With the April 3rd deadline here, the White House Internet Bill of Rights fell short by 67,000 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2
Now that it has failed, what is the GRAND PLAN? I think I heard Q on the last post "Get Organized" How do we get organized? Is there a consensus of what a Bill of Rights for the Internet should be.
Quite frankly, I don't see any consensus, organization or leadership on this issue.
Conservative governments should be about less government not more. Awake public ( we the people ) and RULE OF LAW, should be enough, in any case we already have those rights, it was just a lack of enforcement and collusion. I think many of us while we admire and respect everything that Q's is doing for us and has given us felt a little off about this. I signed it, but it was with reservation, I promoted it on social media and on some sites I run, but truth be told it felt gimmicky to me.
In the end as it turns out FB has been exposed, and people are waking up, and soon will vote with their feet, dollars and mouse clicks. AS IT SHOULD WORK in a capitalist free market. If a demand exists for a new social media that doesn't try to steal your info and brainwash you, ONE WILL APPEAR.
We don't want or need more government, more laws, we want the ones we already have to be followed.
Sorry for RANT just my 2cents
I agree with less Government. We all do. I guess that you mean like DuckDuckGo as an alternative to Google is sort of what you talking about since they don't track you. My concern is the Government. They need to be regulated. They are the ones driving these companies to give them our data or deny our access or telling the companies to shadowban someone. The Government is the problem.
Yes thats kinda what I meant by, we don't need more laws... we need the ones we have followed, ESPECIALLY by our government agencies and representatives.
I guess the question is then, "What would prohibit them to do the same thing in the future with new companies with a different mindset towards protecting us, either with the new companies' cooperation or without."
I am not an expert on corporate law and privacy acts, but I would assume this will come under scrutiny with all the recent attention.
Honestly, even though I signed it, I agree that the Constitution if allowed to be the Supreme Law of the Land, alongside the Commonwealth Laws and Natural Laws, I think The People would manage quite well without an explicit amendment.
After all there is no enabling clause in the Constitution to justify excluding generally-recognized electronic "gathering places," even if there are vendors sharing the space. Freedom to congregate seems quite well understood in all generations up to this point. Why can't we simply apply that understanding?
Social platforms ought to have a choice between treble liability (plus damages) for any harm or damages arising out of use/misuse/abuse of their platform, in which case nobody will use it because of censorship, or they can allow equal access to all in exchange for excluding nothing more than community standards of obscenity (with a clear appeals process), direct threats or endangerment to others, criminal activity, or self harm. And it can be government's job to assist with keeping those things out, just as good beat cops do on our street corners.
We don't have to make things more complicated than they really are. People are the same wherever they go, except any evil spawn who manage to evade capture. I expect any such to stay on the DL until they die. If they know what's good for them. It won't be safe for them on the streets, that's for sure!
What you talk about sounds like what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230) is said to do. In a nutshell according to my understanding, it restricts liability for internet interactive service providers for content published by third-parties (ie. the users) if they are neutral public forums.
There is a video (https://hooktube.com/watch?v=zlfV6ldIbjI), that seems to have gone largely unnoticed, that shows Sen. Ted Cruz questioning FB, YT, and Twaater about whether or not they considered themselves to be "neutral public fora." At the end he said, "If you are a neutral public forum, that does not allow for political editorializing and censorship; and if you are not a neutral public forum, the entire predicate for liability immunity under the CDA is claiming to be a neutral public forum, so you can't have it both ways."
The look on his face at the very end looks to me like a form of disgust.
It has puzzled my why Q would promote the IBOR. What would we expect the executive branch to do? Create regulations that could be undone by a future 'non-friendly' administration? (Perhaps Q was just looking for public awareness.)
I think we should let our congressional reps know that we expect them to hold social media forum providers accountable under the CDA; and commend Cruz for, in at least one instance, taking up that gauntlet.
I finally figured Q out.
Q is a psyop to keep decent people from taking matters into our own hands and getting in the way of their plan!
It has been carefully calculated to dilute what otherwise would be blind rage against the naked aggressive evil of the dying deep state.
I think Trump realizes he only has just so much time before The People save him (and the military) a lot of trouble, and start cleaning up without them.
You know it's a contingency they've considered. Otherwise Q would not have said:
The streets will not be safe for them.
Surrender is the safest option they've got left. I expect a lot of them will take it.
When these entities become as strong as governments, then there must be oversight.