***InfoComms Bill Of Rights***: What should be included?


This is a PERFECT topic on the InfoWars Banniversary…

Knowing what we all know about social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. If we could pass a digital bill of rights in congress what would you want to see?

  1. What would you like to see in a Bill Of Rights to protect you the user?

  1. Where does free speech end? (Doxxing, violence or earlier intervention)

  1. User privacy rights?

  1. What is Probable Cause for being placed on restriction or Termination of an account?

  1. What would the due process be?

  1. What would the appeal process be?

Feel free to chime in with additional PERTINENT regulations that should be implemented in a Digital Bill Of Rights…

Your feedback is important… If there are people smart enough to roll this out it is the InfoWars Army/Audience.

Lets see what we can do…

Thoughts and discussion… please stay neutral

Lets keep the posts short, clear & concise… Essays are not necessary.
Lets have fun with it!


A good IDEA but I can’t see one that will ever come to fruition. Also how would these things be enforced, consider the Size of the “POLICE” force it would require to ensure Rights are not Violated let alone required to prosecute violations.

I don’t think we can RELAY on a PERSON / POLITICIAN to solve any thing, consider they are the CAUSE of these things we hope to eradicate…


We Must Cut The Head Off Of The Serpent!

OF course this is only my opinion, We are already TO late for these kind of things… We must MOVE beyond the POLITICIAN and GOVERNMENTS for the sake of HUMANITY and the whole human.

1 Like

How about thinking from this stand point…

IF YOU created a social media platform what would YOU implement?
How would this look?


I don’t think anyone is going to pay attention to this thread right now because they are busy, pissed off at us because of what we been doing. Nobody understands why, and we are painted as bad guys right now.


@Zor quick sand… or make a stand.
This isnt about us Zor… bring something to the table.


Maybe Comms can adopt some of this feedback. Comms can be a Beta version… Trail & Error if we can get this to work we can be an example of what a platform should be.

1 Like

Thats not what we are asking for…:arrow_down:

1 Like

Everybody has a voice and should be heard out. There should be a connection between us and HHQ so we have A line of communication. Very important.

Death threats, doxxing, continued harrassment, ECT.

I believe there should be a 3 strikes and your out system but there should be zero tolerance rules as well. Banned on ip level in that case.

If someone’s work is shown on the show then it should have credit due to that person. Helps moral.

And I’m sure people have other great ideas to this one as well…

Anything malicious, if it makes the army look bad or infowars then yeah, talking harassment or such.

However if there is a point to it then I belive people shouldn’t just be censored.

There are always 2 sides to each situation.

No one is better than another, people deserve to defend themselves in any situation even if the admin disagrees with that person.

A simple flag, however. If it’s just people flagging just to flag because of a disagreement then the flagger or flagging brigades should be held accountable. People deserve equal justice.

And it’s important to keep the communication line open.

All these standard operating procedures are based off of accountability and not mob rule.

Mob rule only creates a tyranny. Some people are here for activism, some are here to help push media to fight the globalists, some are here to share information, news, and in some cases counter intelligence, some are here to write a blog, and some are new infowarriors.

Everybody deserves to be treated equally,

But right now we need to decide if we all get treated equally as supporters or equally shitty.

Doesn’t matter if you are as new as @Mercedes or as seasoned as Rob Dew. We all leave this world the same when the reaper comes.


Listen, there cannot be a set of rights connected to every web site with a comment section. I wouldn’t even want that, and you really don’t have these rights when your on someone else’s property. When your on someone else’s property, if you are threatening and won’t leave, in many states you wouldn’t even have the right to life. … a good policy BTW, don’t go on other people’s property if you fear their judgment. We want people to make their own rules, and we want other people to choose who’s rules they like and don’t like.

The problem literally comes down to internet platforms, which have become an internet infrastructure. So before we talk about what the rules should be, we need to decide when a website becomes a platform.


Lets pretend you are on a website that is a platform (anywhere not just here)… What would you like to see?


Great insight Griff!


Id like to add that we need some sort of standard set that if you abuse the flagging capability just based on differing of opinions, the abuser should either A: have that capability taken away, B: account on hold, C; or trust level declined.

I equate abusing the flagging capability to abusing first responders or calling 911 for non-emergencies.


Makes sense in the way of wasting the forum moderators time.

When Owen talked about having notifications blowing his phone up because of flagging well, maybe there should be that existing rule.

That’s why I made that Zimmerman meme a long time ago when @TheIsz and I were going at it.


I know you said no paragraphs, but…

Well, I think the veil is and has been drawn off of this entire “social media” platform concept as a whole.

What we know about social media platforms like FB, Twitter, IG, etc is simple. These were entire platforms designed to construct social networks for people to connect.

The problem is, the minute people we’re given the chance to upload personal content, such as personal info, (birthday, location, age, birth location, etc) photos, info on how they know other people, etc. all the way down to personal tastes and things they liked, they voluntarily gave that info up, and we now know that BIG TECH is in the business of BIG DATA and the like. More importantly, what can be done with it. Sold to 3rd parties, used to swing thoughts on issues, both personal and political, down to even purchasing decisions, and it has not gone well.

I think the era of social media is going to see an evolving death, because people are learning what has been done with these social constructs.

The bigger issue is net censorship, net neutrality, and most importantly net monitoring.

I always thought the website forum concept, like infocomms, is the best. People are just thirsty for faster methods to engage, and the FB’s of the world were born. Now people are reverting back to forums like these because it brings balance back to the way the data is gathered, posted, and moderated.

Simply put, I say let the social media platforms DIE. Let people slow the advancement of TECH and how we engage in it, to protect ourselves from falling back into these BIG TECH traps.

It will avoid a lot of the aforementioned questions. Bottom line, you post stuff on the internet that is illegal, you will get arrested, prosecuted, and taken to court to plead your case.


If there are things you would change or think can be better what would those things be?


Flagging is okay for a call to attention for the moderators to check it out and the accused should be able to defend themselves. There needs to be moderators otherwise there is just robots flagging and banning. Several people can decide they don’t like someone and they can all go in and flag that person. So that does not work. There has to be due process, intervention between the mods and the person being flagged.


I think every website, every forum out there is a community. Each community has its rules. It is important for the moderators of this site to outline very clearly and specifically what it stands for.

Clearly, every single person that creates an account NEEDS to conform to the community guidelines to keep their account.

These rules are what govern the users activity and if it violated, the owners of the site and its contents have to protect it, because if some loon posts something over it, and something happens, ultimately, the site owner can be held responsible. And that is no bueno.

So… it’s simple, like anything you do in the world when you go out in public, conform to the law.

So, are you asking two separate questions here below?

Digital Bill of rights = INTERNET

Community Rules = INFOWARS FORUM

I would encourage everyone to have their own website and encourage them to publish whatever views they have about issues and how they see the world, but if you are going to engage onto a community, the public square, you have to make sure you are not breaking the law. Simple.

You can search the internet for anything on how from making weapons to moonshine, if you want that go find it, cool, but don’t post it onto a community forum that sheds bad light onto the community and could compromise what it stands for. I think we all know this, and it is common sense. That can and should be moderated by the site owners, at their discretion.

How much is too much? Well, I think it’s common sense. I mean if you have to question what you are about to post, it’s probably too much.


I think there are way too many catagories. Also people should be able to post activism video, pics of posters what ever there activism is. They should be able to post it in any catagory.

1 Like

What do you mean by what you “have been doing”?

What do you mean when you say, you are “being painted as the bad guy”?


Really? There are literally only 4 categories, and 1 is uncategorized! I think we need more structure, personally.

The FEMA regions should be organized into a subcat under activism