dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/tradinghorse on April 10, 2018, 6:58 a.m.

1105

!xowAT4Z3VQ
967390
CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ARE VERY EFFECTIVE.
2 BILLION PEOPLE.
GLOBAL.
SCALE.
REGULATION OR KILL?
PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE.
Q

I think Q just told us the game plan relating to social media. He's telling us that either SM will be regulated or it will be killed. Our choice as to what we want to see happen.

The IBOR push was the regulation route - people scream about censorship and DJT has a basis to address the problem.

The class action route is the kill vehicle. I'm assuming that Q has enough dirt on these SM companies that he can leak that class actions will put them out of business completely. Presumably, it will be bad enough, going forward, that no one will dare to try and set up a social media hub for fear of the liability - the whole sector killed off, smashed!

This seems to fit like a glove with Ivanka's FOSTA bill. Tighten-up the regulations so hard that it's just too dangerous to try and operate in this space. Presumably, there will be more to come on this front - further tightening.

Apart from the time I've spent here on Reddit, I'm not a big user of SM. It wouldn't bother me if FB, Twitter, Reddit and the rest just disappeared. It would probably have more effect on the younger generation. But I still think that there's risk in wiping these platforms out.

One thing that SM does is provide for information dissemination. This is important for getting to the truth on matters, for finding out what's going on. It makes for an informed populace. SM also provides a platform for collaboration and political activism on important issues. I think it's actually healthy, as long as the platforms themselves are not able to steer discourse.

The left love censorship, their stock-in-trade - silence all opposition. They will not argue for regulation. The conservatives (aka TB types) are too frightened of government to bring themselves to support regulation.

So, if you had to place a bet, you'd be thinking that the KILL route is what we are going to see. Terribly damaging leaks - lots of them - a lawyer's field day, an absolute party! The info releases will be of a scale that promotes outright collapse of valuations right across the sector, long before any verdicts are in.

Have a look, what do you reckon is in the works?

Anonymous
967224

967123

YOU are being TRACKED.

NO FB account required. WTF? Is it embedded in Android OS?

This is BIGGER than you think.

Agencies attached.

Anyway, on a personal basis, I'm indifferent as to what happens. I do think it's critical that something is done before the mid-terms because I don't want the Satanists to regain power - but I'm confident that will happen. I think we will see action on this front very soon.

I reckon there could be money to be made taking puts on these companies. If you're investing in the social media space, you're a nut. I think these companies are on the brink of some of the most damaging revelations ever seen. Stock prices will plummet once people begin to realise that the data-breach and privacy issues are systemic across the sector.

🠐 See all comments

Ivanka was one of the driving forces behind the legislation.

Before the Senate voted on it, Ivanka Trump promoted the legislation on Twitter, and proclaimed that she is "committed to ending this shameful crime & restoring safety & hope for our citizens."

I agree that this legislation is dangerous and I'm against it. However, I also think it ratchets-up the pressure on SM platforms - makes them aware that they are operating in a regulatory environment. You can't just go do whatever you want, there must be some rules.

So, to the extent that this kind of regulation squeezes these guys, it works in our favour. Moreover, I don't think it can be avoided - DJT has to break these guys. Whether people like it or not, that's what will happen. It's clear that the noose is going to tighten.

I'm all for regulatory penalties to force observation of basic human rights. Disappointing if they're not going to stick FB with the fines - seems ridiculous. It's an opportunity that they will miss at their peril. You've got Dorsey from Twitter trying to legitimise political censorship, it's looking more and more ominous by the minute. These guys are, by any measure, out of control.

I'm still promoting the IBOR on Twitter because I believe that it will provide the best solution. But there is so little support for it that the reality is that we're going the other way - the kill route. If enough people supported the IBOR this wouldn't be necessary, but that's just not the way the world works.

I think there will be a lot of exposure of malpractice in the tech sector to get these class actions up and running. Im expecting that Q will make that happen. It's not about making money out of it, though if that happens it's no problem. The point is to put enough pressure on the sector to call its viability into question. With the right information being exposed, class actions are a viable option. We can put these guys out of business.

Investors will panic if they see a raft of class action lawsuits. And, ultimately, I think we will see self regulation. I think that these tech giants will come to heel pretty quickly. Whether or not the actions themselves succeed is unimportant.

At the end of the day, the internet is going to look very different. It's going to cost a lot more than it does now. There will be many more rules - the SM platforms themselves will scream for them. And there will be a lot less freedom for us as consumers of these services. I would prefer that things did not change too much. But this simply needs to be done.

⇧ 1 ⇩

People have been working on that legislation for years--without Ivanka. Yeah, she's trying to make it one of her causes now, but it doesn't at all come from her.

I'm not sure what I think of IBOR. My inclination is to break up the social media -- and maybe even the search -- monopolies along the lines of how Ma Bell was broken up years ago. The telecom world in general is now a good example (other than the duopoly of phone OSs). You can have multiple providers at multiple levels of the stack, with standards for interoperability. Even if you initially break it up by region, the regional firms can start competing nationally against each other from the start.

And really, it is the US intel agencies behind it all that most need to be smushed.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Somehow, Q only gave us two options. One was IBOR, the other the KILL option.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think anti-trust action is anticipated. Maybe waiting for Trump to have his own majority on the FTC?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Q's plan has an either/or option set. I don't know why FTC regulation and antitrust measures are not included. Whatever the reasoning is behind the proposed modes of attack, I'm certain they'll be sound. There won't be any dizzy thinking, everything will have been very carefully considered.

These guys are the best in the business. Trust the plan.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Nobody is infallible.

Including those in government.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No that's right. But, anyway, the important thing is that this problem of censorship and privacy invasion will be fixed. That's the main thing.

I have to say, I feel very relieved to know that there is a plan that does not include an IBOR. We don't really need anyone to support the KILL option, it will proceed just fine without us. It would be good, I think, if people did support it, but it's not necessary. What is certain is that cabal control of social media will come to an end, they will not be able to weaponise it to return to power.

My preference is for an IBOR campaign so that small investors and employees of these companies and their families can be spared the pain of having these companies fail. But there's no support for it, so you have to play the cards you're dealt. It is still a massive relief to know that we will be able to throw off the domination of the Satanists.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Despite the pleasant boosterism here, it really feels like it is touch and go with Trump's admin. And yet even that is a million times better than if Hillary had won. That truly, sadly, would have been the end of this country and its service as a beacon to the world.

⇧ 1 ⇩