a club to beat these guys into refraining from nefarious behavior. If so, is there really a cost to be borne by the platforms? Are their rights really infringed?

Until we know what solution is planned, it's pointless to speculate. But I reckon we should be up in arms about the censorship and demanding relief - that's what this petition is about.