Save The Hashtag

Because QAnon were using it to spread garbage.

I've actually been trying to figure this out - because there's two hashtags, aren't there? There's savethechildren and there's saveourchildren. Only one of them I think got zucked for its association with QAnon but nobody seems to be able to tell me what the difference is between the two things?

"Elsewhere, I found another IG page called the “Save Our Children Initiative” that is fighting to “end sex trafficking” by… asking for sponsorships and selling a $35 T-shirt. The group claims that the revenue from the shirts will go to an unspecified “charitable organization” that is “supporting funding towards increasing the survivors [sic].” Their stated long-term goal is to create “rehabilitation centers” for victims. Again, the founders don’t appear to have any experience in child advocacy work; one is a Trump-supporting fitness and lifestyle influencer, while the other runs a custom apparel-printing shop."

"I stumbled across one organization, dubbed Child Abuse Resistance Education (or “CARE”), that was apparently born in mid-July as the brainchild of two women in Orange County, California; their very first post notes their mission is “to tell the story the media refuses to cover.” They’re courting donations on PayPal despite no formal agenda and a completely unfinished website (including no projects under the “Projects” tab)."

It looks like the Save the children tag is more general while Save our children was started by one specific group seeking donations.

The whole thing seems like it's an intentional distraction from other issues and that it's drowning out the genuine organizations seeking support to end child trafficking.

By countless voices hurling unfounded accusations, the people screaming Save The Children are making it harder for people to do exactly that.

Thanks for this. I appreciate it.

Still processing.

Yw, it's really frustrating to think that all these groups that are appearing could be diverting funding that could otherwise go to established organizations that actually know what they're doing.

Bullshit, Zuckerberg is one of them.

Your Q theories are trash.

I am not associated with them, and don't know enough about them to give my full support just yet. I will admit they are doing some things I like though.

Yeah, you like how they're spreading trash theories. Mark Zuckerberg is well within his rights to frustrate their efforts on Facebook and my only problem with that is he should have been doing that five years ago.

He is well within his rights to suppress information that exposes how elites use pedophilia as a form of mutual blackmail to control each other? Keep telling yourself that.

Do you want to do something to help?..

https://www.unicef.org.uk/donate/?utm_source=uukask&utm_medium=support_unicef_website&utm_campaign=donation

https://love146.org/ways-to-give/

https://www.ecpat.org.uk/donate-today

https://www.thorn.org/donate/

Unicef is an agency of the UN, which has taken part in child sex trafficking among other evil acts. I will look into the other organizations you have linked though.

No, he is well within his rights to suppress information that isn't true. There are people whose job it is to ACTUALLY expose pedophilia where it exists; support them, not Q. Q are trash.

So social media companies can legally enjoy immunity under safe harbor provisions as a neutral platform while actually acting more as publishers with "fact checking" that is blatantly motivated by partisanship. Oh, okay, I got it.

Moderation is allowed and always has been. You're referring to a legalistic argument that is also trash.

What case are you referring to? I am quite interesting in looking into it if such a case exists. Also I would like to point out that things are quite different now than they were in the 90's. I remember the early internet, I remember dial up was all we had and when AOL was king. We didn't have massive social media companies banning people and censoring posts for partisan reasons back then.

Just because you don't understand the argument dosen't mean it is not relevent, there is perhaps an argument to be made about whether or not said laws should be updated or changed but the law as it stands now is being violated by these social media companies.

No no, the argument took place in the courts in the late 90's and your interpretation of it was tossed in the trash can. Moderation was always allowed. Internet 2.0 would never have gotten off the ground to begin with if they were ever going to be held the least bit liable for moderation practices. It's not uncommon to hear it referred to as "the law that created the Internet" for that exact reason.

Your interpretation of it is a far-right invention rooted more in wishful thinking than legal scholarship. It's garbage. And you accepted it without questioning it. It's not even that difficult to understand - you just haven't done the legwork of verifying the information you've been told.

Which, incidentally, is also how you came to believe QAnon's theories even though you're "not associated with them" whatever that means.