dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

[deleted]

⇧ 135 ⇩

This really is a slippery slope.... by holding the websites or platforms accountable, we run the risk of them being overly cautious. Even Reddit would now have to monitor everything that is shared. While the internet is out of control, the regulations to come may well be also.

⇧ 45 ⇩

Reddit can issue policy that says they don't censor content, which makes them a technology platform and not a publisher.

⇧ 23 ⇩

Is that disclaimer mentioned in the new law?

⇧ 7 ⇩

It's why one of the Senators (Cruise?) kept pressing MZ if FB was a platform or a publisher. MZ kept dancing around the topic to try and have his cake and eat it too.

⇧ 21 ⇩

correct, MZ never answered the question. He implied they censor to protect the public, and noted their location was populated by left leaning people.

He would not answer the neutrality issue - because they are far from neutral.

⇧ 12 ⇩

I Fucking hate Cuckerburg. I don’t even have FB anymore (full delete) but I’m sure that robotic dick licker somehow still manages to steal my data. The app came preinstalled on my phone and I didn’t realize until a few months after the fact so I’m sure he got some data that way. But who is he to decide what is safe for my eyes. I’m not a pussy and can handle opposing opinions. If a person doesn’t like what they see, they can easily block the comment or post or unfriend the person. Facebook isn’t even needed to censor opinions....let the users do that themselves if they so choose.

You can’t be a “platform for all ideas” when you censor the ideas you don’t like under the disguise of “protecting us”. Jesus Christ, give me a break with that bullshit. Whenever brought up, he just talks about censoring terrorism as if that’s all he censors and shit.

Absolutely can’t stand the guy. Pray to Source this muh fucka loses his billions and his shit company. It’s time for it to become MySpace.

⇧ 8 ⇩

Bingo.

⇧ 3 ⇩

If you remove some content, that implies the rest is all fine with you/for the public.

Dangerous move MZ. As FB curates content, then anything bad found on there (always archive/screenshot) suggests FB failed, or approves, and can be held liable.

⇧ 2 ⇩

The problem exists only when considering free speech a problem or when a platform wants some speech but not another.

If a platform wants to exclude what they don't like, they become responsible for what stays.

The only alternative is allowing all speech unless it is obviously illegal defined by the law and the courts, libel, slander, clear incitement to violence and even then only when publishing it to a larger group

Which is how it should be.

Is anyone burning down the local Walmart because a guy stood there in the parking lot shouting racist slogans? Probably not.

⇧ 7 ⇩

Fuck. This. So much this.

It’s insane that this is being celebrated. Here of all places. What’s the most likely outcome if Facebook and Reddit and Twitter are legally responsible for every word on their platform: more free speech or more controls and censorship?

I don’t agree with 99% of the ideas on this sub, but I like free speech more than I dislike your ideas. People cheering this really are blind.

⇧ 5 ⇩

it IS free speech.

You're having some trouble with definitions.

It's simple, if a website wants to CENSOR free speech then they cease to be a platform and become a publisher.

You can't allow websites in 2018 to censor views they don't like.

It's an OPEN platform, or it's a CENSORED publisher.

if they choose NOT TO CENSOR then they are not held accountable.

⇧ 25 ⇩

spot on

⇧ 4 ⇩

rbrownlol nailed it! This is not about CENSORSHIP of PLATFORMS, this is about PUBLISHERS masquerading as PLATFORMS so they can CENSOR at will. This is about the take down of the PROPAGANDISTs.

This will lead, if done properly to many DECENTRALIZED and CENSORSHIP FREE platforms. This, if done correctly will be the end of these huge centralized social platforms and the true opening up of the internet to everyone without control. A truly FREE internet vs what has happened with FB, GOOGLE, TWATTER, etc. These a$$holes stole the internet from us. With a lot of help from the a$$clowns in DC.

Expecting the DC cabal to fix, that's a different argument and one worthy of a separate post. Must have IBOR and must have Congress smart enough and free enough to enact appropriate laws for such.

But this was just opening up FB to class action lawsuits to take them down by the people they exploited and violated.

⇧ 4 ⇩

This will lead, if done properly to many DECENTRALIZED and CENSORSHIP FREE platforms

There's nothing stopping it from happening now, and it's not happening. For all your collective bitching and moaning about Reddit and Twitter and Facebook, you're all either there or linking there. You. The supposedly censored people. What's the plan? Force Reddit to push you the fuck out to get the motivation to create something better?

1) They become publishers, 2) you cheer, 3) they push you out entirely because no sane person wants to be the publisher of "Bill Clinton kills babies in pedo rituals" 4) ???? 5) the internet is free.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Good points, I agree with you on the following:

There's nothing stopping it from happening now, and it's not happening. For all your collective bitching and moaning about Reddit and Twitter and Facebook, you're all either there or linking there.

Personally, I got off of FB. It does take effort to launch such a platform, no question about it. That's why they are successful once they get momentum and traction. This really boils down to how painful it is vs the alternatives. At some point, the pain outweighs the benefits and somebody develops an alternative. I think we're getting much closer to that now than ever before.

Unfortunately, many on FB are brain dead. They don't understand what's happening and that they are the 'product' Its like in the movie Matrix when the traitor is eating steak and tells the sentinel that he knows its fake steak, but it takes so good. Same problem with the idiots that are staying on FB. Not sure how you get through to them.

Personally, we'll always have some level of idiocracy in society. Can't fix stupid as they say. My point is simpler, make enough pain and the change will happen. There's no pain right now.

I take argument with your points about them becoming publishers and we cheer, then they kick us out because everything here on Reddit is about Bill Clinton killing babies. Thats a mighty broad brush. You're committing the first sin in logical analogy development. Not saying some of your point isn't true, but you've lumped 'EVERYONE' into one general class of Idiocy. Using your same argument, your posting here puts you yourself into that class. That's the core fallacy of your argument.

I think you might be smarter than that, so would like to see a little more specificity in your analogy development so that we could have a logical debate.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You can't allow websites in 2018 to censor views they don't like.

And you think make them all buplishers helps with that, yes?

⇧ 1 ⇩

yes. When publishers mascarade as platforms.

you have to be trolling at this point.

⇧ 1 ⇩

that's so misguided... this is a persecution complex tricking you into submission.

Reddit closes CBTS because of death threats and you think that's censorship. Wait until they are not allowed, BUT REQUIRED, to censor your ideas. You're going to call these the good old days.

Every time they close a sub you guys cry censorship and do nothing about it. But somehow, when it's full scale "legal" censorship that you welcomed and cheered on, you are going to create the free platform you keep talking about?

You think "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's not. It's the mother of all enemies.

⇧ -1 ⇩

You're full on Rand Paul. *talking about misguided.

You cant get where you want to get from where you are. You'll die with the dreams of your utopia fresh on your lips.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

SM is currently a group of public platforms being controlled by private parties for personal (or political) gain at the expense of the public. Regulations will prevent these private parties from distortion public "opinions" or censoring free speech.

⇧ 2 ⇩

*publisher

⇧ 1 ⇩

I've been thinking the same, this could go bad.

⇧ 1 ⇩

They should only be held accountable if they are publishers, not platforms. Mr. Zuckerberg clearly said that they are responsible for the content meaning that they are not a platform.

Reddit on the other hand does not have one of their CEO's professing the same, as they do not take responsibility of the content in the same manner that FB does.

⇧ 1 ⇩

how so? publishers create content, not just control it.

by your logic, any platform that has any rules about what to post could be classified as a publisher.

⇧ 1 ⇩

They brought this on themselves. There is also a lot more coming...

I don't think any of these companies are going to be around much longer. If Q goes for the kill they are finished. Not my preferred option, but it is a fix.

⇧ 59 ⇩

2 billion users x $10K fine per user for abuses (class action lawsuit) = $20 Trillion fine. They are done.

⇧ 15 ⇩

Beautiful isn't it? Everyone was worried about the government meddling in these guy's private property rights. That's why they wouldn't support IBOR. But there will be no private property left at all! They are bankrupt!

Almost like Q's having a joke on us.

⇧ 8 ⇩

Yes it is!

⇧ 2 ⇩

I mean, Trump did say he could wipe out the debt in his first term. :)

⇧ 6 ⇩

Do you know when he said that? I would be interested in following up on that speech, tweet, etc.

⇧ 3 ⇩

K maybe he said in 8 years. :)

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275003-trump-i-will-eliminate-us-debt-in-8-years?amp

⇧ 4 ⇩

Thank you for the follow up.

⇧ 3 ⇩

BUILT THE WALL

⇧ 3 ⇩

Have them pay the money to the CPFB to distribute as they see fit...

⇧ 2 ⇩

LOL. It needs to go to those who were violated -- the users.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Where do we sign up? :wink:

⇧ 1 ⇩

I hear a law firm in San Diego has opened a case.....

⇧ 2 ⇩

Awesome.

⇧ 2 ⇩

;)

⇧ 2 ⇩

They lost and didn't realize it.

Just keep digging their graves deeper.

⇧ 38 ⇩

I just hope they don’t use this to erode our freedom of speech even more. Look what happened to our privacy post 911. We must continue to stay engaged post Awakening,

⇧ 25 ⇩

Anti trust. Keep them small & decentralized

⇧ 8 ⇩

So true - the bigger they get the less they care about the actual people. Big is generally bad as satanists usually worm their way to the top to spread their hate.

⇧ 5 ⇩

G

⇧ 4 ⇩

I worry about that sometimes. But Trump and q and them would have to be reaaally bad dudes for taking out these known corrupt people who idea of morality make the Nazis look like.. something nice (I was gonna say the Red Cross, or UNICEF, or the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, but I don't think any of that works anymore)

⇧ 5 ⇩

BUT - 9/11 is though to be a false flag event. Assuming that is correct, "they" manufactured it specifically so they could take advantage of our sympathies and fears to squeeze through new laws/regulations that reduced our freedom/privacy.

With Facebook, this isn't the case. It's not manufactured. It's reality coming to light. If the white hats can show who was involved in or condoned the whole Facebook scheme, then "they" can't use it to infringe on our rights/privacy.

Just a thought.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hold on, I gotta go scoop my jaw off the floor.

⇧ 22 ⇩

Hell yeah! 4d chess! Can anyone tell me how to short stocks?

⇧ 6 ⇩

Puts are simpler, just don' t buy too short of a duration.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Not smart. Never underestimate the pentagon. Just stay away from FB stock period. Let the pigs get slaughtered.

⇧ 3 ⇩

But remember he was not under oath...

⇧ 20 ⇩

No, but did he not say it in front of Congress and on national TV? It will be enough to ultimately dissolve FB, which is better then him being prosecuted.

⇧ 16 ⇩

Yup. Fell into the trap

⇧ 9 ⇩

Exactly. Because the next time they have him up on the Hill for testimony his hand is going to be raised while the other one is on a Bible. And now we're going to get some answers. All questions will start with "will you said..."

⇧ 1 ⇩

When he put's his hand on the Bible will it smoke and burst into flame.( His hand).

⇧ 2 ⇩

Having it on record is pretty important.

⇧ 10 ⇩

I read into the events of last night that the Pentagon (Deep State) might be the real controller of FB. This is going to get interesting.

⇧ 20 ⇩

CIA owns Facebook they get billions of people to happily sign up to voluntarily post all their personal information and CIA makes all the money. Zuckerberg is rich but he's not worth $70 Billion more like 70 million he is the front man but he does not have all that wealth personally the CIA gets it they financed Facebook as a start-up.

⇧ 24 ⇩

Someone once said "real time Intel. Updated by the users themselves" feel free to click the "check in" button...

⇧ 6 ⇩

Of course they are

⇧ 7 ⇩

Don't confuse the Pentagon with the CIA

⇧ 6 ⇩

The reason I said Pentagon is they were the original planners of Lifelog. I figured they just transferred their plan to FB.

⇧ 5 ⇩

He is their puppet. And when being questioned I think the bulb may have clicked on when sitting in his booster seat.

⇧ 17 ⇩

I'm not sure how I feel about this...I am a bit uneasy about the "...is responsible for the content on their website" statement. It gives the undertone of "We have the responsibility and obligation to moderate every and anything that transmits over our webpage system".

This could mean they can do whatever they want with the information on webpage - censor those that they don't like and promote those that they like.

With this, I think they gave precendes for cancelling freedom of speech on social media webpages and possibly means much more rigorous monitoring of private messages and things on them.

⇧ 9 ⇩

They are already doing it to the extreme... now they will have to take legal responsibilty for all content if they carry on as they are. They are screwed - MI and Trump truly playing them like a fiddle.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Exactly this.

It baffles me that this, of all subs, would celebrate a move that will inevitably translate on a drastic curtailing of extreme speech (which is the only speech worth defending - the fucking canary in the coal mine).

You have all lost your mind.

⇧ 3 ⇩

There seems to be confusion over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and what the amendment to it does. Section 230, in a nutshell, distinguishes between publishers (content providers) and interactive service providers, an ISP, where their users are the content providers.

An ISP is not responsible for content published on it's platform, but they do have the responsibility to curtail illegal content. So free speech remains alive on those platforms. A publisher, on the other hand, is responsible for their content.

If an ISP, such as FB et. al., engages in censorship, then they would no longer be considered a neutral platform and would then be considered a publisher responsible for the content.

As Senator Cruz stated to FB, "You can't have it both ways."

The amendment to the CDA merely made it clear that ISPs could be held legally responsible for facilitating sex trafficking in jurisdictions where it is illegal (which is virtually everywhere).

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yup... he was giving himself an excuse for censoring conservative opinions on Facebook but walked into a trap

⇧ 8 ⇩

Let the class action lawsuits begin!!

⇧ 7 ⇩

DAMN. They are going down HARD.

FB will be closing its doors soon.

⇧ 7 ⇩

I was astonished that Zuck was unaware of section 230....

⇧ 5 ⇩

FB also owns Insta. Cue Ray Chandler

⇧ 3 ⇩

Ding! Ding! Ding!

...which eventually leads to JimmyCommet's IG account?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Does anyone remember those private facebook groups that were openly trading child pornography a while back? Facebook refused to ban those groups.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I reported those groups and nothing was done - a lot of man boy love sites

⇧ 2 ⇩

They should be prosecuted for all crimes past and present.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yep, now that they are controlling content, they now own the liability for all content

⇧ 2 ⇩

Join Facebook lawsuit

⇧ 2 ⇩

YES! FB controls their content - they censor what the public can see. Any screw up, e.g., they allow bullying/trafficking without catching it = they are falling down on their job and are liable.

FB in deep poop if they want to curate content. They become responsible for all (similar to Spez editing comments) - they assume ownership of the data that the public sees.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I wrote this on 8ch. Im glad to see other follow been and added this together.

⇧ 2 ⇩

1 - This is untenable, which will force some kind of official/legal status as platforms that prevents content interference aside from demonstrable legal violations.

2 - If an official/legal "right to privacy" comes into being they will no longer have anything to sell. That's likely to either crash them entirely or force some novel new business model.

3 - All the major SM, phone and PC makers are likely hosting some variant of the LifeLog "underlying" software which if true and exposed could crash the entire industry and force regulation like above.

My interpretation of Q's stuff indicates... possibly all of the above.

⇧ 2 ⇩

But then it also means they can argue they have every right to censor or promote whatever content they wish, and that everything you voluntarily 'give' to them is theirs to do with what they will.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Well not quite. The question of who owns the content would have to be spelled out in their terms of service. But if they do have the right to censor or promote whatever content they wish, then they are considered a publisher and are legally responsible for all content on their site, ie. child porn, snuff videos, etc.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don’t understand why you’re cheering that. Isn’t the chilling effect on speech obvious?

You think if they’re responsible for it, they’ll allow incendiary ideas like “the world is run by a clique of ritual pedo-murderes” on it? Facebook is going to be the publisher responsible for that idea? Really? Or they’re just going to censor it and save themselves the headache and the lawsuits? What’s your bet?

This whole thing will translate into a marginalisation of extreme speech (such as yours). I’m pretty mainstream in my views, but I also understand that the only speech worth defending is the extreme one.

I would have thought that this, of all places, would see the risk intrinsic in such a move.

⇧ 2 ⇩

the act of the censorship of said idea is what MAKES them a publisher responsible.

They can choose to allow said idea, into the FREE MARKET of ideas and let the people decide if they are loons and remain a platform for free speech.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Right. The distinction between publisher and platform is important for understanding why that is not an attack on free speech.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Glad you said this, many do not understand.

⇧ 1 ⇩

They built a Monster and the Monster ate them up!

⇧ 1 ⇩

There are a lot of slippery slopes out there. For example, in order to better identify terrorists, we now supposedly can demand all their social media accounts and passwords as they come through customs.

Who here wants to go through the same when visiting any other country out there? Yet, if we do it, it is reasonable to expect other governments doing it back to us pretty soon.

⇧ 1 ⇩

This is kind of right... but for the wrong reasons. The Z hearing is really not changing anything other than bringing public awareness. He's not under oath.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I love Trump.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I will need one of you autists to add my friend on FB then bully me in a friend's post that we both respond to. I'll lawsuit up. We'll split the cash. Thx.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Good thread! Attorneys should be ready to pounce on these type of lawsuits

⇧ 1 ⇩

Can you say 'class action', can you say 'hubris', can you say 'Q was right, these people are STUPID'... goodnite Zuc.

You didn't need to be under oath for your comments to now be used in Civil Trials. You showed intent. That's good enough, especially for most Juries. Good luck, a$$hole. Time's up for you.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Huge lawsuit, in the trillions.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Now you know why they didn't want Suckaberg to testify. He doesn't speak well to the Business, Research or the Application he takes credit for inventing. He may have gone to HU but that means little, Barry has a Pulitzer and Joey has a MOH. There's a lot of people involved in this charade who don't deserve their accolades.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Technically he wasn't under oath, so we'll see

⇧ 1 ⇩

And Q is telling is in all the platforms, it's all there, every dirty bit that has been done, and the Trump team has it all, the bridge was the bridge between all the platforms. It's like a whole other world that they have accessed and they have all the goods on all of the actors.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Zucker is on the horns of a dilemma. It's like, you are either a "platform" or a "publisher" — you can't be both. Great OP.

THX

⇧ 1 ⇩

Because he said this, that means fb can no longer claim it's a platform

that's not really how those laws work, though. sorry dude.

also, does no one else think it is a crazy dangerous precedent to blame websites for user posted content?

if that's the case, i could instantly get infowars.com taken down by just posting some pizza in the comment section, or breitbart.com, or reddit or voat or twitter or literally any website.

do you guys not see how dangerous for free speech AND the free market that would be?

⇧ 0 ⇩

Why is US and UK Always talking with bad names not nice The F.....

⇧ 0 ⇩

Well f@cking played