On Jim Watkins' Forthcoming Congressional Testimony Jim Watkins goes in front of a congressional panel in a few days. Watkins is being given an opportunity to speak on the record about his website, 8chan.  My hopes are that he will discuss the following: Comparison of 8chan to Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, etc. in how offensive material is identified and handled. Who determines? What guidelines are used, if any? Are they social platforms, or publishers? How armies of paid shills are used to post offensive and illegal material on 8chan and elsewhere in order to try to shut down free speech. WikiLeaks publication of GCHQ documents from 2014 prove that armies of shills are routinely used to disrupt free speech online.  Recent insider leaks from Google and Youtube reveal that there is a concerted effort between social media giants to curtail free speech by illegal means. This is both a conspiracy and a breech of anti-trust laws.  DDoS attacks prove that attempts are being made to shut down 8chan in order to curtail free speech. Free speech is a right under the First Amendment. Free speech doesn't cause violence - uneducated people do. Free speech is necessary to properly educate the public, discuss current affairs, and resolve issues. Popular free speech sites like 8chan are important because they provide a platform for whistleblowers who would otherwise be silenced or targeted.  Anonymity is important on a free speech site like 8chan in order that whistleblowers can expose criminal activity without fear of being identified and facing repercussions.  Politicians need to remember or otherwise educate themselves about the founding father's reasoning behind the First Amendment right to free speech. Any site can become a free speech site, but the popularity of the site and the lack of rules are what makes it valuable, due to the amount of information that gets posted and discussed as a result, and the ability for newsworthy information to spread farther faster. Rules infringe on that free speech by limiting what can be said.  Social media giants cater to their stockholders, not their user base. These stockholders use these platforms to pursue their own agenda. Advertisers who use these platforms only reap profits if they cater to the same agenda. A study of who these entities are would reveal their underlying agenda. Q is a phenomenon that didn't arise randomly. Q was the necessary result of censorship and fake news. Q is what he says he is, and the fact that the question is never asked shows that this is already known and feared by those parties who are behind the push for curtailing free speech, and Q in particular. Just ask the question.