Qanon and the Internet Bill of Rights? What could possibly go wrong?

One of the most disturbing things to come from Qanon, besides his insistence that you must question everything, except him of course, is how quickly people started calling for IBOR (the Internet Bill of Rights). This idea became viral in no time, as did the anger towards anyone who questioned it or rejected it.

The Internet Bill of Rights, though a noble idea- has one fatal flaw. Government regulation no matter how well intentioned usually ends up screwing you in the end. We already have a bill of rights so what makes you think the government is going to follow the newly minted Internet Bill of Rights? IBOR would accomplish what they never could before, a proverbial foot in the door.

What is even more disturbing is that the idea and the branding of the IBOR came not from Qanon, but from the very people who have been doing the censoring in the first place. AT&T, who owns CNN, recently scored a lucrative contract with the NSA, and wrote a statement calling for- the Internet Bill of Rights.

http://about.att.com/story/consumers_need_an_internet_bill_of_rights.html

When confronted on this, the Qanon followers always say the same thing... "It has nothing to do with AT&T". When pushed further to qualify that comment, they have nothing to say. This is because Qanon actually posted another anon's response, with the AT&T IBOR statement, and underneath Q posted in the most orwellian fashion, "IBOR has nothing to do with AT&T." Star wars came to mind, with Obi Wan Kenobi saying "These are not the droids you are looking for".

If the conversation even gets this far, the next response usually is, "well, what else can we do"? There doesn't seem to be any thought process going on, rather it seems to be more of an obsession and waiting on every word and command of an anonymous source who could, or could not be, on our side. Now even if Q has the best intentions ever, what if simply he was wrong? Isn't it possible a white hat insider or even Trump himself could be wrong on a particular issue? Is it not our duty to question and debate and discuss things, especially before involving a legislating government into the mix?

Recently the game makers of Cicada 3301 called out Qanon, claiming they created Qanon from the start and the persona was later turned over to an unknown party. The Cicada people have seemed in the past to be connected with the government or intelligence agencies, so it doesn't mean that Qanon is not a government insider or a so called white hat insider looking to save the world... but the unquestioning obedience and the rage against dissent from the Qanon crowd has become a bit disconcerting.

The biggest danger from such a following that I can see so far- is lack of pushback to the president and a sort of barrier between the core base, real time events and their reactions. President Trump has always been about negotiation, and that includes us, the voters. If we really want something, or are against something, we really need to make it known to our representatives. Trump is different in that he actually engages people using social media, and he does pay attention. Qanon has given many this idea that we need to just trust sessions, trust the plan, trust Q, and pray. That may be all well and good, but what if the President wants to hear our opinions? Do we really think he is watching the Q boards to find out?

We need our government to follow the original Bill of Rights, to enforce antitrust, to reinstate the ban on propaganda via the smith mundt act, seize the assets of bad actors like Soros and others, and start arresting the criminals in government. Most importantly, the mockingbird media needs to be dealt with, and all government money should be taken out of these institutions if they are found to be censoring the american people. At the very least, we should be having a debate about whether regulating the internet would be more harm than good, and what could go wrong.

Internet has been around for quite awhile, and it has resisted taxes and regulation for the most part- and not for the lack of trying, but because the resistance against it was rock solid. Q, along with well timed "problem, reaction, solution" drama on the interwebs, and the urgency felt with recent current events that have brought together a perfect storm of well meaning people who are practically begging for government regulation of internet. Give an inch they take it all.

In the UK, for example, they brought in regulation over internet to protect against child pornography, and a few years later, suddenly people are being arrested simply for insulting someone or offending someone. The globalists have been trying for a very long time to control the kind of information you get and very much would like to institute the 'fairness doctrine', which demands you post the alternative point of view on anything political. They also would love to bring in the George Soros backed Net Neutrality bill, which when understood fully was anything but neutral.

If you are a die hard Q follower, I am not by any means slighting you or discouraging you- quite the opposite. I would hope instead you would do as Qanon had suggested over and over again, "Question everything".