Whatever this board is, it's no Voat. Moderators acting like big tech, deciding what you can and cannot discuss...wake up before you turn into the libtards you despise.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (126)
sorted by:
Are you incapable of critical comparison?
Before reading on, take this moment to compare the actions of the moderators of this forum with the folks on the other side. Find all of the differences you can, then read on.
Those forums don't just ban you. They communicate with each other to excommunicate you from EVERY forum. They doxx you and they get you fired from places of work. They steal your data, track you, and ruin your life if you deviate. That is illegal monopolistic collusion. These mods do NONE of that; they simply remove your posts, and if that doesn't prove enough, they ban you. The moderation logs are publicly available. Nothing but transparency occurring.
Social media is anything BUT transparent.
As far as the accusations of that forum: 1.) The concern isn't exclusively about their location or the business owner's leanings. That is a strawman argument. The real concern is their promotion from a left-leaning group, and the existence of tracking in the design of that host. If they're really concerned about security, they would not be operating a tracker.
Furthermore, do you trust the Swiss government? I sure as hell trust NO governments. Privacy laws mean virtually nothing when a government is immune to them.
2.) Once again, a strawman. George has used these videos in the past as a way of "proving" their legitimacy. "Here are videos that only we have" falls apart when other people have them. By being deceptive about this, not only are they flat out wrong, they are BEING deceptive.
3.) GAW is not claiming to have insider knowledge. They are claiming to promote Q to the public. GN acts mysterious, and plays games, dropping "coded messages" and pretending to have insider information. THAT violates "no outside comms". If someone in GAW were claiming to know Q, or have ties to Q, that would also violate it. They do not.
Nice try but two strawmans and a false equivalency isn't a "nice try" or a "checkmate".
Wow! What an argument!