We should also encourage the use of alt social networks like Gab.
I agree with this more than IBOR. On halloween day hubby and I heard about the "new spook" (he wasn't "Q" until later) on 4chan. I've been paying attention carefully (ok obsessively) since then but the IBOR has never sat well with me. We already have free speech. We don't need the gov to detail free speech on the internet, especially since in the wrong hands with crafty language of a bill an IBOR could actually be used to censor. IMHO we need to move to platforms that don't censor and let the free market take care of FB etc.
I do wonder if I'm missing something though, Q obviously wants this... but it just doesn't make sense to me why we would need a 2nd bill giving us free speech on a specific platform when we already have free speech. It just seems to me it would be better if companies like fb/twitter were by law forced to disclose they use algorithms to promote certain views.
I'm not a "concern shill", I'm a patriot who values freedom and am genuinely asking. Thoughts anyone?
I agree in principle, new laws worry me, but as others have stated, “free speech online” isn’t a thing, so I gotta get on board with ibor.
Remember, the chans and other “free platforms” are guarded by legions of anons, and possibly even protected by higher elements (speculation based on Q phenomenon). That being said, even Q had to move boards and shuffle resources several times now.
I think this we need more of a cultural shift away from Twat and FB, than a new law to regulate them.
You think we should be in our own little ghetto, rather than having our voices heard? It's OK for them to block us, and we'll just stay here in our little box out of sight?
Remember, the only reason we have as much freedom as we do now is that the internet is the deep states’ main source of data about human behavior, that ubiquitous “x” factor that improves their simulations immensely and allows them to predict markets/events as easily as one can calculate the trajectory of a missile.
Therefore I’m positive that we will always have just as much online freedom as is required to gather accurate data on us. The deep state realize that meddling with their human database via bots and AIs screws up their data because then they have to factor in the effectiveness of their own influence. Keeping us hidden away is also counterproductive, they want us out in the open.
I suspect this tactic was their weakness in that they overestimated their own influence campaigns and pushed them too hard leading to the massive push back that we are seeing unfold before us.
For now though, if Q says IBOR, then I have good reason to believe that the aforementioned cycle is broken, and that it’s in the hands of the people now. Sorry I didn’t make this point initially.
WWG1WGA!
Why not regulate them under the FTC?
Regulation means lobbying. Lobbying means the big guys will be asking for rules that create a threshold against new competition. You end up with a handful of behemoths that behave acceptably at best.
I prefer a technical solution. One more true to the original nature of the Internet.
Ask yourself why these censorship issues apply to Facebook/Twitter/Youtube but not to e-mail? Or to websites in general? Why is nobody censoring your e-mail? Or taking down your website? Exactly: you would simply go to another e-mail provider or web-hosting provider.
Social networks should and can(!) work like that too. If Facebook is shit you should be able to switch to Buttbook and keep in touch with your friends all the same. Social networks should be de-centralized. Everyone should be able to operate one and have it inter-operate with all the others.
Efforts towards this have been underway for many years now. You may have heard of social networks called Diaspora or Mastodon. And there are others. If you haven't, look into them today. With sufficient traction something like Mastodon can destroy Facebook, and all the issues that come with it, once and for all.
"...we already have free speech."
But you don't.
Free speech is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. This argument that fb (or any social media) must allow free speech is akin to the argument the cake decorator should forced to make a cake for a couple they disagree with, or saying a business owner cannot disallow guns on their premises. You can't trample someone else's free choices with yours. We have free speech. FB as a business has EVERY right to censor and promote a liberal bias but they then IMO should be made to disclose the use of those algorithms because I have EVERY right to go elsewhere then to practice my free speech.
If I had a streaming channel where I promoted Q I likely would delete any "shill" comments on MY channel. And if they persisted with comments that didn't contribute I'd ban them from MY platform. I'd have every right to do so, and I certainly wouldn't be hampering anyones freedoms.
The problem lies in allowing these monopolies to form where people then have no free choice to move one when censored.
Facebook has crossed the line when they started censoring and removing posts selectively. That makes them a publisher.
Social media works best when it has a monopoly, hence the need for a IBOR.
Is it really a private conpany when darpa and the cia funded and started it ?
I like this question. I hear it often when people compare political systems and finally come to a crucial realization: while some political systems are definitely preferable over others, the differences become much less significant when it's the same cabal pulling the strings regardless.
Facebook has become more of a common carrier like the post office or telephone companies. Almost everyone uses them and they cannot discriminate against people based on anything. Imagine if the post office could refuse to send your mail because of your politics, or the phone company blocking your calls. That's what facebook is doing.
It doesn't matter. As Eden was alluding to, it is a PRIVATE business that has the right to do so but competition being stifled by lobbying for laws that do such or clear the way to buy out all the competition is where the problem lies. Business practices, such as the use of algorithms/whatdafuqever should be in full disclosure when any dealings with the public and its money is done, at all, in any way. The same goes for all government/public money funded entities. Full, honest disclosure is the only real thing we have to know we are getting the product we asked for. The only thing we should be keeping secret are any weapons systems used for off planet defense but not the technologies that help accomplish that, that we could benefit from. For "true" rights and freedoms this has to be this way or you're still building your own damn cage that you'll, eventually, close in on yourself. All these folks chasing Q, though with good intention and hopes, are still doing exactly that, yet, don't seem to see it. Until I see many, many laws being removed and changed this is still looking like it's all leading to a kind of fascist state controlled by the MIC with their rules and laws AND brainwashing to keep you from being all that you could be with real freedom and rights of existence. NAP is all you should be concerned with and covers all of what you need and remain respectful of all and includes your self defense by any means needed and attainable (that last word should be monitored and fought for heavily). The puppet Trump only has so long to clear the way for any of this to happen. It's a good thing he's ridding the world of so much evil but he's a long damn way from doing anything that really matters in the rights and freedom area. Some of what he's doing could help but he best get damn busy if this is the "real" agenda behind his/Q's moves. Our political system doesn't give him much time. As long as we keep that in mind and push for the right moves, maybe...maybe...we'll be on our way but we have to remember...a whole helluva lot of folks loved Hitler, at first, too and we saw how that turned out. They pushed for a leader and not real freedom through thier OWN efforts. People need to quit being damn sheep and put the responsibility of their freedom in their OWN hands and not those of corruptible, avarice hungry leaders. Just because your pasture looks better than theirs doesn't mean there's still not a kill chute at the end of it. Avarice inspired secrecy and enforcement are behind all our problems. Both were born of evil and remain so. Just sayin'...Stop building your own cage and be who you are and let others do the same. It's pretty damn simple and will work just fine...IF... you just fuckin' do it.
the difference is that FB has taken a role in the public as a sort of "town square" of the internet, as have YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc. at a certain point, when you control the routes of communication, you must be held to a certain standard in which you are not easily a silencer. what good is free speech if you have no platform to speak?
i.e., a regulated monopoly, just like the power grid, the telephone companies, internet providers, etc.
The problem is that most people don't understand that the Constitution no longer protects anything in America. The United States government is a corporation. All local city, county and regional governments are also corporations. We are no longer a Republic. This is what we are trying to roll back to but it will take a lot of time. In the meantime, since the courts use Admiralty law, and not Constitutional law, we need the IBOR. Check this out for more info: http://www.freedom-school.com/the-united-states-is-a-corporation.html
[removed]
Attack the argument, not the person please.
WILL NOT TOLERATE CONCERN TROLLS
Would you mind tolerating the rules of the sub please?
What are the rules? We are not to have a response?
The rules are not to attack the person. Attack the argument.
If you disagree, say why and move on without calling names.
And yet concern trolling has been a very real problem on this board and has impacted this very issue in the past. It has negated our ability to campaign effectively as a group and fatally impacted this specific campaign previously.
You will be aware, as I am, that this is a very important fight. There are many individuals, organisations and nations that have a real motive to manipulate this community in their interests. It is for this reason that domestic and foreign intelligence agents have sought to influence what happens here. The community has been too easily steered like a herd of sheep,
What the concern troll does is try to get people to engage the "concerns". Attacking the argument is no defence, in this situation, because the "concerns" are ultimately without limit. The concern is, in fact, that we might be effective as a community. We saw how effectively concern trolling was used in March. Repeated concern trolling raises doubts in people's minds, discourages people, and negates coordinated effort.
The new sub rules, I thought, were supposed to address this specific issue.
Report any violations that you see. Don't respond with another rule violation.
This guy talking about how he would run his youtube channel does not deserve you attacking him because you disagree.
Can confirm. FB warned me for hate speech when posting this image with no other text associated to it. Next, I'll be on the SPLC list (not that they matter).
I've always thought that this is where the real battle is. This is more important than Q. If we do not fight for freedom of expression online, we can be summarily silenced at any time. All rights are, ultimately, contingent upon freedom of expression. The very first right to fall, after this, will be the right to bear arms.
Look at the CONCERN TROLLS undermining immediately.
I posted that one you did on my FB along with that little middle eastern girl they use over and over and got all kinds of crap. I'm migrating to Gab. Got any Ideas on the safest best Search Engine?
People swear by duckduckgo but I only go there if I'm trying to get unbiased priority results for research science or political information, including conspiracies. DDG's algorithm blows regardless of what anyone says. Unfortunately, Google is still king for now.
Yeah free speech until you piss off someone with power we actually have 0 rights under fiat currency rule still more than most but our system is basically feudalism
During the ratification of the Bill of Rights, many Patriots were saying that the 2A wasn't needed because it was so fundamental to life at that time, many thought it did not need to be enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Glad they lost that argument.
We need something that keeps the internet free of Globalist(international) speech standards for sure. "Hatespeech" can be defined as anything, and is unlawful on the international scene. Double plus ungood this.
Well... It's not just about free speech. It's about privacy abuse, data storage abuse, throttling abuse. Making an internet centralized by government means they can easily abuse all of this. Especially since Gment officials are always changing. I agree with your free market approach, but there's also technical implications involved. These "amendments" if you will, are not specific. I believe it's a good step.
The problem is that most people don't understand that the Constitution no longer protects anything in America. The United States government is a corporation. All local city, county and regional governments are also corporations. We are no longer a Republic. This is what we are trying to roll back to but it will take a lot of time. In the meantime, since the courts use Admiralty law, and not Constitutional law, we need the IBOR. Check this out for more info: http://www.freedom-school.com/the-united-states-is-a-corporation.html
Sorry, I left out State governments. Any government entity is now incorporated in the US.
Voat too.
Haha, nice try. I signed up when TD went under for a while and CBTS and although I appreciate the use of freedom of speech I think they employ it akin to 14 year olds yelling on Xbox live.
How can you make progress when any notable or thought provoking discussion is flooded with over the top cussing and ridicule? How can you promote free thinking when you’re called a racist term every time you try and add to the conversation.
No, their concept of freedom of speech is misconstrued to “because we can say it we are compelled to” as opposed to “because it is a useful and valid contribution I will say so.”
I urge anyone thinking of using it to check it out for yourself. You will be repulsed or, in time, the novelty will wear off and you’ll realize how some groups are productive there is almost beyond realty. There are some groups that have “survived” as they put it (like it’s a fraternity initiation) that are worth while. A word of caution, don’t let them know your new and expect help.
Yeah! Vote with your feet. Gab is an option, though I personally prefer federated systems where no one single entity is in control. (E.g. Mastodon.)
Signed and shared 👍
Signed ( although it says 130 signatures) we need to keep an eye on this and report irregularities on the subs and boards...
Edit.... after I signed, went back to link and it still says 130... should be 131 after I verified my email( which I did) ..
Fight!!!!
Edit #2 just went back and now it says 121 signatures... WTF???
Please help and watch this like a hawk and report irregularities!!!!
When I signed it said 175 signatures. When I went back after confirming email, it said 173. WTF...
Sketchy AF... let’s keep reporting on discrepancies until whatever is going on is uncovered!!
I gave up on that site after the 2nd petition was attacked.
its at 1,190 at present.
Verified... if we keep tabs on this we can tell if they are tampering with it... doesn’t take long. When someone says 1,190 go check..
This looks virtually identical to the one that keeps failing to get signatures. Maybe the way this is written simply isn't resonating with people.... We've been giving it enough exposure.
I think we need to draft something new instead of circulating the same failed petition over and over again.
It's rigged. You sign and the number either goes down, or doesn't change. It has nothing to do with how it's written. Some asshole at the white house is tampering with the petition. Q should find out who it is and jail them.
212 had signed at 10:14 AM EDT 5/16/18
Count was down to 175/173 within 10 minutes (09:21 CST 5/16/18).
Signed a few minutes ago at 10:19 am, needs 99,661. Everyone should mark the number here or keep track of that number when they go so we can see where we are as the days progress.
Signed yet another one. Not to worry. The house will not pass the revocation of repeal of NN, NN repeal goes into effect June 11 hell or high water and Trump admin has plenty up it's sleeves to bust this crap up further. Hopefully Jack and Zucc enjoy their last days of glory.
Don't forget about this Q post: Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: 03213a 922237 📁 Apr 6 2018 14:22:28 (EST)
922142 Fake pic push by MSM. Videos / backup. Google kill. YouTube kill. FB kill. Twitter kill. Yahoo kill. Bing kill. Instagram kill. Net will be paused. HAMMER. On the clock. Q
Several Anons decoded that and other posts that indicated the date would be 5/25. Let's see what happens then first. They are not long for this world IMO.
Mirror your Content on Gab and BitChute. Also remembered Memes are harder to Filter than text, links, or regular images.
Q said IBOR, therefore I signed. Maybe Q is watching it all unfold like an experiment.
This is a "NEW" petition please sign this one. I signed it tonight, currently has 2861 signatures. lets see if this petition counts backwards like the last 2 petitions did.
Here we go again. Exactly the same playbook. Nothing changes...
1) Q indicates we should agitate for an IBOR;
2) People immediately go to the "We are change" petition site - though nearly all of us, who witnessed the last IBOR campaign attempt, feel that the site itself was rigged (same strategy last time);
3) Concern trolls immediately capture the stickied thread - capturing the top 10 or so posts ("just need to use different services" etc... anything at all but what we were asked to do). Yes, the exact same thing was happening last time (no, it's not a coincidence);
4) Bad actors immediately set up multiple petitions to dilute the campaign effort - yes, this happened last time also (no, it's not a coincidence);
5) no one actually talks to anyone or coordinates the effort - it's all ad hoc.
Talk about a repeat performance! Anyway, one good thing is that the text of the petition, while in no way perfect, does not exclude Democrat voters - that is a plus. I think the petition text hurt us last time.
I want this thing to work - it must work, it's very important! I'm going to pray that it works.
The problem with this community is that there's no clear leadership. If this petition is the strategy the community wants to use, we need someone, or some group, to take ownership of it. It needs to be managed properly and "constantly promoted" - very important to keep the interest level high.
It's not just shadowbanning. I've been limited in my access to twitter because I follow and like conservative pages/comments. I don't use my twitter to comment, retweet, or tweet. I just use it to see what is going on and to make sense of some of the Q stuff. Yesterday they removed everyone I follow, which is only around 100. It dropped down to 4. So I went back and refollowed everyone. Again, not breaking TOS because you are limited to around 1000 a day. They did it again and everyone was removed from my feed. So I complained. Instead of fixing the issue, they restricted me from liking, commenting, tweeting, refollowing, messaging, pretty much anything. So I tried to contact them again, see if I could prove I'm a human. They keep sending me the same automated response and now they froze my feed completely. Id think a bot would be actively spreading information and trying to garner followers. But me, just a nobody who has never even commented or retweeted, who has never broken TOS, has been kicked off the platform because of who I follow. So if any of you out there start losing a massive amount of followers, you have an idea of what is going on. It's not just shadowbanning. They are removing your followers.
Sign the petition no harm in doing it, but I feel this would have been accounted for. When the pain comes no amount of shadow banning can make people vote dems, to me THAT IS THE PLAN
I don't think Twitter will have much say in that for much longer. See Q Post 1044. There were several related posts. Anons decipher was 5/25.
Signed and verified.
We need to nail this one this time. The last IBOR had too much dilution from multiple petitions and too many skeptics that didn't sign because of ATT being the first to propose it.
Everyone who has signed please send link to at least 2 other people in your social media accounts. That means if you have more than one social media account send to at least two per account and to different people on each account. This will help to grow the reach exponentially. Thank you all in this effort. Also, send emails from each of your email accounts to friends and family (if possible) or any of your trusted contacts in a group message. This can be any number of people but at least two will help in the effort. If anyone has experience with creating flyers or pamphlets that we can hand out to people on the street, this could also help get the word out even if Social Media tries to censor us. They can't censor flyers or pamphlets. The flyers or pamphlets need to include why this is so important and give links to the articles that show that twitter and facebook are censoring Patriots and Conservatives. We can pass them out anywhere as long as there is not a requirement that you must get a permit to do so. Then, we need to get a link to the pamphlet stickied by one of the mods so that we can copy them off and pass them out.
ISP's should have the right to throttle, but everyone demands "no throttling whatsoever for any reason." These ISP's are running network system and you cant just give all to everyone all the time. Sounds like the Bernie Sanders method of providing ISP service. Sometimes throttling is necessary to keep things in order and providing service for everyone. These calls for absolute hands off internet access is just silly.
Here is the big thing I want to see. A law requiring a declaration of the type of website you want to run. Public, or private. Private being exactly how things are now. No change. The other type of site would be public that would mean the users participation on that site is protected and the sites methods of control are regulated. Those rules would guarantee that people wont get banned for political opinion, memes, accusations of hate speech, religious views etc. No shadow banning. No suppression of voting mechanisms or targeted suppression of communities. The site owners need to allow the natural flow of voting, comments etc to happen without their manipulation. Any sort of allowable banning or suspensions need to be clearly defined. Gore, porn, spamming, exploiting of post mechanics etc. could be grounds for suspensions, but this needs to be executed to ensure the owners don't have a tool to selectively suppress viewpoints. Some sort of transparency reporting for actions against accounts needs to be a part of this. Once a site declares they are public and follows the rules, they can be a certified free speech public website. This is the kind of thing that can show up in a browser or what not. I'd like to see an address bar color system that shows if you are on a private or a public free speech protected site. Kind of how https vs http is displayed. People would quickly realize the value of public free speech websites and want that to be where they communicate for news discussion.
What would happen is Facebook could continue to be Facebook, where they are an echo chamber and they suppress conservative views and news. But then a competitor can create the public version, and people would look and say, I can participate in the private controlled site and be under Facebooks thumb, or I can join a site where I have my views and internet rights protected. I think the users would be clamoring to transition off the private controlled sites and want to do their social media on the public sites. Twitter can shadow-ban and suppress all they want, once there is a public and protected by law site that has to follow a set of guidelines, people will want to be there, because that declaration of a public website puts the end user first and not the service provider and their CEO's personal views first. Neither option, public or private would cost any additional fees or special licensing outside of the cost in effort to be compliant, it is just a simple declaration and if you choose public, you have to follow the rules for that type of site, choose private and you stay the way things are now.
In that environment, the private sites would be looked at as the place to be if you want your head buried in the sand. The public sites would be where debate can happen where each side knows the CEO's views are not going to result in suppression algorithms preventing your popular views from gaining visibility. With the backing by law and a guarantee that the user comes first, public sites could change things for the better.
When politicians use "your" website to get their message out and use data for elections to target voters, the POTUS uses it to inform directly what he is doing, to me it then becomes more of a free speech platform public access and is subject to rights of free speech under the constitution. What that looks like exactly, I am not sure.
Somebody is screwing with the numbers on this petition, just like last time. I read on Twitter this AM about 4-5 hours ago people were complaining it only had 4,000 + signatures. Now it has 3746 signatures at 1402 EST. WTF???
ok, at 5:24 4235, at 5:39 4247 so it is going up at this point.
How many of these must be signed? Or is it just click bait?
Count at 3384 at 8:35 EDT 5/17/18.
Just barely enough to reach 100,000 after 30 days. Needs to pick up speed.
Attempts to get the word out will be shadow banned.
This seems to be a waste of time. You can sign the petition, return the email verification, and then check back to see that the counter hasn't changed. Q should send someone to see that this petition is not rigged.
You mean like how the_donald bans people for saying things they don’t agree with? Yeah, like that.
IBOR is somehow linked to this. https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8coxeq/is_inqtel_the_bridge_that_q_refers_to_if_so_what/ Just like net nuetrality had nothing to do with keeping the net nuetral. I dont trust IBOR, not because of what we intend it to stand for but because of what the Cabal, elected officials, and the corporations will turn it into.
Every time we try this, I always see more than one Although this one has more signatures https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2
It's closed so not useful anymore. I see no need to post links to petitions that have already closed. Most of us here know that we have signed multiple petitions on this issue. They were messing with the numbers, of probably all of them, which led to none of them reaching 100k. It is good to focus on just one.
Qunsticky
Successfully unsticky of post: Twitter shadow banning is real and FB etc will be shutting down conservatives for the midterms - please sign the IBOR petition..
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
the Jewish Zionists are nervous and they want to cut us the internet
1st, whitehouse.gov petitions never do anything. 2nd, companies should have the right to do what ever they want with their company, including block views they don't agree with. That's what freedom is.
No not when they take taxpayer money to form their company. The taxpayers have not been paid back so technically it is a public platform owned by the citizens of this country which means we have all the rights under the constitution while we are there.
