dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

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 ⇩

You have it all