13 ms·
Facebook removes QAnon conspiracy group with 200k members
- jondubois 6y agoIt's hypocrisy that Facebook allows religious groups, but doesn't allow conspiracy theory groups. Conspiracy theory is a belief system. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. You cannot allow religion and not allow conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories help people to make sense of the world, this is a fundamental human need. I didn't see Facebook banning the Catholic church for its stance against contraception.
- tomc1985 6y agoThey shouldn't allow religious groups either then. Humans don't need belief, they affect nothing in the physical world and lead to division, ignorance, and holy wars
- AtlasLion 6y agototalitarian much?
- tomc1985 6y agoWhy not? Why do we even need to indulge this design flaw?
- caseysoftware 6y agoWeird flex. The entire concept of a "design flaw" depends on there being a designer.
- tomc1985 6y agoOk, how about "species flaw"
- IgorPartola 6y agoGo read Sapiens and tell me how humans don’t need beliefs. Religion is the reason us Homo sapiens and not some other species of humans are the only ones that survived. I say this as someone who is deeply against any form of organized religion, but saying they don’t affect anything in the real world is like saying that violence never solves anything.
- tomc1985 6y agoYou are referring to the things that people do that are a result of beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. I've heard theories that the sensation of early human consciousness was akin to feeling enslaved to a higher power in one's head, as a sort of summary of that person's internal drives manifesting as God. Who is to say these things would not have happened if humans simply skipped the 'internal voice equals god' conclusion?
- IgorPartola 6y agoThat theory was popularized by Westworld and is highly debated. But you can’t separate the two: you believe in things like money and corporations and ownership of property and transfer of property right? Those ar exist as fictitious and god or satan. You might believe in things like capitalism or communism: both are simply types of religion. You might believe in destiny or free will: both artificial constructs. The point is that there is subjective reality (I feel anxious), objective reality (a tiger is chasing me), and intersubjective (I am a part of a village and we share communal property). The latter is what enables us to do things like build anything that requires more than one person. Beliefs in things like money are as real as a hammer and cannot be separated from their real world effects. The book Sapiens goes into a lot of detail about this and does a much better job explaining it than I can.
- tomc1985 6y ago> you believe in things like money and corporations and ownership of property and transfer of property right? That's twisting words. Belief in some cosmic, anthropomorphic entity is nothing to do with "belief" in money or corporations. How does one "believe" in those things anyway? They are here, they exist, and they're fucking shit up right now, and we can trace much of our woes to those forces. You cannot say the same about magical beings looking down on us from the clouds
- devmunchies 6y ago> they affect nothin in the physical world There are religions that center around worship of nature. I don’t agree that humans don’t need beliefs though. Most people today are filling that need with politics and are very fanatical about it.
- tomc1985 6y agoIt is a "need" that we as humans need to obliterate if we are going to continue to survive
- ljf 6y agoFrom the article: Reuters reports that Official Q/QAnon "crossed the line" on bullying, harassment, hate speech and the sharing of potentially harmful misinformation. The FBI last year issued a warning about "conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists" and designated QAnon a potential domestic extremist threat.
- marcrosoft 6y agoIt is worth noting that major religious groups are, and continue to be, designated as domestic (extremist) threats. Quakers were "extreme". It is very dangerous to give the gov. authority to choose which beliefs are extreme and which are not.
- moomin 6y agoIndeed, "religious" facebook groups that cross that line are candidates for banning as well. Problem with conspiracy theories in general is it inevitably ends up with demonising some group or other that's "suppressing" the "truth"? Want to argue the world is flat? Fill your boots. Start to say there's a cabal of scientists with nefarious motives? You're heading toward the hate speech line. Plan breaking into prominent scientists homes to obtain evidence? The line's behind you.
- LanceH 6y agoI think the above comment isn't 100% correct and should not be allowed either.
- baby 6y agosomeone needs to read the article
- busyant 6y ago>You cannot allow religion and not allow conspiracy theories It seems like the reason for the ban is that the group "repeatedly posting content that violated our policies" I assume that if a religious group also repeatedly violated policies, it would meet the same fate. But the article doesn't clarify what policies were violated. Edit...missing words.
- LeoPanthera 6y agoIt wasn't banned because it was a conspiracy theory. It was banned because its members practiced hate speech, harassment, and bullying. You should read the article.
- TomMarius 6y agoCatholics and other religious groups do exactly that too, using 'god's wish' as their excuse.
- LeoPanthera 6y agoFacebook was responding to specific incidents from the specific people in that group. Just because some members of a particular religious or social group do bad things, doesn't mean you should ban all members of that group. If it did, all of Facebook would have to shut down. And while that might not be a bad thing - it's not the point in question here.
- TomMarius 6y agoHow come they deleted a group, then? They should've only banned the offending members. P.S. I fully agree with the removal.
- fareesh 6y agoThe rule about bullying and harassment seems to be selectively applied. It doesn't seem to matter when the target has the political views that oppose those of the Facebook employee base.
- ummonk 6y agoWhen religion-focused groups engage in bullying, harassment, or hate speech, they should be removed too (and I assume they already are).
- vlunkr 6y ago> whether it's true or not is irrelevant. For people who actually believe in conspiracy theories this is not at all true. And there are some religious people who might think this way, but I would guess it's a small minority.
- aNoob7000 6y agoIt is not fair to compare most religions to conspiracy theories. As a Catholic, I don't believe that the devil is behind everything wrong in the world, and I'm sure most rational people feel the same way. One of the biggest problems I have with conspiracy theories is that nothing can be trusted because there's always something corrupt behind it all. I believe the United States' biggest challenge right now is the lack of trust of our most fundamental institutions like the CDC and the law. I think the lack of faith is due to people in trusted positions believing and promoting some of these crazy theories.
- fareesh 6y agoFacebook is most likely pandering to their highly political employees or advertisers, and doesn't sincerely have any value or principles.
- caiobegotti 6y agoA drop in the ocean.
- bra-ket 6y agoFollowing this logic they should also remove Washington Post conspiracy group, it has millions of members
- ChuckMcM 6y agoIt is a good first step. I am tired of the reasoning that Facebook is somehow some sort of "common square" because "all my friends are there" and therefore their actions should be constrained by legal language. One of the great things that the Internet does is make it possible for any group to make their own echo chamber (see Parler as an example), and complaining that people don't show up says more about the people who created it and less about the regulatory environment.
- thewarrior 6y agoI’m surprised that you’ve been downvoted. It actually isn’t that hard anymore to create your own little space where you can be as retarded as you wish. Both chapo trap house and the Donald that were banned from Reddit quickly created their own websites. What people are demanding is not just freedom of speech but the right to appear in everyones newsfeed no matter how dangerous or bigoted their views maybe. We tend to conflate the two freedoms.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoI am not surprised by downvotes, it is an emotional topic on all sides. That makes up / down voting more emotion drive rather than perhaps argument driven. Reputation systems like HN and Reddit, lack nuance in their expression. Does a downvote mean "I don't agree?", does it mean "I don't like you?", does it mean "This makes me mad?", does it mean "This comment doesn't add value?", or maybe "This comment is inaccurate."? Because this sort of voting is such a blunt instrument, I don't see a lot of value in trying to tease out the "why" of up votes or down votes. At the end of the day, does it matter? Any comment on this site with regards to a link is just a data point amongst many from which the reader may develop an understanding.
- akvadrako 6y agoIt has never been hard to create your own space.
- stelliosk 6y agoWill they say their removal was a conspiracy?
- krapp 6y agoWho cares?
- IgorPartola 6y agoTook them long enough. Same day as this hit the news: https://www.salon.com/2020/08/08/republicans-paid-huge-strange-sums-to-facebook-and-a-mystery-company-for-list-acquisition/ https://www.salon.com/2020/08/08/republicans-paid-huge-stran... If Facebook disappeared tomorrow I wouldn’t cry all that much.
- baby 6y agoI would lose contact with most of my friends, that would suck.
- IgorPartola 6y agoHow quickly would you get back in touch with those you actually keep up with? And those that aren’t actually your friends just people whose memes you like? Do they really add that much to your life?
- vinbreau 6y agoI work from home and have a disabled wife plus a 5 year old doing remote learning. I never leave the house except for needed things. Losing social media would isolate me even more.
- cosmojg 6y agoThere are many social media platforms better than Facebook. If it disappeared tomorrow, people would simply relocate.
- IgorPartola 6y agoFirst off, hope you and your family are keeping yourself sanity through all this. As someone with kids about that age, this is rough. I will point out that there are many really good social networks that don’t also have the same problems as Facebook. Things like instant messaging groups, subreddits, Discord servers, phone calls, Imgur, etc. Every medium and platform has its drawbacks but I find that using multiple networks that aren’t FB has been a huge boon to the quality and quantity of meaningful experiences I’ve had.
- baby 6y agoIt's a good step, but what the US needs the most at the moment is a stronger education system. Most of what we're seeing today is really just a symptom of a deeper issue.
- TomMarius 6y agoThese conspiracies are rampant in Europe too. Why didn't the stronger education system help here?
- kungato 6y agoWho says it's stronger? It's OK at best. If you look at numbers, 200k people being in a group about some dumb thing from a country of >300mil people (I guess there are people from other countries as well) is not that much. Especially if you suppose that many of those are not seriously believing but just there for the laughs
- TomMarius 6y ago> Who says it's stronger? It's OK at best It's what the Americans point to when they discuss reforms of their education system - and I am the one saying it's not really that strong, or rather, does not seem to be the actual solution.
- buzzert 6y agoHow does more education prevent conspiracy theories? I’ve witnessed many highly educated friends (including some from outside the US) succumb to crazy conspiracy theories on Twitter. This seems more like an emotional intelligence problem than anything else.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoCritical thinking skills immunize you against the disbelief of provable facts and rational thought processes (assuming reasonable mental health state). Emotional intelligence is a component though, for sure. You need both the skills and the desire to seek the truth versus accepting whatever information galvanizes your preexisting belief and value systems. High hill to climb.
- janvdberg 6y agoThis feels too little too late. QAnon is a “thing” now, Facebook allowed it to grow big enough that they can probably find other platforms to grow even further.
- esperent 6y agoWas Facebook their main platform? I thought it was YouTube.
- belltaco 6y agoIn the early days it was Reddit that was crucial to QAnon taking off. A bunch of dedicated Q folks formed the sub and got it to take off(this was easy to verify because they all had Reddit account creations dates within a couple of days of each other). Reddit didn't do anything for a very long time.
- haunter 6y agoI live in Hungary, there is a hungarian language COVID conspiracy group with 107k members atm. Reported them and nothing happened for weeks, they are growing easily. And I think nothing will happen. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Normalis.Elethez.Ragaszkodok/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/Normalis.Elethez.Ragaszkodok... There is not even a category to report them because Facebook only has limited options (nudity, harassment, hate speech, unauthorized sales, violence)
- outside1234 6y agoCut off their advertising in Hungary. They certainly started getting the message here when we did that.
- donatj 6y agoIf they're not breaking the rules why report them?
- ceejayoz 6y agoCOVID disinformation is against is against Facebook's terms. They just don't make it easy to report it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/08/05/trump-post-removed-facebook/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/08/05/trump-p... > Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said, “This video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation."
- StreamBright 6y agoPushing against wearing a mask is not based on misinformation unless you qualify the CDC's stance on this misinformation. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article "Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission."
- yasp 6y agoHow do we know that this isn't just metastasizing the problem?
- wskinner 6y agoIt is often assumed, including by several comments here, that membership in a group implies agreement with some or all of the content within the group. This is false and harmful. This faulty assumption can be used to exaggerate the popularity of niche beliefs, and ironically it may have self fulfilling effects - “can 200,000 people be wrong?” In the physical world, where attending rallies or meetings costs time and physical effort, the assumption may be more valid. In the digital world, where group membership is almost costless, it fails.
- rriepe 6y agoWhen the argument ceases to be about the thing, and is instead about the group of people, it's lost. With Covid, people were having scientific discussions around R0, transmission of viruses, etc. Then it became about hating "anti-maskers" and all that stopped. Once it became about hating a group of people, all intelligent discussion immediately stopped. This same pattern plays out in almost every major news story in America.
- lixtra 6y agoI would be interested why this comment gets downvoted. Because of language? hating “anti-maskers”? Because it assumes that there’s still something to discuss about covid?
- Daishiman 6y agoBecause it's a distraction and just a really, really bad take on reality.
- pfraze 6y agoGP's point comes off like an argument against pro-maskers which makes the point disingenuous. Their criticism is that scientific discussion stopped when the topic became politicized, but they're taking a political shot at the same time.
- rriepe 6y ago
- ipsocannibal 6y agoHow is this not going to become another game of whack-o-mole? You break one clubhouse they build 3 more, re: FatPeopleHate diaspora.
- belltaco 6y agoThat example disproves your point. FPH lost a lot of traction after it moved to Voat and kept losing it. It has barely a fraction of the activity and views it had on Reddit.
- ipsocannibal 6y agoI wasn't making a point. I was asking a question and providing an example to explain the context of the question.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> You break one clubhouse they build 3 more, re: FatPeopleHate diaspora. In the case of FPH, the new clubhouse was harder to find and didn't affect its neighbors as much. http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf > More accounts than expected discontinued using the site; those that stayed drastically decreasedtheir hate speech usage—by at least 80%. Though many subreddits saw an influx of r/fatpeoplehate andr/CoonTown “migrants,” those subreddits saw no significant changes in hate speech usage. In other words,other subreddits did not inherit the problem. We conclude by reflecting on the apparent success of the ban,discussing implications for online moderation, Reddit and internet communities more broadly.
- ipsocannibal 6y agoInteresting. Have there been follow up studies to track where the members of the banned groups have gone since? I'm interested to see if groups reform and realign into new groups that conduct the same types of activities.
- ipsocannibal 6y agoI think conducting research like https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3392847 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3392847 but specifically on groups that are banned for hate speech would be fascinating.
- Konohamaru 6y agoThe question nobody's asking: WHY are people so dissatisfied with the conventional truth that they feel the need to seek out any alternative?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tinalumfoil 6y agoOn the other hand why are people so scared of distrust of authority? If it's true why does it require censorship to defend?
- aNoob7000 6y agoBecause every fact is disputed. There's no truth anymore. Look no further than the use of masks and hydroxychloroquine in the United States.
- Lammy 6y ago> anymore There never was. Don't limit yourself to the concept of a single objective truth.
- aNoob7000 6y agoWith regards to my comment about the mask and medicine, what's not truthful about it? There are still people that don't believe that masks help, and that hydroxychloroquine will help them.
- Lammy 6y agoNot in regard to just that but to people in general. People are telling you the world as they perceive it. I don't live in the anti-mask-pro-HQwhatever world either, but I have found it much more effective to let people have their truths than to get in a never-ending fractal of battles that just make people dig their heels in and hate each other.
- kgraves 6y agoGood, its now twitter's turn to remove hate filled Nazi's on Twitter.
- spoopyskelly 6y agoIt would be bad optics to remove all the "progressive" activists now.
- kanox 6y agoThis is exactly what the deep state would do.
- snowplay 6y agoWhile I don't subscribe to the QAnon related conspiracies, I feel even more strongly that Facebook is a bigger threat to society as it stifles discussion and dissemination of apposing ideas if they are not compliant with their policy.
- brewdad 6y agoMeh. When the discussion and dissemination of ideas doesn't go beyond "meme level", nothing of value is really being lost. The platform doesn't really lend itself to deep discussion. It's sound bites but now every crackpot on the planet gets the same voice as experts who have dedicated their lives to a subject.
- BurningFrog 6y agoOf course, this exactly what a deep state conspiracy would do.
- ChicagoDave 6y agoExcept it's a corporation, not the government.
- casefields 6y agoI see this is the tobacco strategy. They don't have to use our product. It's totally safe.
- ChicagoDave 6y agoOh don't get me started. Facebook is absolutely harming people and it should be regulated, if not broken up.
- knifepatrol 6y agoI would suggest that there is an element of fear involved when subscribing to the majority of conspiracy theories. Critical thinking and emotional intelligence are necessary, but fear supersedes intelligence and is easily manipulated.
- mrfusion 6y agoWhy are we against book burning but cheering moves like this?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- koolba 6y agoBecause people are hypocrites when it’s politically convenient.
- dimgl 6y agoI've seen at least 20 comments saying that "this is a good step". Good step to what? Full censorship?
- stosh 6y agoyep
- jakkyboi 6y agoFree speech is a complicated issue. Ideally I would like to see groups like this banned, but I can see how that can lead to issues with who says what content is ok and what isn't.
- weakfish 6y agoBecause this group is steering towards very dangerous grounds rapidly. [0] [0] https://gnet-research.org/2020/06/15/assessing-the-threat-of-qanon-violence/ https://gnet-research.org/2020/06/15/assessing-the-threat-of...
- tenebrisalietum 6y agoWhy are you equating Facebook with books?
- krapp 6y agoTo equate anyone who supports Facebook's actions in this case with the sort of people who support book burning, obviously.
- mancerayder 6y agoThe article didn't try to explain the details beyond quoting Facebook's "policies" phrase in literally an incomplete sentence. Couldn't the BBC journalist interact with a Facebook spokesperson via phone or email to ask for more detail? Which policies, etc. Conspiracy theorists and deep state lunatics - great, ok, we got rid of them. But is no one concerned that we're putting a lot of trust in Facebook or Twitter or other companies mentioned to correctly deem what's correct and incorrect information? If you go back in time, there have been countless cases of journalists uncovering important cases but who were suppressed by the authorities and institutions. Yes, they come off as "conspiracy theories." Until, later we're very thankful for their bravery and sacrifices. Just because QAnon peddles silly theories, doesn't mean that we should clap and smile and puts our thumbs up at this, or the removal of people like Alex Jones. Let's put on our creative thinking caps and consider what happens if someone who you happen to like, or a more obscure or unpopular group who thinks differently is muted. A basic principle of pluralism of ideas is, yeah, some ideas are just not agreeable. That's up to us to bite our tongues and tolerate it. If you think the conspiracy theories die along with QAnon Facebook Groups then you've been living under a rock.
- mancerayder 6y agoNice downvotes. As if downvoting is a way to vote on the issue as in a referendum. Since it isn't, step out of the shadows and step up with a counter-argument.
- dboreham 6y agoHow did BS conspiracy theories spread before the internet?
- krapp 6y agoWord of mouth and published literature.
- zozbot234 6y agoFanzines and online BBS's hosted a lot of conspiracy-themed urban legends. That, plus word-of-mouth would generally do the trick. Obviously, the spread was a bit slower than what you'd get today with the Internet, but the cultural traits were the same.
- pjc50 6y agoPamphlets. Even graffiti. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of... (famous 1903 example)
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoI dunno. The Epstein conspiracy theories (that he blackmailed powerful people and politicians by filming them with underage teens) is starting to look a lot LESS theory these days.
- beefee 6y agoThis removal is a conspiracy in a literal sense. The decision to interrupt the communications of 200,000 people was made in secret by an unknown group of Facebook personnel. Even Ma Bell, in its most powerful and abusive days as a monopolist, would never have dreamed of enacting such hostility towards its users. It's worth asking, for how long will people tolerate an increasingly unreliable communications infrastructure?
- conspiracyexla1 6y agoMy ISP service is still working just fine. Facebook isn’t necessary infrastructure for communication. It’s an ad platform. Anyone using it accepted an arrangement where Facebook is under no obligation to permit them to continue to use Facebooks property (Facebooks servers). You should really climb out of the web and read up on the laws that you tacitly give control over you by your ignorance of how they work. The historical root of power in America is owning real property. The masses seem happy to sign theirs over to employers and banks.
- def_true_false 6y agoIs this meaningfully different from previous instances of censorship by social media platforms?
- yakireev 6y agoNo, it isn't. Also, censorship is bad, and the fact that there's so much public demand for it nowadays is sickening. Even here at HN there are plenty of people who'd praise FB for this move.
- staticassertion 6y agoHN "censors" posts all the time. There are moderators who go around deleting posts, and even the users here dare to downvote, suppressing the speech of others!
- def_true_false 6y agoIndeed, I'm just perplexed by people being so concerned with this specific instance of censorship. I would expect people to only get outraged by more mainstream stuff getting banned at this point, considering reddit and youtube started banning much more benign content ages ago (e.g. most gun related content).
- KerryJones 6y agoWe talk about how bad censorship is in China and North Korea but now we're applauding it within our own country? To be clear, I'm against everything QAnon has done and have had numerous debates to disprove their theories and it is _exhausting_. But it everyone's right to have their own beliefs. This _is_ a form of censorship. Facebook is a private platform and so has the right to do as they please, and we have the right to choose another platform -- but we shouldn't mistake what we're doing as some sort of noble act. The right to freedom of thought isn't about defending your right when you agree with it, it's about defending the right even when you _don't agree_ with it.
- ChicagoDave 6y agoAll true, but the QAnon folks are bullying people, doxing people, and have actually killed people. It's no longer just a cute conspiracy theory. It's a movement with real actors attempting to destabilize democratic processes. It's not the conspiracy itself. It's the people holding it up and actively opposing anyone that disagrees with them in harmful ways.
- KerryJones 6y agoHmm, that makes sense. My follow up question is how many of them are actually bad actors? Is it really many of them or is it actually just a few?
- ChicagoDave 6y agoThere's a confluence of Q adherents and KKK/racist folks who are more than willing to get violent, especially with 45 egging them on. There is evidence of Proud Boys who've been caught starting the looting in Minneapolis and Portland because they want to "start the race war". The whole Q thing is dragging our most vulnerable citizens into a conspiracy that is probably run by a few nerds from 4chan who are using it to make cash and have a joke. I picture these dorks, sitting in a basement, smoking dope, playing video games, throwing out suggestions to further the conspiracy. Nerd 1: "Hey! Let's tell them JFK, Jr is alive and will come back to help Trump!" Nerd 2: "Holy shit that's brilliant." Nerd 3: "Tell then Trump will replace Pence with JFK, Jr as VP. That will totally rile them up." Nerd 1: "Brilliant!" Nerd 2: "This is so much fun. What a bunch of idiots."
- roamerz 6y agoDisclaimer: I had to lookup to see what QAnon was. Maybe there was more to the group other than conspiracy theories but theories are only that until supporting evidence is uncovered. How many scientific theories were just that until proven? Also while theories political in nature are most likely believed by those they benefit the same but opposite holds true for those who would not like them to be true. Allowing someone like Facebook to be an ‘unbiased’ ‘arbiter of truth’ is laughable.
- spoopyskelly 6y agoBurn the heretics!
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoIt is an upsetting development for several separate reasons. 1. FB can do what it wants on its platform, but by cancelling this particular group it becomes a truth arbiter and/or censor, which is a scary proposition ( maybe not proposition, they have already been acting in this manner; QAnon is only significant, because of its size and overlap with R party ). I dislike censorship, but the fact that US population draws information from FB is scary to me. 2. It further undermines freedom of speech and association. It only pushes those voices further into.. not fringe exactly, but it does seem to amplify their determination and allows them to claim they are being repressed by the powers that be. 3. It implies that as humans we cannot survive sufficiently dangerous thoughts. This, to me, is horrifying. I believe we can. I believe the only way to allow humans to deal with the level of Qanon idiocy is to keep it in the light and not throw it into darkness where it only grows stronger. Just like with any disease we need to be able to build healthy immune system, our mind has to build healthy firewall to protect against idiotic ideas. It is not up to FB/gvmt. It is up to us and maybe parents. I would also accept critical thinking class as an answer.
- lsalvatore 6y agoI'm following a conspiracy that QAnon is a conspiracy itself designed to take focus away from true conspiracies. Similar circles are all in agreement about Alex Jones as well being a deep state disinfo plant. Clearly according to most here, all conspiracies are false and the only source of truth is what they are told by the government and mainstream outlets. So, QAnon is an easy target for those looking to spend their time debunking conspiracies. The QAnon conspiracy, in that regard, is doing exactly what it was intended to do.
- ideals 6y ago> a deep state disinfo plant can you unroll this phrase a bit?
- lsalvatore 6y agoSomeone from the deep state to distribute misinformation. A conspiracy theorist actor. A disinfo agent distracts the public away from the real conspiracies by clogging the airwaves with fake conspiracies. Q and Alex Jones are Trump's conspiracy media arm. If you are going to attack the actual media as fake, you need convincing counter-media.
- fortran77 6y agoThis may just "prove" to them that there's a Big Conspiracy out to cove things up. It may be better to do things to slow it down -- shadow banning new posts (they appear for the poster, but nobody else can see them), delaying and losing a significant portion of posts, not putting it high in a person's feed even if subscribed, leaving it out of search results.
- jariel 6y agoIt's worth noting that there definitely is such a thing as the 'deep state', it's just that it's not some crazy thing about lizards and aliens, rather, it's jus the simple fact that anyone outside the established consensus will be perceived with hostility and the operating organs of state will systematically move to reject them. In Canada, we have something call the 'Laurentian Consensus' - which is basically Ottawa/Toronto/Montreal traditional, small-c conservative centre left, very establishment view of the world, propagated systematically by most of the bureaucracy, national banks, established systems, academia. When you live in Ontario or Quebec, it doesn't seem obvious. But when you live outside Ontario or Quebec, it becomes really quite obvious. I do not believe a guy like Donald Trump has the best interest of the nation at heart, even if he thinks he does, and there's probably good reason the 'deep state' is rejecting his many appeals to authority. After all, the ultimate apparatus of the 'deep state' are literally things like 'the Justice System' etc.. But at least, theoretically, there is something to be said for it, and there are actual material concerns about individual expression vs. more statist and globalist forces. The European Union bestows incredible power upon unelected leaders. Very few people vote in EU elections, their 'elected' MEPs do not really have a say in who the leadership will be. Not until the treaty of Lisbon were the elite even required to consult elected MEPs! Now, it's just ceremonial. Ursula Von Der Leyen, one of the most powerful people in the world was not on the ballot or even a known figure during the election. She was chosen after the election in back room, completely non-transparent deals by the French PM, German Chancellor etc.. MEP's cannot enact legislation, they have no say in executive level conduct. In the last 10 years, two elected leaders (Greece, Italy) were effectively overthrown without real legal and certainly no democratic legitimacy. So this is an example of where I think most of the elite do in fact have 'mostly good intentions', but wherein the lack of democracy and transparency lends very credibility to populist concerns of 'deep state'. The 'nature of power' in politics and business is very opaque, and a little bit hard to understand without exposure to it, and there actually is no 'one power', nobody really is in control, it's more about understanding the memes that interest the elite than anything. Which is not an easy to communicate idea. Hence - Lizards and Aliens. Insane populists, with a few bad actors who don't mind knowingly spreading falsehoods, take advantage of this and make stuff up. I don't think this is a new phenom, it's as old as time, it's just that the 'rumour mill' has metastasised. If the proles ever were truly 'educated' as to how our financial and political system worked, here probably would be a real revolution, maybe a 'good one'. But until then, it's a mess. Finally - it's a serious issue. I have University educated friends asking me 'if I believe this stuff' trying to determine the legitimacy of it, without being able to write it off themselves. We are entering a new ere wherein in the fiction of pop culture consciousness, nothing needs to be factual to have weight, and nobody is really in charge. I really think that most libertarians and anarcho-socialists etc thought we'd have some kind of enlightened utopia, but really we get mostly Lizards and Aliens.
- aazaa 6y ago> A Facebook spokeswoman said the group was removed for "repeatedly posting content that violated our policies". At this point Facebook, Google, and all other operators of similar platforms should be viewing their hoard of user data, not as a gold mine, but as a superfund site. The demise of these companies starts with demands to purge the platforms of "content violating policies." The only problem is that these polices can never quite be pinned down. So the takedowns will be all over the map, guided only by the prevailing wind. These calls inevitably will lead to even more urgent calls to track the users of the objectionable content. After all, if the group was dangerous, so must be its users. The problem is that there are infinite ways for humans to be offended. Each takedown ensures that the next round of calls will be that much louder and more insistent. If you wanted to engineer the boringest platform possible, this is how you'd do it. Ad revenues will follow the departure of users for greener pastures.
- aceon48 6y agoHas anyone here ever even read a post by Q? Is it really a conspiracy that powerful pedophiles are protecting people like Jeffrey Epstein? Pretty established fact at this point
- torresjrjr 6y agoBetter join the https://Fediverse.network https://Fediverse.network before it's too late and all you have left is complaints.