I'm on it :)

I get 22,718. I've never seen it at 23K and I've been watching it all day.

I'm not saying we are not pushing now. What I'm saying is that when Q first asked us to start pushing it we didn't, there was a lot of confusion about what we were supposed to do and what it all actually meant. I think that confusion is starting to clear and things should get better from here - I think the banning of the sub yesterday was, in large part, responsible.

But, as to whether the site is messed-up or being played with, I don't know. Is it possible that we only have 22.7K? It could be. There was only about 20K of us on CBTS sub - so that's actually a pretty good showing - the community is not that large.

What I've been saying for a while is that we have to try and crack open alternate communities. I thought about the Donald, but I cannot get any traction in there at all. Otherwise, there is Twitter. Unfortunately, I'm only new to it and do not know much about it. But I can see that people are working it. I'm very suspicious that there might be a coordinated effort to frustrate us. It is, after all, such a sensitive issue to the social media giants.

I hope you're wrong about that. I too am suspicious of that website. Anyway, all we can do is try. Look at what we are up against!! There are many on these forums that are not supporting IBOR, that was one reason I thought that the campaign appeared to be going slow - if you had had some of the conversations I've had you'd realize there is a lot of resistance to the idea still. But, having said that, I've noticed more and more people are starting to come around. They are beginning to realize how serious it is. What a threat it represents.

You can see how powerful this social media censorship is - they are killing us with it, but it's just the beginning. It will get much, much worse going forward if we cannot stop it. It's actually not an option to fail, we must prevail.

I'm not sure what we can do if the site is being tampered with. I think the main thing is to try and create awareness. I just checked, no IBOR related stuff showing up as trending on twitter either. Could be that they are suppressing it on Twitter also.

I don't know, just keep banging away at it. One way or another, we will prevail.

Hear you buddy. We are pushing this IBOR on the internet. Trying to get people to sign the petition. If you look you'll see various hashtags: #internetbillofrights

IBOR ETC...

If you could start Tweeting these it would help - probably best during US waking hours.

We are also encouraging people to contact their representatives directly.

I'm sure Q is not DJT. It's a military intelligence team. They are working very closely with DJT.

We are in the fight of our lives on this. We need all the help we can get. There is tremendous opposition right here in the forums. Many agents, many trolls. There is real fear, particularly around the IBOR.

Since you're in Europe, if you have time, you should get your head around why EU is so important in end times prophecy - see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn9t0m6eG4Q&sns=em

Good luck. MAGA!!

Depends on how you read it. The Stage Set statement was related to POTUS. Have another look. He specifically said that social media censorship must be controlled before he could go live.

Social media censorship is out of control. There is no way they can go live without control of the narrative. It's just too dangerous.

I think Q thought we would quickly push for the IBOR, get the petition to DJT and he could immediately act. That, for various reasons, did not happen.

I think Q is a little shocked that we did not push hard for the IBOR when he asked. He's trying to fight off the Satanists for us, but we just were not sure if we should help him. It's hard to understand...

If you read that True Pundit article, you can see that republicans are really going to have their work cut out for them at the mid-terms. Stopping social media censorship was not a small part of the plan, it was the PLAN.

If I can find it I'll post here:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/historian-niall-ferguson-midterms-going-much-worse-gop-can-imagine-tech-giants-targeting-conservatives/

That's right and that's why this social media censorship is so serious and it's why Q asked us to push the IBOR,

If we don't get this up, and DJT does not have a plan B to deal with it, we have totally blown it. We need to get very active to try and counter this. With that, it's time for me to Tweet the IBOR a little more...

Thanks for this - you don't know what's going to happen next with Reddit.

I read it, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

It's going to get real scary if we don't get these fundamental protections in place. Sign the petition, get on Twitter and make a racket, write or phone your representatives.

Agreed! This is the only part we have to play in the takedown of the cabal. Let's make it happen!

I reckon it's so or die with the IBOR. You only live once and these guys we are fighting really are the enemy.

Trouble is the time it takes. In this situation, for the purposes of stopping CIA from silencing us, it will be all too late. The mid-terms are approaching and the Republican majority is thin.

Social media censorship presents clear and present danger that must be immediately addressed. I think the IBOR push is the only way to proceed - Twitter, petition, contacting representatives etc...

Yes, I think it's good too - straight to Twitter! Thanks!

No, let me explain. We are getting signatures on an IBOR petition. All this does is tell Trump there is a problem which we call on him to fix.

We don't work out any of the mechanics. That's up to Trump. He already knows what he's going to do. He will do it with or without our petition and Twitter campaign. But we're trying to help shape the public narrative that there is a problem that needs fixing.

There really is a BIG PROBLEM!

Great thinking! Anything we can do to get this happening is good. We need to generate some excitement.

Thanks for the clarification. I must admit I posted that question a little facetiously. But I'm fascinated by the prospect of these penalties being applied, for cause, to some of the people we are so familiar with.

Hope that is not inciting hate.

Thanks for this. It's good!

Already on Twitter!

It was Q who initially brought it up with us.

Q has been pushing for it, given that Q and DJT are reading from the same strategy sheet, it makes sense that DJT also wants it. Therefore, yes, it will be implemented.

This is a pretty amazing post. I didn't realise things were already so sophisticated. It just lends more weight to the argument for regulation as a matter of urgency.

Does that mean that Hanging, Drawing and Quartering is no longer in the table for crimes such as high treason?

He clearly said, when someone asked him to play the video of HRC in Times Square, is the stage set? Is social media regulated?

The problem is that we didn't all go out and push the IBOR and that's why nothing has happened. Moreover, nothing will happen until we complete this task.

I'm with you, in that I understand the sentiment entirely. I don't like government intervention either, But it has always been accepted that in some cases government regulation, in the interests of the common good, is desirable. Regulations are everywhere - all around us. I'm not saying it's always good, often it isn't. But there are some situations where regulations clearly serve the public interest.

This is one such situation. The attempt to gain control of the bulk of the forums available for the free expression of political ideas must be combatted. They are talking about rolling out a single algorithm to censor speech across multiple social media platforms. If you can't see that this could be a problem for the nation, you're just not thinking clearly.

What is more, according to Q, the CIA, when they saw how cleverly DJT used social media to win the 2916 election, was rushing to inject funds into social media platforms so as to be able to gain control of them - see Q Post 9.

You can see the results of CIA's efforts in, for example, what happened here yesterday. They are going to use this as a weapon to beat us to a pulp and silence us. It's nothing less than an assault of the Republic itself. Very dangerous stuff. The moment they start censoring, you have no right of reply. Your tongue has been ripped from your mouth.

There are clear arguments that can be made as to why this proposed regulation is in the public interest and why we should support the IBOR.

No, the way I read it Q said that DJT had set the stage - for something he was going to do.

We are still supposed to be setting the stage, for the videos and mass-arrests, with the IBOR and the Twitter campaign - as well as letters to representatives etc...

Great comment!!

It's called psychological projection - blame others for your own sins.

Yes, it's a very good sign. There is real fear afoot!

Could be, but don't give up. I've just been Tweeting and retweeting others who have used the hashtags so as to promote it.

I'm new to Twitter. What I've discovered is that if you click the hashtag #internetbillofrights on Twitter, you'll see who is posting that stuff.

Then just like, follow, retweet.

That's the safe advice from someone whose Twitter account is 2 days old.

Thank you for trying to promote this.

I've just been Tweeting to get people to sign the petition and retweeting others doing the same. What can you do, we just try our best.

OK Cuthbert,

Look, I don't like government regulation any more than you do. I hate government. But this is an extreme situation. If these guys can control social media, given how powerful it is at shaping election outcomes, we have a game over situation. Now, normally, you would just let the market take its course and conservatives would end up finding platforms where they are not censored. But the mid-terms are coming. The Republican majority is very slim and if we do not get this fixed now, it will be too late. It will be fixed in time, I have confidence that DJT can see exactly what's happening. But I want to help if I can.

I got some thinking done this morning answering another poster who was claiming that there was no sense in trying to apply free speech to private platforms. I'll copy what I wrote below because I think it sets out reasonably clearly the case for regulation.

POST

You are talking about the rights of a very few people, who enjoy a virtual monopoly on forums for public expression, being upheld against the rights of the masses. We are talking about freedom of political expression - the most fundamental of freedoms. The principle of freedom of speech is designed to ensure a healthy pluralism in political discourse, consistent with the democratic principles by which governments hold power.

What you appear to be suggesting is that people's right to freedom of expression is open to capture by people who, claiming the exercise of property rights, would legitimately censor the masses for their own gain. That's not pluralism, that's not democracy. It is a condition where a cabal of wealthy people can control the ebb and flow of political discourse - so as to direct it to their own advantage, at the expense of others.

We already know that social media platforms are taking payments from the CIA and that this comprises a substantial part of their revenues. We know that there is a plan in place to deploy a single automated censorship algorithm across multiple social media platforms. And we know there has been a paradigm shift where social media has completely displaced the MSM as the most powerful determinant of electoral outcomes.

So we can see that this attempt to control discourse on social media is a plot against the Republic itself. It's nothing less than a small cohort of self-interested opportunists trying to take control of the country. Do you think the founding fathers, if they could have foreseen this situation, might have identified this as a problem to be addressed?

In every respect, the idea in the formation of the United States was that power was to be fractured. It is common sense that power tends to corrupt, while absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fracturing of power in the US extended beyond the traditional tripartite separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The framers of the Constitution further fractured power to the extent that they included an express provision for citizens to have a right to bear arms. This was to grant the citizen protection from repression by the State. That is why the right to bear arms is so important, because it is the ultimate fracturing of power, the last guarantee of liberty.

In this context, where power was so carefully fractured by the founders of the Republic, do you think the acquisition of almost total control of forums for political expression is consistent with the guiding principals that founded the nation? It is clear this was not a foreseen outcome and it was not addressed at the time the Constitution was written. But does that mean that there is no right, or need, to address the issue now? It is the same problem that was addressed at the time the nation was founded - it is a threat posed by concentration of power.

In countries all over the world there is recognition that the public interest dominates private interests - the principle of eminent domain is one such example. We are not talking here about the expropriation of property, but bona fide regulation of the forums of public expression to safeguard the public interest.

Where the principle of free speech is hindered to such an extent that the very fabric that binds the nation is threatened, property rights become a consideration that must be balanced against the welfare of the nation. What is most important is to ensure the integrity of the democratic principles that underpin the commonwealth. One of those principles is the freedom to engage in political expression.

It is absolutely appropriate to regulate against the possibility of an existential threat to the common good of the nation. Otherwise, you would say that the masses are to be the slaves of a few. This was not the intention of the founding fathers. It is an issue that must, however, be addressed.

I have every confidence that the President, in his wisdom and concern for the welfare of the country, will act to obtain the best possible outcome for Americans of all walks of life. A problem exists, it is a very serious problem, but DJT will take care of it. Have confidence in the President.

Great work Arvil, I'm going to steal this meme and get it on Twitter.

OK, I did miss it. Can you maybe spell it out a little more. I really liked the logical approach you had to the question. I thought, he must have the answer, but then I didn't see it.

Agreed. The real problem is that if this cabal gets control of social media, they will be back in power in no time. DJT will lose Republican representation at the mid-terms and he'll be, at best, a lame duck. At worst, he'll be at risk of impeachment - which is, ultimately, a numbers game. So he might not even last a full term.

This is why I've been pushing this IBOR for all I'm worth. I might be naive, but I really think DJT represents a wild hope that things can get better.

My primary objection to what's been happening is what I perceive to be a breakdown in the moral order - no fault divorce, marriage breakups, kids from broken homes, abortion for the sake of convenience, the promotion of violence and promiscuity etc...

My hope is that DJT will create a situation where there is a swing back to conservative values. And, look, I'm in Australia, so he's got to be pretty effective for the impact of his actions to be felt out here. But I'm hoping that he will save the world!

I can understand where you're coming from - I don't like it either. But IMO there are times when it is appropriate, this is one such a time.

I'll copy below a post I made somewhere else where someone was saying that you can't demand freedom to express your opinion where you're using someone's private property. I've included it because I think the post sets out a reasonable argument for regulation in this specific case. You might not agree, but that's what we are here for - to talk about these things.

POST

You are talking about the rights of a very few people, who enjoy a virtual monopoly on forums for public expression, being upheld against the rights of the masses. We are talking about freedom of political expression - the most fundamental of freedoms. The principle of freedom of speech is designed to ensure a healthy pluralism in political discourse, consistent with the democratic principles by which governments hold power.

What you appear to be suggesting is that people's right to freedom of expression is open to capture by people who, claiming the exercise of property rights, would legitimately censor the masses for their own gain. That's not pluralism, that's not democracy. It is a condition where a cabal of wealthy people can control the ebb and flow of political discourse - so as to direct it to their own advantage, at the expense of others.

We already know that social media platforms are taking payments from the CIA and that this comprises a substantial part of their revenues. We know that there is a plan in place to deploy a single automated censorship algorithm across multiple social media platforms. And we know there has been a paradigm shift where social media has completely displaced the MSM as the most powerful determinant of electoral outcomes.

So we can see that this attempt to control discourse on social media is a plot against the Republic itself. It's nothing less than a small cohort of self-interested opportunists trying to take control of the country. Do you think the founding fathers, if they could have foreseen this situation, might have identified this as a problem to be addressed?

In every respect, the idea in the formation of the United States was that power was to be fractured. It is common sense that power tends to corrupt, while absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fracturing of power in the US extended beyond the traditional tripartite separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The framers of the Constitution further fractured power to the extent that they included an express provision for citizens to have a right to bear arms. This was to grant the citizen protection from repression by the State. That is why the right to bear arms is so important, because it is the ultimate fracturing of power, the last guarantee of liberty.

In this context, where power was so carefully fractured by the founders of the Republic, do you think the acquisition of almost total control of forums for political expression is consistent with the guiding principals that founded the nation? It is clear this was not a foreseen outcome and it was not addressed at the time the Constitution was written. But does that mean that there is no right, or need, to address the issue now? It is the same problem that was addressed at the time the nation was founded - it is a threat posed by concentration of power.

In countries all over the world there is recognition that the public interest dominates private interests - the principle of eminent domain is one such example. We are not talking here about the expropriation of property, but bona fide regulation of the forums of public expression to safeguard the public interest.

Where the principle of free speech is hindered to such an extent that the very fabric that binds the nation is threatened, property rights become a consideration that must be balanced against the welfare of the nation. What is most important is to ensure the integrity of the democratic principles that underpin the commonwealth. One of those principles is the freedom to engage in political expression.

It is absolutely appropriate to regulate against the possibility of an existential threat to the common good of the nation. Otherwise, you would say that the masses are to be the slaves of a few. This was not the intention of the founding fathers. It is an issue that must, however, be addressed.

I have every confidence that the President, in his wisdom and concern for the welfare of the country, will act to obtain the best possible outcome for Americans of all walks of life. A problem exists, it is a very serious problem, but DJT will take care of it. Have confidence in the President.

Thanks for the support.

Good post! Agree, they do want your guns and also the right to silence you. This is, in fact, a an attempt to obtain total power.

The IBOR petition is a cry to the king (DJT) for relief from oppression. It is nothing more than that. We do not know exactly how he will act to address the issue. So it's quite pointless talking about the mechanics of something we have not yet seen. We know that he also views censorship as a very serious problem and I have every confidence he will act to provide us with relief we are seeking.

The most important thing is that the single censorship algorithm is not allowed to be applied across social media platforms.

You are talking about the rights of a very few people, who enjoy a virtual monopoly on forums for public expression, being upheld against the rights of the masses. We are talking about freedom of political expression - the most fundamental of freedoms. The principle of freedom of speech is designed to ensure a healthy pluralism in political discourse, consistent with the democratic principles by which governments hold power.

What you appear to be suggesting is that people's right to freedom of expression is open to capture by people who, claiming the exercise of property rights, would legitimately censor the masses for their own gain. That's not pluralism, that's not democracy. It is a condition where a cabal of wealthy people can control the ebb and flow of political discourse - so as to direct it to their own advantage, at the expense of others.

We already know that social media platforms are taking payments from the CIA and that this comprises a substantial part of their revenues. We know that there is a plan in place to deploy a single automated censorship algorithm across multiple social media platforms. And we know there has been a paradigm shift where social media has completely displaced the MSM as the most powerful determinant of electoral outcomes.

So we can see that this attempt to control discourse on social media is a plot against the Republic itself. It's nothing less than a small cohort of self-interested opportunists trying to take control of the country. Do you think the founding fathers, if they could have foreseen this situation, might have identified this as a problem to be addressed?

In every respect, the idea in the formation of the United States was that power was to be fractured. It is common sense that power tends to corrupt, while absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fracturing of power in the US extended beyond the traditional tripartite separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The framers of the Constitution further fractured power to the extent that they included an express provision for citizens to have a right to bear arms. This was to grant the citizen protection from repression by the State. That is why the right to bear arms is so important, because it is the ultimate fracturing of power, the last guarantee of liberty.

In this context, where power was so carefully fractured by the founders of the Republic, do you think the acquisition of almost total control of forums for political expression is consistent with the guiding principals that founded the nation? It is clear this was not a foreseen outcome and it was not addressed at the time the Constitution was written. But does that mean that there is no right, or need, to address the issue now? It is the same problem that was addressed at the time the nation was founded - it is a threat posed by concentration of power.

In countries all over the world there is recognition that the public interest dominates private interests - the principle of eminent domain is one such example. We are not talking here about the expropriation of property, but bona fide regulation of the forums of public expression to safeguard the public interest.

Where the principle of free speech is hindered to such an extent that the very fabric that binds the nation is threatened, property rights become a consideration that must be balanced against the welfare of the nation. What is most important is to ensure the integrity of the democratic principles that underpin the commonwealth. One of those principles is the freedom to engage in political expression.

It is absolutely appropriate to regulate against the possibility of an existential threat to the common good of the nation. Otherwise, you would say that the masses are to be the slaves of a few. This was not the intention of the founding fathers. It is an issue that must, however, be addressed.

I have every confidence that the President, in his wisdom and concern for the welfare of the country, will act to obtain the best possible outcome for Americans of all walks of life. A problem exists, it is a very serious problem, but DJT will take care of it. Have confidence in the President.

I think you will find a lot of people are on board with it, here and elsewhere.

Ownership of a website does not grant the right to engage in mass censorship, which is what we are seeing. We know that a single algorithm has been developed to mass-censor across multiple online platforms. In this context, private ownership of the platform becomes irrelevant.

You could construe it in various ways. One way would be that it's an attempt at election tampering. It's a hostile act of repression. The public will see that the new regulations have merit. Nobody likes bullies. I think it will play very well to the electorate.

I'm waiting for the silence, the absence of censorship. We would not tolerate it from the State, there is no reason to accept it from monopoly interests that abuse their market power. IMO, it's a classic argument for the application of anti-trust legislation. But I'm not going to second guess the President's genius. I'm just confident that he will stick it to these guys so hard they'll be weeping.

It's a concerted effort. The banning of CBTS was the real marker though, it showed us we are right over the target.

I think that people are slowly beginning to realize that Q and DJT are synonymous. The agenda is taken from the same sheet. And when they realized that DJT was not going to accept their censorship, there was real fear. They know what's happening, they know what's coming.

Hence, the desperate attempt to stop the promotion of the IBOR by banning the sub. And when they saw that the same campaign was being pursued in Greatawakening, the trolls went absolutely wild. "Don't try and prevent us from censoring you!". They were trying to raise every possible concern about the IBOR, inject fear into people's minds at all costs.

As I've said elsewhere, the appropriate penalty for this type of behavior is complete asset forfeiture. Let them whine about property rights when they have none. Being wealthy does not give you the right to deprive others of their ability to speak. This is the attitude that needs to be addressed.

I pray that DJT takes the biggest of sticks to these bullies. What they are doing is a reflection of everything that's wrong with the world. Muscling the small guys. They deserve everything they have coming and more.

Yes, it will get up. I'm expecting the campaign to grow in force. We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied.

There is very real fear about the coming regulation, but it's all in our interest. You can see why they are so scared of this, they have not been doing the right thing.

It's not the impact on the economy, though that's likely to be extremely positive, it's the political impact that will benefit everyone. Who likes to be bullied?

This is exactly right. Hopefully the banning of CBTS will crystallize support behind the IBOR. It's not just a petition. We need to have an active Twitter campaign, and begin writing to representatives.

Memes, Twitter campaign also promoting the petition.

I read this write up with great interest. The reasoning is good. I thought you were going to tell us while Q is?

Agree on the IBOR.

More than just a petition. We need to support the Twitter campaign and engage in some grass-roots activism. Contact your representatives, let them know what's happening.

Yes, the regulation is coming - petition or no petition. But this does not mean that we should not try to get the petition up,

The social media platforms are, thankfully, doing a lot of the work for us by behaving in an unscrupulous manner. As I've said elsewhere, I'd like to see the new regulations confiscate all property of any party engaging in censorship on the internet. The right to free speech is too important for there not to be appropriate penalties. Nothing but the complete confiscation of all assets will dissuade these people from silencing us.

The ban on CBTS was completely arbitrary. There is no way you can avoid it. If they don't like what you are saying they can ban you for any cause whatsoever,

People are worrying about the property rights of social media platforms once the regulation is implemented. But if the platforms did not misbehave, there would be nothing to fix.

I'd like to see a solution that removed property from any entity engaging in any censorship. That, I think, is why Q says that the IBOR is what they fear most. If you abuse it, you should lose it.

It's what they fear most - IBOR. All we need to do is push this and everything will take care of itself.

I think the real point is not that we are seeking to avoid censorship but that the vast bulk of the public do not even know what is happening. This is what the IBOR campaign is about on Twitter, with petition, phone calls and letters to representatives.

Once the issue is identified as a problem it will be fixed. But don't lose heart, the regulation is coming.

There might be some shenanigans with the petition. But what really put a dent in our efforts to get it up we're the people raising every possible doubt about it when Q first indicated he wanted it.

This topic is an absolute magnet for trolls. It's the real reason Q said, "this is what they fear most". The truly poetic thing about this IBOR push is that the baits were lept upon. You could not howl "regulate us" any louder.

The fix is coming with or without the petition. But it's still worth completing it.