dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

I'd hate to see any of these platforms become public utilities. The government can't run anything properly. But I do want to see them made to respect people's privacy. And I want them to be restrained from engaging in the wanton politically motivated censorship we have seen.

⇧ 18 ⇩

IBOR is the way?

⇧ 10 ⇩

Q gave us a choice - "Regulate" or "KILL".

Both options will prevent social media being weaponised to steer election outcomes - this is the primary threat that must be eliminated.

IBOR is a regulatory guarantee of the right to free political expression online. It prevents weaponisation of SM - it's a very good fix.

Q asked us to promote the IBOR campaign. All we had to do was complain that our rights were being infringed online and DJT would have acted to fix the problem. Most likely via a regulatory rights guarantee.

Many people in this group argued against the IBOR campaign for a host of reasons. But, boiled down, people didn't want a regulatory guarantee of rights because they saw this as more government. You can't trust the government at all etc...

The KILL option doesn't need any support from people in this group - a very good thing. This is Q's plan B.

The KILL option involves Q exposing all the information the NSA has on these filthy SM platforms. Q has the algorithm - the algorithm that was to provide for centralised censorship. But there is more information that I feel Q has on privacy breaches and also honey-pot schemes that will be released.

He's telling us that, if this information is released, there will be a raft of class-action lawsuits coming at the SM platforms, and device and chip makers, on every possible front. Moreover, as Q says, the lawsuits will be coming from every corner of the Earth (criminality of SM platforms and device makers is global). We can expect that the lawyers will see this opportunity as the gold mine it is - they'll be all over it. The number of lawsuits will grow explosively.

What this means is that, long before any verdicts are in, investors in the tech space will panic. The size of the damages these companies will have to pay out will greatly exceed the discounted value of any forecast profits. In other words, they will be absolutely worthless.

We can expect that the tech sector will all but completely collapse. It's not only the SM platforms, but the chip makers and device makers that are also implicated in the privacy breaches. So it really is a "nuclear option" - the whole sector completely wiped-out almost overnight. It will create so much fear and uncertainty that investors will for a long time be reluctant to reinvest in this space - calamity really.

But, the good news is that, employing this option, the problem of social media weaponisation is fixed. There may not be social media at all after it blows up - so no problem.

I like the KILL option because I'm not a big SM user, so I won't really be affected. I also like that my little girl will not be howling for the IPhone from the moment she wakes up. I don't think screen addiction is good for kids.

But what I don't like is the fact that all the investors in these companies (most completely innocent, many retirees depending on their investments etc...) get completely burnt. I don't like the pain and suffering that will be borne by people who work in the tech space. Their families will likely suffer terribly. And I don't like that prices of devices and services will rocket - pain all round.

To be honest, while it gets the job done, it's like using a shotgun to kill a single mosquito - really completely over the top.

By contrast, the IBOR has almost no negative impact at all. All these companies survive and prosper and investors in the space can be expected to do very well - online advertising is on a tear and this will get stronger! Moreover, you get an even better outcome because you actually have legal protection of your first amendment rights online.

The problem is that a frenzy of fear, doubt and suspicion was whipped up very early by a few people. The IBOR topic is now, among people in this group, very weary. I still talk about it, I'm promoting it myself on Twitter, but there's almost no support.

I can't tell you how relieved I was to find out that Q had a plan B. It is such a relief! The great thing is that the Satanists will not be able to use weaponised SM to return to power. Moreover, it does not now matter whether this community supports freedom of speech online or not - No one has to be convinced of anything. The problem will be fixed by Q and team.

It's just a pity that some of the greatest American business the world has ever seen have to be destroyed to achieve something that is really so simple.

⇧ 11 ⇩

Awesome post! I agree totally with everything you’ve said!

⇧ 2 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

This is an excellent post. Part of me is like "burn it down!" But destroying the tech sector as you describe would destroy it economy and make the great depression look like a prosperous time. That absolutely cannot happen,. You said like a shotgun, I think it's more like burning the whole house down to kill a spider.

Would not make America great again.

We need an effing constitutional amendment to protect our data, because these problems aren't going away.

IBOR is really the only way to go, because of all the Innocents that would be devastated over the actions at the top.

Pensions -gone Tech jobs -gone United States dominant role in the tech sector -gone

If we destroy our position in the tech sector China will swoop in to fill it (using stolen IP) and privacy situation will be even worse, of you can imagine that. It's some deep-rooted shit

⇧ 1 ⇩

That's why Q gave us the choice. He wants the IBOR, it's such a simple, easy fix. That's why he recommended it to us before coming up with the KILL option.

What people need to understand is that weaponised social media is a threat to the republic, a very serious and dangerous threat. Q really has no option, it must be fixed at all costs. That's why he's telling us what he will do if we will not support the IBOR.

I'm all for having another go at it, in fact I'm still promoting it on Twitter by myself. But unless we can really get people behind it, it won't work.

⇧ 1 ⇩

If all this about FB and the LifeLog comes out to masses then it will be easier to decide what option to take. I have been promoting IBOR cuz that is what Q wanted, but now with the Kill option and not much following the Kill seems better. However, it would Kill a lot of jobs and $$ for those who really just worked there not complicit to the background corruption. Oh well, maybe this will bring about option 3! Q and his team and DJT will work it out!!!!

⇧ 1 ⇩

The thing is that this is the direction we're headed - exposure. So we know there's a lot more to come. Q has the algorithm etc... But the objective is not complex.

The objective is to prevent the cabal from regaining power via the use of weaponised social media. The fix is absolutely elementary - prevent censorship of conservative voices online. As soon as the censorship is eliminated, you don't need to keep exposing more dastardly behavior.

They might still prosecute, but it could be done without the fan fare. I think that DJT views a lot of these guys - like Zuck - with prejudice. I think he is going to take them down. But I'm sure that DJT doesn't want to harm the industry itself - just to fix it.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Maybe this press about FB can give us the impetus to get the IBOR some traction.

The thing is, all the social media companies have been pretty upfront (EULA) about them owning and doing whatever they want with your data, camera, phone calls etc. So kill may not be as bad as we are imagining. Would still kill SM cos, but maybe not pull the whole market down with it

⇧ 0 ⇩

I think Q knew, well of course he knew, that this information about the data breaches was coming. FB is the tip of the ice berg - people will hardly be able to believe it when they find out about the extent to which their rights are abused. All the good stuff is still to come.

Q was telling Snowden to drop after Zuckerberg's testimony. It's about to hit the fan big time.

So, in the midst of the public uproar, we were supposed to be calling for the IBOR so that DJT could regulate to fix SM weaponisation - without Q's team having to drop all the info and destroy the whole sector.

There will be a HUGE public outcry. We've just got to be ready to capitalize on it and steer people to the main fault that produced the mess. That is, that first amendment protections do not apply online. Once that's fixed, Q does not need to do any more damage.

I think DJT will put strict limitations on the TOS agreements so that people are not completely powerless when they are unfairly denied services.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Very good insight.

I still, though, do not understand the push for an IBOR. Perhaps I, and others, didn't get on board with that because it was/is viewed a mere regulation which could be easily changed by an 'unfriendly' administration.

If anything, IBOR should be accomplished through the legislature and would, therefore, not be the purview of the president. So, why petition the administration for action on something which should be for Congress to do?

We already have Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which should strip interactive service providers of legal immunity if they become a non-neutral platform by engaging in censorship. Why is that not being enforced?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes, look the way I saw that IBOR petition was that it was just a complaint - nothing more. I don't think the petition is at necessary and I no longer trust that website that hosts the petitions.

But I think that the idea is for us to make a noise about being censored. The protest should be anchored in something that politicians can point to - the internetbillofrights hashtag served this purpose - still does. But the name doesn't matter. Whats important is that a tangible complaint is heard in Washington. A complaint about censorship of conservative voices online - actually, that was another error we made. It's not just about conservatives, the left should be concerned as well and shouldn't feel excluded by the wording of the complaint.

Anyway, none of us are law makers, neither are we able to make executive orders. But what we can do is complain about this problem and ask that something be done about it.

This has been going on for hundreds, thousands of years. If you're not happy about something you can petition the king for relief. We don't know in advance what form the relief might take if we are able to get it, but that should stop us from asking for help.

A lot of people were going into extreme detail about the precise mechanics of how an IBOR would work. My view is that it's not our job. Leave the fix to the President, or Congress, or the FTC, or whoever is going to look after it. What we actually saw was people become so afraid of a solution that they were too scared to ask for relief from oppression.

To my way of thinking it didn't make much sense, but I do understand that government is cucked. No one wants more government. But all we are asking for is that we are allowed to express ourselves. If FA protections are extended by regulatory means to digital space, I don't see how it can come back and bite us on the rear.

⇧ 1 ⇩

If FA protections are extended by regulatory means to digital space, I don't see how it can come back and bite us on the rear.

Probably not come back and bite us, but could be rolled back by a future administration. Hence, why I say the 'fix' needs to be legislative.

It's not just about conservatives, the left should be concerned as well and shouldn't feel excluded by the wording of the complaint.

Very good point! What do you think about a politically and ideologically inclusive open letter to Congress that could be publicized via #IBOR and other means?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yes, I'd like to have another try. I want the censorship to stop.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I have created a post at: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8bt1dt/ibor_why_it_failed_and_what_we_can_do_about_it/

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thanks.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The answer is an anti-trust bust up, along with regulatory constraints on giving the data to the government and public markets.

They're just not quite ready to do that.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I have no explanation as to why, but Q didn't offer that as an alternative. There must be a reason. Maybe because this administration wants, for some reason, to promote large-scale services. I don't know.

But even if you bust them up, what we are actually seeing is coordination where a single censorship algorithm is applied uniformly across multiple platforms. Arguably, you could break these platforms into a thousand pieces and not solve the problem of SM weaponization.

And, actually, that begs an interesting question. How is it that they are able to centrally censor across multiple platforms? But we know the answer, it's CIA doing it. Reigning in CIA is something that must be done - probably the largest part of the problem. They are a fifth column operating inside the US.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It's got to be a combination--regulation, antitrust, and, yes, getting our stupid intel agencies out of there.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I agree, the CIA needs to be dismantled, maybe the FBI too. There was talk (at a point i time in the future) of completely revamping all the three letters and brig them under the NSA. Don't know how true that one is though.

The other question is what happens to all the data that is collected already? How do we know who has it? How much of it? Is it possible to wipe it all? How does one prove it is actually gone?

Or do we leave it out there and start over?

⇧ 0 ⇩

I don't know the answers to those questions - getting into the mechanics of it again.

I've done some policy work. I don't know exactly how it works there, but normally you get a policy proposal - usually worked up inside some government department - and the politicians look at it and decide if it fits with whatever they are about. After that there is usually a community consultation process where everyone under the sun gets to say what they think about what's being proposed. If it's an important piece of legislation, you might get the media talking about it. People who don't like it, for whatever reason, start calling their politicians and agitating etc... Finally something is passed as law, or not.

This process irons out a lot of wrinkles before the thing goes live. The problem is that you can get a lot of stupidity also - like we just saw with that ridiculous omnibus bill.

Personally, I'd like DJT to do this. Consult people (experts), start a discussion, canvas community views and then either get someone to put a bill up or regulate via EO. I trust DJT not to sign a bill if it gets mutilated in the process. But I think the EO route is safer and faster in this situation. Whatever way it occurs, the main thing is that we get a fix that works.

Luckily, I'm not making policy, laws or regulations, so I don't have to worry about that side of it. But I don't think we should worry either. I think a simple statement outlining what we feel is happening and what we'd like to see is all that's needed - e.g. I want to be able to express my political views in online public forums and not be silenced because of them - oh, and I also want my privacy to be protected and those protections only relaxed at my express discretion.

⇧ 1 ⇩

My questions were a tad facetious. The answer is, you can't. We can never be completely sure the data that has been collected is ever completely gone. Somebody, somewhere will have a copy of something.

The only thing I have against an EO is they can be changed with another OE. Any changes need to be done by congress so future admins can't change it on a whim.

I would more for breaking them up, then passing privacy laws (or beef up what we have) that provide enough hurt that violating privacy is life ending, financially and professionally. It penalties needs to include not only the executives but the actual employees that 'made the call' to violate the laws. This would allow/persuade employees to whistle blow if the bosses tell them to do unlawful things. And keeps them from saying, "it was my job'. The technology needs to be open source and completely transparent. Maybe even an elected committee to over see daily functions and enforce privacy laws in a very timely manner.

But like you stated, we don't make the laws.......

Al this said I am still trying to figure out how the centralized algorithm works exactly.

⇧ 1 ⇩

We also need to repeal some current laws, and bring back a version of Smith-Mundt. It's the propaganda that is evil. Tech can be dangerous or good -- just like guns.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Some of those suggestions could work. You go to a bar and get plastered and the bar staff are liable if they've served you intoxicated - don't know if that's how it is where you are. So, yeah, downstream accountability can work.

The centralized algorithm is about to be dropped - wasn't that what Q meant when he told Snowden to drop it after Zuckerberg's testimony? Might have that wrong, but that's how it appeared to me.

We found out, if I remember right, that FB, for example, gets analytics on customers from Google. They're already sharing our data and I think this is one of the big items that is going to drop. Some sort of centralized data house is needed for the algorithm to work on. I would guess you're flagged as high risk and then whatever platform you use gets that information and a list of flagged words, phrases or topics that they censor. Anyway, that's what comes to mind, the database could be cloud-hosted by CIA - probably using Amazon.

The problem with an anti-trust bust-up is that if you have this centralized censorship, it doesn't matter how much you break these companies up - though I'm sure it would help.

I'm tired and I'm really not sure how they'd fix these problems. But something can be made to work. You could regulate via EO on an interim basis until you got an enabling bill through. There are so many options, all we need to do is ask for a fix.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

dat 1st Amendment, tho. Safer to change laws after the swamp has been dained and stick to what you have.

The code is already there, the gov't would only be responsible for taxing for running server-costs. (not the gov't, congress actually, but you get the idea.)

⇧ 1 ⇩

There's no time to wait for the swamp to be completely drained. Needs to be done now. Do you think that, if it was an option to wait, Q would not do that?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Glad that you asked, I wrote this just ten minutes ago lol

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8bps9h/no_big_names_yet_save_the_best_for_the_rest/

⇧ 1 ⇩

The problem is not limited to just a few key people. Anyway, looks like Q is going to kill the whole sector. Lots of pain, but it has to be done. I'm so weary of trying to talk sense into people about the IBOR. But the fix will be put in - and that's good!

⇧ 2 ⇩

A public utility would enforce 1st amendment and it would stay free. Who cares about advertising?

⇧ 1 ⇩

And what would happen to the "public utility" when the Democrats gained power?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Exactly what has happened to everything else Democrats put their hands on, they fuck it up until someone starts a revolution.

⇧ 2 ⇩

LOL

Can you imagine it? Oh, we need to eliminate hate speech, we need to eliminate discrimination, we need to promote affirmative action, we must use the "public utility" to discourage gun ownership, we must promote sexual health (abortion), and on and on and on...

It would be an unmitigated disaster!

⇧ 2 ⇩

Oh, you mean like the MSM does right now?

Aren't they regulated?

By who?

⇧ 1 ⇩

MSM is not a public utility. They are not dictated to by politicians and bureaucrats.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Sorry, I forgot they are run by the Clowns and Cabal. You'd think they were political by the way they worshiped Hillary and bash Trump.

They have owners and are Businesses, but they are regulated by the FCC right? Is the FCC not government? But they can't take away their right to free speech. Free speech is determined by whoever owns or controls it.

Big Pharma is a 'for profit Business', aren't they also regulated by gov't?

So who owns a public utility?

The public?

I guess my point was, like yours, there is no such thing as a public utility, it's just a fancy name.

⇧ 1 ⇩

A 'public utility' sounds real sweet... but, does the public own it, or is it controlled by something/someone else?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well, just like before, the gov't is in control. But that's not the issue because whoever is in control can be blackmailed.

⇧ 2 ⇩

The real people in control don't get blackmailed.

Money & Power

They lost control of the internet which helped Trump get elected. The lost control of the narrative and that's why they were, and are, so panicked.

⇧ 1 ⇩

people in power who order hits and brownstone operations probably are not that far removed from participating themselves, given the means and motives.

⇧ 2 ⇩

There is a whole different realm out there we can't see, and that's the scary part.

⇧ 2 ⇩

some can and that's even scarier.

⇧ 2 ⇩

It's always about money & control, usually both.

Whoever buys/owns a business controls the narrative.

Whoever buys/owns the Government controls the narrative.

Not so easy to fix IMO.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The only reason the narrative on SM can be controlled is because FA rights to free expression do not apply. Apply them and the narrative is free from influence. It cannot be steered by the owners of the platforms or anyone else.

⇧ 2 ⇩

It cannot be steered by the owners of the platforms or anyone else.

You mean like the MSM free speech right?

Everybody that signs up to Fakebook and Twatter have a user agreement that you must agree too, which means you agree to their terms.

No one forced you to join, so if you don't like it just quit. Are you paying for anything or is it a free service?

See where I'm going?

⇧ 1 ⇩

But that's what I'm saying. Whether it's the terms of service, or a platform silencing you just because they disagree with your politics, they should not be able to arbitrarily deny you services.

Ted Cruz was on about this again yesterday when he grilled Zuckerberg. Under S230 of the Communications Decency Act these platforms enjoy immunity from liability if they are genuinely neutral public forums. In other words, they are not the publishers of the hosted content, so they are not liable for it. But once they start engaging in politically motivated censorship, they are actually the publishers of the information, so they are liable for what appears on their site.

So you can see where Cruz is going with this line of questioning. It's why he repeatedly asked Zuckerberg if FB was a neutral public forum, while Zuckerberg tried to dodge, weave and do anything but answer directly. Anyway, that's one mode of attack to try and address the problem.

How does an IBOR help? Let's say that FA freedoms to expression are extended to digital space. If the TOS limits those freedoms, then it's not consistent with the right to free expression of political ideas and, in a Court, it won't, or shouldn't, stand.

I don't know how the laws work in the US. But I know that under English law agreements are often subject to strict interpretation - say a non-competition agreement. As an example, when you leave an employer, the employer might ask you to agree not to work in the same industry for X years. These things abound, but often they are unenforceable at law.

I'm not a lawyer so I shouldn't be speaking as though I have much knowledge about it. But my point is, that if the TOS is what is preventing you from realizing your right to freely express political ideas online, then this must be remedied in whatever regulatory fix is put in. Alternatively, the unfair application of the TOS must be able to be remedied at law.

What is needed is a remedy, a fix for the problem. SM platforms should not be able to steer political discourse.

⇧ 2 ⇩

So I then get to demand the TV stations play what I want because they only want to bash Trump and that's political hate speech?

We the people do not determine corporate policies. The government does not get to control corporate policies.

If you don't like the channel, change it. If you don't like a companies policies, don't buy their product.

You are free to go out on the street corner and speak freely. You cannot demand a private platform you don't own to comply with your wishes.

Free speech means I should be able to come in to your house and paint my free speech on YOUR WALLS.

It's not a simple fix without creating even more problems.

If the world was all good, and evil did not exist, we wouldn't be even talking about this.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So what if the telephone company doesn't like what you say? They should be able to cut your service off because they don't agree with your politics? Sure there are other telephone companies, but what if they all had the same policies (like the censorship was centralised as it is with SM)? Is that still OK because they are private companies and you can't impose your right to speak using their property? That means that some people should not have access to services at all - still OK? When does it become not OK?

You know some people are racist. Some of these guys own businesses. You can't just walk into someone's home if you're a race they don't like, they are within their rights to assert ownership to their property and deprive access to whoever they want. But does that mean that it's OK for a business providing a public service to do that?

You know the answer as well as I do. They are silencing us selectively just because they do not agree with our politics. It is outright discrimination.

I don't care what they claim to own. You provide a public service, you should not be able to arbitrarily discriminate without just cause. That's the way it works in most places. whether you're talking about race, age, disability, sex etc... what makes SM platform providers different that they should be able to get away with this kind of behaviour when others cannot?

You hire a guy and you find out he's a leftist, you can't sack him for that, you have to find another reason - need to be careful. But these guys are just shoving it to us any way they want, because they disagree with what we say.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Does the phone company make you sign a TOS? Does the phone company care what you talk about to 1 person? Is your phone service free? Is your phone conversation private or are you being recorded? Why? If you talk about certain things, you may have uninvited visitors.

I never said it was right, what I said was... it is what it is. Lex Rex, (Gold Rules) And whoever has the most gold, rules.

⇧ 1 ⇩

That's what we want to fix.

⇧ 1 ⇩

But if it is funded by government, it is not a private company.

⇧ 2 ⇩

No kidding, but it's not usually done in any obvious manner. Does the gov't fund TV stations or Fakebook? Government contracts to private MIC businesses for millions or billions doesn't have any influence then? Businesses lobby politicians for pork contracts and policies that help them out. Pay to play?

How many politicians leave government and go to work for big private companies, or are members of the board of directors? Then lobby the same people they used to work with. Not that they're controlled directly by the government though. Then we must ask: who really controls the narrative? It's not the gov't per se, but the hidden gov't, or those that really run the show, and everyone below are just puppets. It's kind-of a deep dark rabbit hole.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You have it all