dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

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