IRC is violence. The end goal with all IRC is to target talented persons with the intent to mock them so their self - esteem will be low enough to discourage them from producing. IRC takes its name from the age old liberal tradition of stopping progress in all its forms. This is why talented people with no criminal background are always the targets in all social chat and therefore for all IRC.
Furthermore IRC is all about collecting private information about people with the intent to steal their personal records so they can be sold to a third party which is why IRC exists in the first place. To annoy, to insult and to support drama which is treated as reality while there is nothing real to it.
We should ban IRC because doing so weakens democracy and is therefore against dictatorship.
On chat the people who protect every other IRC customer´s right to freedom of speech are the ones who are attacked the most and this is unacceptable.
We must ban IRC because if we do not those who support IRC such as by donating are supporting theft of private information with the intent to sell it to third parties by those in charge of the IRC - one way or another.
Nobody is talking about social networking services administered by persons who wish to do so with the best interest of the customers in mind. That is with the intent to serve rather than to abuse the customer. But that should no longer be called IRC. Instead of being treated as ´the best chat´IRC should be considered to be a significant threat and illegal in itself unless the people who administer its services will finally come to their senses and stop doing what they are being accused of doing - selling private information to a third party.
Three examples of IRC where people who have no criminal background are usually treated with contempt are as follows - SI, In5d and Spirit Science. Clients are told to put up or shut up if they talk about problems requiring practical solutions or anything else than chakras. Since there are other things than chakras which exist, it is impossible to follow the demands these IRC abusers put on their customers. And it has become the same with virtually all IRC services. Only chakras are allowed as a topic and no other topic is discussed and any attempt to discuss any other topic is met with contempt.
To stop this development it is necessary to consider limiting IRC and informing those in charge of IRC that violating the right of people to freedom of expression shall not be tolerated. If IRC continue to attack these freedoms the next step should be to consider monitoring the activities of these services with the intent to report the activities of those running them. Two, to consider IRC as a significant security threat and three to regard IRC chat rooms as potential breeding facilities for coincidence theorist nests. Such nests could be considered to be terrorist training grounds if the intent to use them is to oppress those using them to the extent they can no longer talk about anything at all.
Furthermore as a necessary measure those being framed on these websites for no apparent reason should consider a boycott and warn others in advance before they subscribe that the IRC they are subscribing to could be an attack site.
For my country I recommend a national referendum to determine the future of IRCs in Iceland.
For Europe I recommend national referendums to determine the future of IRCs in European countries.
For the Middle - East referendums for the future of IRCs are also to be held.
For the United States county referendums are recommended to determine the future of IRcs.
It is also important to remember that IRCs were intended to enable freedom of expression for all on the internet but not to control everybody who is a client nor to impose rules nobody can follow or which will constantly be abused by the admins themselves.
The message to IRCs has become plain obvious because the number of complaints by customers has risen significantly - modernize, and allow people to be themselves or die.
Summary: IRCs have stepped so many times on their loyal customers that most customers using IRCs today are convinced that they were set up for this purpose despite many admins disagree and point out that no abuse has taken place against those who have been removed from their services.
Understandably it has sometimes been absolutely necessary to remove some persons from a chat room because they have sent so much spam onto it and they had received many enough warnings.
Conclusion: if limitations on IRCs are not put then the problem they cause to their customers will be worse than the few they have removed for fears of rule abuses. If IRCs stop collecting personal data from people with the intent to sell it to third parties without the consent of the owners of this information then perhaps there would be no need for referendums on the future of social networks offering instant msg services or chat. In that case the worsening problem caused by customer abuse will either lead to a massive boycott or something like referendums.
Replies