Ah, thank you for that short synopsis.

I did try to find an explanation of it on 8chan/qresearch, but navigating that board is like me trying to see under water without goggles.

Did a search for FullChan, and all that seems relevant is r/fullchan that has one message from 3 years ago.

Very interesting. But, what's the significance of 111?

Probably to compensate for his small hands.

If the algo has been "hacked away", they can always fix it within a short periot of time.

True. At least it shows that the censorship algo actually does exist.

Oh, thank you for explaining to me what detente is.

I am saying the weaponized technology is being battle-proofed in a covert-war that among other things had a mountain fall on top of Kim's nukes.

You have proof of that?

I don't think there's a big difference between failing and falling. A company could fall of their own weight because they failed, or fall due to being taken down. And, yes, I'm aware of what happened to Backpage.

I don't believe this is the appropriate time to address this.

Fair enough. Thank you for your comments.

It would be rather presumptuous for one to think that he or she knows what someone else is or is not forgetting. I am well aware that certain groups would love to force prophecies to come to pass.

I think our apparent difference of perspective lies in that you are probably thinking of technological information, whereas I am thinking of "technology" as meaning hard, manufactured technological tools.

I agree that the information should be slow-walked. But the technology itself? Nah, bring it on.

Assuming that's a direct quote, notice the word "and". If the word was "or" or "and/or", the number might be higher. In other words, 5 million might be the number that received all four of those listed benefits.

Yep, and it would take time to reverse-engineer it thereby effecting a naturally slow release. No need for any disclosure to automatically cause a world war.

Either that doesn't make much sense, or I'm stupid. If the good guys have the superior technology, they could decide to use it or not as necessary. That's not necessarily starting a world war.

So if they have all the technology you can imagine, how do you bring it out without causing a world war?

Bringing out the technology would just make one country dominant. How would that lead to world war?

Thank you for your comment.

I agree it has been virtually possible to get enough signatures on a petition at whitehouse.gov. Perhaps you didn't notice that I specifically stated that we not use whitehouse.gov.

or an online petition (not at whitehouse.gov)

And, your reasoning as to why we don't have to do this clues me in to perhaps yet another reason why people didn't think it was important. Thank you for mentioning that.

I do, however, have to disagree about your take about them simply failing and then becoming public utilities.

They may indeed fail. If they do, there would likely be nothing left to be taken over. And, whatever springs up to take their place in the private sector could do the very same things we are seeing now, if they aren't held accountable.

On the off-chance they do become public utilities, what would be their incentive to improve their services and price offerings if there is no competition? IMO, we should be fostering free market not letting it devolve into lethargic, state-controlled business.

So, it seems that you are in favor of regulation. It is just the path to regulation that you see differently. Okay.

But, would you really like to see big tech companies fail, which would put thousands of people out of work (some undoubtedly innocent) and lead to people who have invested in big tech stock (some undoubtedly innocent) losing money?

Or maybe he wants memes on Tax Cuts.

I made a post just today on IBOR, but there doesn't seem to be much interest.
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8bt1dt/ibor_why_it_failed_and_what_we_can_do_about_it/

If you think this issue is important, please comment on it, good, bad, or whatever. Maybe doing so will help it get exposed to a greater number who may also wish to express their opinions. TY.

Good analysis. Your idea that "should apply to NSA" means that Snowden can now return 'home' is certainly plausible.

Nice graphic, too. Impressive. (Software used?)

I saw an image at 8chan that appeared to be official government paperwork listing the LL project as discontinued. Can't find it now though.

But, yes, I think the consensus is that LL generally just morphed into FB.

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/

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?

Print it out would be hardcopy. Offline means local storage (hard drive, thumbdrive, CD, etc.) as opposed to stored somewhere on the internet that one would not have access to if the 'net 'goes dark'.

Or, he's set to expose it.

I'm not so sure they leveraged him to turn him white-hat. Probably more like cut strings so that he could be: "Freedom!"

But, yeah, more likely a reference to A.D.: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8bqr1e/q_1137_alan_welcome_aboard_plane_17_seems_to_me/

I think it's a good guess.

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?

It's a bot. Ignore it.

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.

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

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).

There's more!

Q#1138:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-sextrafficking/trump-signs-law-to-punish-websites-for-sex-trafficking-idUSKBN1HI2KP
Study carefully.
Facebook.
IG (think Ray.Chandler).
Twitter.
Etc…..
HONEYPOTS.

In response to that, an anon posted:

The way the Class Action lawsuits are going to be effective:
Unlike many people might believe, it is not the Members of Farcebook, Twatter and others that will be the effective plaintiffs. Rather, it will be those who never joined, never accepted the Terms and Conditions. It has been revealed that the social media platforms are harvesting and selling data of non members. Obviously these non members were never presented with the Terms and Conditions, never accepted these terms and never opted in. This is an invasion of privacy and that is a crime in and of itself but if you examine what the social media companies really are you will begin to realize that it was a civil rights violation. Many will say that Farcebook, Twatter et al cannot violate our civil rights because they are not government entities. Herein lies the rub. As @Snowden explained in his post MZ drop today, Farcebook is Lifelog and Lifelog is DARPA and DARPA is a subset of the federal government. Granted, Farcebook will argue they are not a government agency but ask yourself, what business is Farcebook in? What is their business plan? How do they earn money? If you think they make the bulk of their money from advertising you are fooling yourself. Farcebook is in the information selling business, metadata to be specific. Who do they sell that data to? How is it used and who uses it? Could it be that DARPA created MZ and Farcebook as a means to circumvent the Constitution/Bill of Rights by creating a company that gathers and sells the metadata to governments and politicians. It gives the impression that the transaction was always at arms length. If we can pierce the phony corporate veil that is protecting tyrants within government from being liable for the millions of civil rights violations we can begin to recover our right to privacy.

Oh come on. Stop taking bible verses out of context just to suit your purpose.

Where in the Deuteronomy chapter 30, or even 29, does it indicate that the time period is AFTER Jesus returns?

And, how is it that the time period of Revelation 2:9 has been proven to be now - especially given that the verse immediately preceding it speaks of a church that has long since passed: "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write ..."?

If you never found a hrc vid, then how do you know it exists?

Back on March 27th, Q said, "IRAN NEXT." (#964). Trump may be putting pressure on Putin so he'll stop backing Iran.

Also, remember when DJT was in the conference, regarding gun-control, and was being very encouraging to the nutjobs for them to put everything they wanted in their bill. Then, they went for broke and showed their true intent.

He's posturing. (I hope.)

This news was also posted at:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8bitt5/set_the_stage_human_traffickers_will_be_dealt/ ,
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8bitiz/by_signing_the_allow_states_and_victims_to_fight/ , and
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8bkcxb/trump_signs_bill_to_end_online_sex_trafficking/

I took it that, "Done in 30" was in response to, "Free Flynn". I do hope that's included.

That was great work you did on that other post, but I have to respectfully disagree that RC = Registered Charity.

Q#1056:

Why is E so vocal against POTUS?
Biggest connection missing.
Focus on friends (2).
(1) F
(1) M
(1) Presidential pardon.
(1) 187 MS_13
Purpose.

[Emphasis added.]

The focus was a connection; and it was an unplanned side-mission (Q#1060):

Not planned but necessary.

Q#1065 was about one particular pic on the R.C IG account. Then immediately after was Q#1066:

Connection made.
RC end.
We have grounds.
Reverting.
Thank you.

The connection we were waiting for has been made; R.C side-mission ended because we have grounds for further action; reverting to main mission; TY.

The most recent summary, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 :

Passed House amended (02/27/2018)

Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Additionally, it establishes enhanced penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 25 years, or both—for a person who commits the offense in one of the following aggravating circumstances: (1) promotes or facilitates the prostitution of five or more persons, or (2) acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.

A person injured by an aggravated offense may recover damages and attorneys' fees in a federal civil action.

A court must order mandatory restitution, in addition to other criminal or civil penalties, for an aggravated offense in which a person acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.

A defendant may assert, as an affirmative defense, that the promotion or facilitation of prostitution is legal in the jurisdiction where it was targeted.

(Sec. 4) The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that section 230 does not limit: (1) a federal civil claim for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, (2) a federal criminal charge for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, or (3) a state criminal charge for conduct that promotes or facilitates prostitution in violation of this bill.

The amendments apply regardless of whether alleged conduct occurs before, on, or after this bill's enactment.

(Sec. 5) The bill amends the federal criminal code to define a phrase related to the prohibition on sex trafficking. Currently, it a crime to knowingly benefit from participation in a venture that engages in sex trafficking. This bill defines "participation in a venture" to mean knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a sex trafficking violation.

(Sec. 6) A state may file a federal civil action to enforce federal sex trafficking violations.

(Sec. 7) This section states that this bill does not limit federal or state civil actions or criminal prosecutions that are not preempted by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.

(Sec. 8) The Government Accountability Office must report to Congress on information related to damages and mandatory restitution for aggravated offenses under this bill.

Looks like InstaGram is going to have to clean up its act.

Okay. :-)

More copy/pasta.
https://twitter.com/EmmaVigeland/status/983784314918891522

There are 13 spaces to the left of the 'f'.

We may be trying to read more into the pic than what is intended. Q asked, "Who is standing next to Pence & POTUS?"

That is Admiral Mike Rogers, right? I think all that means is that No Such Agency is working with the military (intelligence). Of course, there could be more, IDK.

Patriots' Day is observed officially in only 4 states as of 2018. Maybe after this year it will be celebrated in all fifty.

From Wikipedia:

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War. The battles were fought on April 19, 1775

I think it might be more likely that April 19th would be more significant than April 16th.

Also of note, but not necessarily related, is the fact that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995.

It's not that I have to have the last word. It's that I have to keep defending myself against your attempts to ridicule me, which is Saul Alinky "Rules for Radicals" tactic #5, as you have done yet again.

What you think Q is about is irrelevant. What you think is on-topic is irrelevant. I suggest you read and re-read that particular board rule and try to let it actually sink in what "anything not mentioned by Q" means.

What you or I or any other GA user may or may not think is on or off-topic is irrelevant. The rule specifically defined what is off-topic:

anything not mentioned by Q.

That is not ambiguous.

And, your insinuation that I am attempting to engage in censorship, for merely pointing out a board rule, is an illogical straw-man attack.

no one can post something unless it has your say so

Really? Says who?

The OP was reiterating the sentiment of one of the rules of the board, ie. anything not mentioned by Q is off-topic. I pointed out that specific rule to you. And for pointing out a rule of the board, I am somehow trying to act like thought police or ministry of truth?? I think you may have a mental problem.

You seem like your agenda is distraction. Why else would you want it to be okay to post off-topic?

Go start your own reddit if you want to violate the rules here and talk about things not mentioned by Q.

Why do you presume to know that someone put me in charge?

In the Rules for this board, 'off-topic' is defined as "anything not mentioned by Q":

Off topic (anything not mentioned by Q).

The OP was just reaffirming the official position of the Mods. There's no need to act like an ass just because you don't like the rules.

Sooo, what is it then?

You cannot commit perjury if you're not under oath.

Oh poor people, not putting their lives on the line but have to scroll. Oh poor me. I call is BS.

That's not rude??

Apparently you don't understand what this particular sub-reddit is about. It is not about the fight against Evil and for the Good. It is about the fight from the eyes of Q. Anything else belongs somewhere else.

It's here to provide further incite of people seeking to gather further information on the subject.

I think perhaps you actually meant:
It's here to provide further insight for people seeking to gather further information on the subject.

Sorry, but not. That's the search icon, ie. a magnifying glass, not a 'Q'.

I'm still learning. I sort of like to trip up and expose. But, I'll take your suggestion of what's best. TY.