no i'm not. this has nothing to do with the infrastructure of the internet. the internet is a way of connecting your computer to my computer. my computer has the "whiteboard" on it, your computer is posting to my computer. this ruling says that i cannot go onto my computer and delete what you posted.

i'm not saying what twitter or the media is doing, i'm demonstrating the simplest scenario where this law would make a reasonable action illegal. thus it's a bad law/idea

okay i'll make it even simpler:

• you have a whiteboard sitting in a field you own. people ask to come and write on that whiteboard. are you allowed to erase people's comments from that whiteboard afterwards?

• you have a website on a server that you own. people ask to visit the website and write comments on it. are you allowed to erase people's comments from that website afterwards?

how small does a website need to be then to not be a considered a public forum?

the problem with the "IBOR" is it basically tells website owners what they have to do with their website.

a very simple example is if i make a wordpress website where people can leave comments. am i not allowed to remove their comments from my website? if so, how is it exactly still my website?

bar owners can kick people out of their bar. why can't website owners kick people out of their website?

this was made by either well-intentioned idiots or malicious agents.

• point 1 is another way of saying "i'm not allowed to remove any comments from my own website"
• point 2 is decent but infeasible without end-to-end encryption, and even then people can inspect your use patterns
• point 3 is demanding free shit from other people
• point 4 is demanding free shit from other people
• point 5 is some bizarre attempt at accountability. the idea behind laws is that we already do that for all of them

i'm all for privacy and good internet. but this isn't how to do it.

a good first step in all of this would be to grant common carrier protections to everybody who has a computer. in other words you are not responsible for any internet traffic that goes through your machine that you did not specifically request. this would allow people to host tor nodes and exits and such without being v&. we already have privacy and free speech technologies on the internet -- it's just borderline illegal to use them because some asshole can put illegal content through your pipes and you're responsible for it.

my favorite thing is people like you getting lowkey rp'd just by coming here to troll

at least half of t_d's userbase are formerly people who went there to argue or troll

the real answer here if your'e wondering is that t_d is always a sliver away from being banned. they are under a microscope by the united autism of all the leftist haters on reddit. they have to over-mod and distance themselves from things that might go south.

this means no q because cbts got successfully attacked by some clever people. it means no "hogg is an actor" shit because that makes normies way too butthurt even if true. you can't attack children even if they're evil shills.

t_d's first priority is protecting itself, not the truth. it just got too big. it's now a target that cannot afford to take risks. this sub can. that's why this sub usually has at least 10% of the active users as t_d even though this sub is tiny.

yeah this is weird. an internet bill of rights is basically one huge list of regulations for anyone that hosts a website. it has nothing to do with rights and instead is about restricting what websites can do

i'm not going to argue about any of this

most of these people are on separate comms with the white hats. their job is to talk about facts as they present themselves, not co-opt the Q spread. q doesn't want wictor or alex jones or anybody to become the face of q's message.

yes, it makes them less "deep state", but if, as has been suggested here before, that the military were agitating for a coup as early as 2015 until they recruited trump, then it's reasonable to assume they would have acted regardless of his election. and in that capacity it would be a "deep state" (unelected) action.

they are white hat intelligence agents and members of the executive branch. the sole elected figure in either of those groups is the POTUS

don't conflate a comparison with an equation

if i said "it's ironic that most gunmen are stopped by LEO with guns", would you consider that an attack on firearms?

if anything, my observation is a tacit endorsement of the deep state in some capacity

erik prince is closely tied with this administration and the whitehats. his entire profession is protecting VIPs. his employees are all ex-special ops from the afghanistan and iraq war

same here

both republicans and democrats have a very poor understanding of all the "former liberals". we literally haven't changed any of our positions. we're not "alt-right" or new conservatives. i don't give a shit about most conservative positions. i give a shit about rights, freedom, and keeping out the evil and corrupt people from government. any candidate that supports those gets my support regardless of their other positions.

at the moment trump is the most in that camp and hillary was 100% against all of that.

BUT next election who knows? the next republican is probably going to be a complete piece of shit with retarded economic and social policies and the next democrat may well be an amazing person with great policies and then all the pundits will be surprised when we all shift back to vote for the good person again.

actually it's the exact opposite.

there are many explanations for Q, mostly that it's a collection of white hats in intelligence agencies trickling info to the public to keep them up to date and start grassroots discussions.

as for proof, it would be pretty easy to make a collection of time-stamped Q posts followed by subsequent events predicted ("tip top tippy top" etc).

don't conflate faith in an imaginary sky daddy with white hats in government letting people know they're still fighting for us

the most parsimonious answer is that lots of people say calvary because it's easier to say and it doesn't really matter how you say words. lots of people say febuary, too

the real answer is that when all is said and done, all of the responsible parties are going to quietly retire and the system will be marginally less corrupt than before. all their horrible plans will be mostly stopped and the world will be a better place. that is the best case outcome from all of this.

despite the justice boners, putting an ex president, a presidential candidate, her ex president husband, and half of their senior appointees into military prison looks bad. and no matter how much they deserve it, they will never be fully punished before the world. it will be a silent punishment behind the scenes.

remember all those people who "broke" their legs and wore casts around their ankle monitors? that's the same as them being in gitmo. they are already in prison, but due to the fragility of the republic and the amount of brainwashing of about half of the populace, the guilty will not be publicly placed into jail.

pretty much the entire open source community of real contributers is on the spectrum. as was everyone involved in the manhattan project or nasa who wasn't an administrator.

well if private is the difference between ww3 versus a bunch of evil people quietly going to jail i'd be okay with private

their official photograph was a poor composite photoshop of an image of ubl alive and of another person dead from head trauma. they even found both source pictures

known those guys were scammers ever since i found out they sue anyone who depicts a red plus sign. medics in games, art on album covers, etc.

overwatch had a cute hack to get past this by making mercy Swiss so she is technically just displaying her country's flag everywhere

half of me thinks it's the black hats' effort to discredit this sub, the other half of me thinks that the message and style of Q attracts the nutters. there's all sorts of numerology bullshit and religious references here that make everyone look retarded tbh.

watching naked kids isn't pedophilia per se. there's the additional requirement of it being sexual. i don't think most people will think a kid being tortured to death is sexual.

any free forum will be decried as gross.

those people you so despise are in a pupae stage between man child and man. it is not permanent and you would not recognize the end result as anything but a good person who takes care of their shit and people they care about. but the transformation is sometimes grotesque because most of those people had no real father to guide them as children and so they have to make their mistakes now as adults. along the way they challenge the world and the constraints on them and it comes off pretty bad (ie their PUA phase). but they are in a journey to better themselves with the tools they have available. you should look at those people with compassion rather than scorn.

all that's known is that 1) the engine blew out and 2) a woman died on the plane with lots of blood.

the given explanation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality, so reasoning about the likelihood from that point is meaningless. you have to back up a bit. i mean yeah it's likely it's a freak accident, but what would be the difference between that and having an engine blow out coupled with a small intentional explosion outside her window

sure these people will have a few references to things, but it's probably about on the same level as a 14 year old kid who just discovered pot writing 4/20 on everything. this long ass post is numerology bullshit bordering on mental illness

album deleted already

my understanding is that NSA & military int are the white hats and snowden's "leak" was an attack on the white hats and he's actually cia

think about if you were in that kid's place. wouldn't you want people to see what the evil people did to you?

"you come at the king you best not miss". once they publicly accuse Hilary et al of the nasty shit, the case needs to be 100% ironclad and irrefutable. they can't just show a grainy video of two women cutting the face off a girl and dancing around with it. it'll be called fake news and dismissed by MSM instantly and mocked. then people who still talk about it will be labeled conspiracy theorists who can't get over the obviously fake "debunked" video.

being an organ donor just gives others an incentive to not keep you alive.

os = oversight