/squirrel/ - Squirrel

>>68 GOOGLE PLAY EYED FOR ANTITRUST CASE

>>49 ob

BIG FUKIN NOTABRU

Apple First… Now it's Google's turn..

37 US State and District Attorney's have SUED GOOGLE over Play Store Monopoly

Danielle Partis

News Editor

Monday 12th July 2021

37 US state and district attorneys have sued Google over alleged efforts to unlawfully maintain a monopoly on Android devices.

The filing led by Utah, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee claims that the tech giant bought off competitors and utilised restrictive contracts to suppress competition across the Android ecosystem.

The suit argues that Google has "taken steps to close the ecosystem" since it acquired Android, and alleges that the company has taken steps to buy off "key app developers", as well as Samsung, in order to limit competition on Android.

"Google Play is not fair play," said Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes in a statement. "It must stop using its monopolistic power and hyper-dominant market position to unlawfully leverage billions of added dollars from smaller companies, competitors and consumers beyond what should be paid."

Google responded to the filing in a blog post shared last Wednesday, calling it a "meritless lawsuit that ignores Android's openness."

"This lawsuit isn't about helping the little guy or protecting consumers," the blog post continued. "It's about boosting a handful of major app developers who want the benefits of Google Play without paying for it."

In the filing, the states are calling for civil penalties, as well as a court-imposed monitor to ensure that Google is not stifling choice among consumers and developers.

The states have also not ruled out taking similar action against Apple's App Store, which is still embroiled in its own antitrust crusade with Epic Games.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-07-12-google-sued-by-37-us-states-over-play-store-monopoly

>>62

This Ingelsol Lockwood Panic LARP

is quite a construction.

Could BV ONION have done it all by himself?

've worn out some VPN addresses myself, but haven't got to the bottom of the barrel or even close.

Thanks to Mr. Watkins' broad-minded policy, its a bit different than when one is banned on FB or even Twitter.

And one can still have one's voice for a short time.

The heavy-handed banning and other changes in policy see this link for another testimony among many vvv

>>50 (You)

Policy changes which are quite evident to those of us been there for a while, but easily denied to those less familiar with the site. This censorship is what motivated me to create this board, where I could have my voice.

Looks like the BV Onion, who's the master over there now, created a narrative called "ingersoll lockwook mj12" which as far as I can tell is a total LARP springing off another LARP.

The Admin BV and the overlord B. O. "Board Owner" are both King of the Hill now on Q Research. But somehow haunted by the notion "People are trying to steal the Board"

BV ONION is using massive mirroring and projection to attack ordinary anons who have a different opinion from his, as to what deserves attention and what deserves to be on the Q Research Board

People who've been there and who've walk the road there "They Know" what happened - what is the history and context behind all this.

They also know the Board has radically changed under the new policy of the obviously[?] original management. Sleepers?

Here's the thread where BV ONION discusses his paranoid fantasy about people trying to take the Q research Board away from him.

Think: What would be the purpose?

Do outsiders really think it's just loser adolescents who are playing "White Supremacist" (whatever that is) or "Storm Troopers?"

If it were just youngsters playing around why would there be world -wide attention on the site?

How could it be "stolen" if the owner owns the actual site?

BV Onion never says.

Is it true that the only thing that could steal it is if it were corrupted from within?

Sort of like the USA America?

There's no where to hash this out since our voices were taken. What are they scared of? Seems like a mirror of larger scale events?

Why Big Tech Will Lose the Censorship Wars

Last Wednesday, former President Trump filed a class action lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook, and Google pursuant to their partisan censorship of viewpoints that conflict with those of their CEOs and employees. The next day, Trump took to the Wall Street Journal, where he succinctly summed up his most compelling argument for suing: “If they can do it to me, they can do it to you.” Ironically, this echoes what Bernie Sanders told the New York Times last March: “[Y]esterday it was Donald Trump who was banned, and tomorrow, it could be somebody else.” If Trump and Sanders take the same position on Big Tech censorship, the issue deserves serious attention.

Yet the Democrats and the media have summarily dismissed the class action lawsuit as a publicity stunt while insisting that “private companies” aren’t bound by the First Amendment. But it isn’t that simple. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh writes, “Historically, American law has divided operators of communications systems into three categories — publishers, distributors, and conduits — and has set up different standards of liability for each.” Social media platforms fall into the “conduit” category. They are analogous to common carriers like telephone companies or places of public accommodation like city parks, neither of which may exclude individuals based on their political views. Volokh continues,

I think Congress could categorically treat platforms as common carriers, at least as to their hosting function. But Congress could also constitutionally give platforms two options: (1) Be common carriers like phone companies, immune from liability but also required to host all viewpoints, or (2) be distributors like bookstores, free to pick and choose what to host but subject to liability (at least on a notice-and-takedown basis).

Volokh is by no means the only legal luminary to suggest that social media platforms are analogous to common carriers and consequently subject to regulation by Congress or state legislatures. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas created a considerable amount of hysteria on the left last April when he pointed out in his concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight that, like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, trains and communication networks are privately owned yet the law obligates them to serve everyone. Justice Thomas went on to note that Congress has granted social media platforms immunity from certain types of lawsuits but that it “has not imposed corresponding responsibilities, like nondiscrimination.”

This brings us to the special dispensation that social media platforms enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230 says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Upon learning of the class action lawsuit, the Left robotically invoked this obsolete 1996 legislation as if it constitutes a sacrosanct and immutable decree that permanently precludes Trump or anyone else from holding Big Tech accountable for its violations of the First Amendment. But as Joel Thayer points out in Newsweek, what Congress can give, Congress can take away:

Congress can write a new public accommodation law to prevent internet platforms from discriminating against users who express a certain political viewpoint.… One avenue it can take is applying public accommodation laws that bar platforms from discriminating against users because of their political views. Such measures are not only in line with the animating spirit of Section 230, but they affirmatively advance it.

BARR IMPLICATED

CodeMonkey encourages people to download the novel of Bob Barr's Dad, on child trafficking.

As well as circumstantial evidence the the DoJ was involved with the Voter Theft USA 2020

Board (possibly entire site) is comped

how to proceed

>>79

anon has to be gone for a while

But perhaps take the Notables that you care to salvage, that are really Note worthy and post them here?

Also, The fact of what exactly they are deleting is NOTEWORTHY.

Macron calling for Vax "or else"

Show on PBS. One hundred years too late?

The Federal Reserve Has Radically Changed from a Central Bank to a Bailout Kingpin. Americans Just Haven’t Paid Attention – Until Tonight

This evening, the PBS program, Frontline, will do something that corporate broadcast media has failed to do since the financial crash of 2008. Frontline will air the results of its year-long investigation of the most powerful financial institution in the world – the central bank of the United States – known as the Federal Reserve, or simply “the Fed.”

The Fed’s radical makeover of itself began in December of 2007 when the Fed decided, on its own, that it had the authority to secretly pump out trillions of dollars in cumulative loans to prop up the mega banks on Wall Street, as well as to the foreign banks that were on the other side of Wall Street’s hundreds of trillions of dollars in derivative trades. The Fed secretly ran that program through at least July of 2010 according to the eventual audit that was conducted by the Government Accountability Office. (That audit only came about because Senator Bernie Sanders attached an amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010.)

The Fed’s latest massive bailout operation began on September 17, 2019, months before there was a case of COVID-19 anywhere in the world. The full scope of this operation and other bailout programs remain a dark secret at the Fed, casting a pall over investors’ confidence in the transparency and stability of the U.S. financial system.

Frontline writers and producers James Jacoby and Anya Bourg, who are the force behind tonight’s Frontline documentary, The Power of the Fed, will now become part of a rarefied group of individuals who have mustered the determination to cut through the Fed’s insidiously cultivated armor of Fed-speak and its preposterous structure that allows it to create trillions of dollars of money electronically out of thin air for bailouts, with only feigned oversight by Congress.

https://youtu.be/YD6uaIxtCaY

Macron declares Covid Passports manditory

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/giuffre-v-maxwell/?order_by=desc

Court Documents Today

>>290

Just because Jim owns it. and owns 8kun

By his grace Squirrel is here - giving me a voice where anon had none before.

In gratitude anon wants to promote his business / Network and see it become successful - as good as YouTube

He deserves it.

The crew over at q research never wanted to promote Jim or his Tiger Network, even though it has a lot f really good videos. And even though Jim pays for the platform

They have their own agenda "Jew Hate" and anything that takes away from that, they want to quash?

Jim's just giving me this place for the undertaking, He pays for it. He's the "Godfather" kkekkek

even though Jim pays for OUR PLATFORMS they still diss him and won't promote his channel by making a video from there Notable.

In fact they diss the Tiger Network videos.

Ungrateful.

>>290

No other sponsors at this time but I'd like to get ads on here at some point. Even create the graphics myself use the talent of creative meme- makers.

Jim has been airing old ads with the Tiger Network material "just because" he likes ads?

Potential?

-In a stellarator, helical coils external to the plasma ring create a supplementary magnetic field that, in combination with the main toroidal magnetic field, confines the plasma.

Fusion: A true challenge for an enormous reward

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282394950_Fusion_A_true_challenge_for_an_enormous_reward

>>313

>>314

Belongs in t"Things which are disparaged but may be important" and also "Q research continued "

Anyway, rotten Onion dude is no Q researcher.

Victor, who did the analysis on the Space Force, I believe was skeptical of "Q" and "Trump" and many people had falling out with him because of his cantankerous (read "nasty") personality, including myself – ==BUT HES SO MUCH BETTER THAN DIRTY ONION WHO CLAIMS HE DECLASSED (INF0?) ON VICTOR.

WELL IF STINKY ONION DID, HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T SHOW IT?

Onion is just "talkn"

As I diagnosed earlier "Munchhausen" (not even by proxy)

Code Monkey wrote today about Pense, that he was offered Presidency for betraying DJTPOTUS.

Also CM has been doing word plays with "Pence" and he was paid with the coin after he installed Bidan (fraud)

Pence - Coins - 30 pieces of silver, that kind of thing

A dictionary today told me '

"A SHILLING is equal to one Penny (pence?).

Coincidence?

"God has a sense of humor" - Dr. Judy Mikovits

(Why are great honorable female scientists called "Judy?")

watch out this might trigger the Jud haters?

>>322

^^^ evil digits

No I'm continuing to call it out, Why would I give it a rest, idiot?

The JACK dude who owns the site is a real "Napoleon" PIG

PATRIOTS don't forget TRAITORS

Just the way it is.

How many sites have I abandoned because they were comped?

Who stayed around at REDDIT then cried Boo-HOO when they were erased, since they couldn' t see what was coming?

Now for actual Noteworthies

Morrison was the Hero

McCursed 's Dad was the mole.

Figures.

>>329

Morrison tried to protect the LIBERTY, McCURsed cancelled Morrison's order

Two messages sent at the exact same time, right before DJTrump POTUS speech began yesterday.

Seven women have now accused Joe Biden of inappropriate touching

Kadia Tubman

April 4, 2019

A total of seven women have come forward with accusations of inappropriate behavior, with three of them speaking out after former Vice President Joe Biden responded to the previous allegations in a video posted to Twitter Wednesday.

Sitting cross-legged in a leather seat, Biden didn’t offer an apology but addressed the “gestures of support and encouragement that I’ve made to women and some men that have made them uncomfortable.”

https://www.yahoo.com/now/seven-women-have-now-accused-joe-biden-of-inappropriate-touching-131204785.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-allegations-women-2020-campaign-2019-6?amp