QAnon banned from Facebook

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

https://news.sky.com/story/facebook-bans-dangerous-qanon-groups-amid-surgin...

A small victory.

Hopefully they are beginning to see the damage being done to society by these people.

TWS

1
 Harry Jarvis 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

It's good and it's bad. For those living in the real world, it's obviously a sensible move if FB want to be seen to be taking misinformation seriously. However, it will serve to 'prove' to QAnon supporters of the merits of their argument - their argument will be that FB is all part of the Deep State and Zuckerberg is one of the lizard paedophile Jews running the world. Nutters, the lot of the them. 

 dread-i 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

 

> Hopefully they are beginning to see the damage being done to society by these people.

Facebook, will only look at the impact to profits or if it likely to draw ire from the government. In the US, that looks unlikely. In fact, with the election things will start to become more frothy. What with the prez distracting and telling porkies about anything and everything.

For the Q's they will move to a different platform or talk in code.  Moving to a different platform, will amplify their echos. Some of the right wing groups have already been down that path. There is a crossover between the Q's and some on the far right. I would expect them to become more militant, and right wing. Obviously any form of censorship will be seen as the deep state getting worried because the Q's are close to the truth. It would be funny, if they weren't so well armed.

1
cb294 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

After allowing them to do their damage and creaming off profits for years.

Facebook and Qanon are just two sides of the same evil.

CB

2
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-2020-trump-feeling-great-and-looking...

US election 2020: Trump's coronavirus tweet hidden and branded 'potentially harmful information'

It's just crazy,   they claim it's all a conspiracy and their being lied to .

While Dumpster fire stands there everyday lying to them .

I've no time for this cult .  

Post edited at 09:37
1
Removed User 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

They live on healthily elsewhere, like for climbers, there's FB groups and there's more focused stuff like UKC. The lizard pedophile stuff is false flag that sets a crazy bookend that makes other stuff seem acceptable. Plenty of folk within the Q sphere of influence that reject that part as nuts but go in full tilt for the Liberal conspiracies. 

 TomD89 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

However the media and social platforms are arguably worse in their peddling of misinformation and dodgy practices (and arguably more influential and powerful in some ways than the 'leader of the free world') and so them seemingly censoring elected leaders is not a good look.

Why anyone would put their faith in facebook/twitter or youtube to censor information for their own good despite their long history of personal data acquisition, censorship and cynically building products to addict users and cause waves of depression and anxiety across all age ranges, I do not understand I'm afraid. 

If you consider yourself smart enough to digest information and make your own mind up, you must give others that same right. We're drifting into strange and dangerous territory giving this much power to these evidently non-benevolent corporate entities.

3
 Lankyman 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

> A small victory.

> Hopefully they are beginning to see the damage being done to society by these people.

youtube.com/watch?v=phSxxVJCZsc&

 john arran 07 Oct 2020
In reply to TomD89:

> Why anyone would put their faith in facebook/twitter or youtube to censor information for their own good despite their long history of personal data acquisition, censorship and cynically building products to addict users and cause waves of depression and anxiety across all age ranges, I do not understand I'm afraid. 

I don't think anyone is proposing censoring information. Censoring misinformation is what's really needed

> If you consider yourself smart enough to digest information and make your own mind up, you must give others that same right.

People simply don't have the information, and often neither the skills nor the time, to properly assess and dismiss every bit of misinformation thrown at them online. The cumulative effect of a perpetual barrage of lies is an erosion of truth. Leaving it simply up to individuals to wade through the barrage and expecting them all to be able to cope is simply ludicrous.

When the town is in danger of flooding, yes you would hope that people would be smart enough to get valuables off the ground floor, but equally you would hope that flood barriers might be put in place rather than leaving everything up to inexpert individuals.

1
 mondite 07 Oct 2020
In reply to john arran:

> I don't think anyone is proposing censoring information. Censoring misinformation is what's really needed

The question is who choses whether something is misinformation or not?

 Ridge 07 Oct 2020
In reply to john arran:

> I don't think anyone is proposing censoring information. Censoring misinformation is what's really needed.

I've reported a number of posts for misinformation (real moonhowling stuff undermining Covid precautions) and in all cases all I get is "We understand you might disagree, but it doesn't breach our standards..blah, blah .you can always block the poster etc ".

2
 Tringa 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Unfortunately you are probably correct. One of the beliefs of those who embrace and promote conspiracies is unwavering acceptance that any counter view comes from those they want to warn us against.

We see it with QAnon and we see it with Trump, from anything which points out his inadequacies (which is fake news) to his statement that COVID19 is less lethal than 'flu.

Dave

1
 dread-i 07 Oct 2020
In reply to mondite:

> The question is who choses whether something is misinformation or not?


I'd go with the generally accepted scientific viewpoint, on that one. I'd also add in some cases 'where it is likely to cause harm'.

If you want to state the world is flat, that's probably not going to cause many issues. If you start suggesting that non believers should be beaten with a stick, then you've crossed the line. 

 mondite 07 Oct 2020
In reply to dread-i:

> I'd go with the generally accepted scientific viewpoint, on that one.

Which doesnt really apply in QAnon case (although I think they have deviated into 5g being the cause of the epidemic that they simultaneously claim isnt happening and being anti vaccine its not the core of their insanity).

The likely to cause harm is also somewhat subjective. After all if their batshittery was true not taking action would be causing harm.

 dread-i 07 Oct 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Which doesnt really apply in QAnon case (although I think they have deviated into 5g being the cause of the epidemic that they simultaneously claim isnt happening and being anti vaccine its not the core of their insanity).

But is isn't one coherent philosophy. Its a mish mash of random bits of conspiracy, mixed in with some tea party anti establishment and 'we're smarter than the experts'. 

> The likely to cause harm is also somewhat subjective. After all if their batshittery was true not taking action would be causing harm.

Some crazy ideas turn out to be good. Imagine if you were the first to pick up dog sh*t. Explaining that may seem odd, but it is now the norm. However, political leaders molesting children is a job for the police, or the press, not a trip to the pizza shop with your AR15.

1
 Timmd 07 Oct 2020
In reply to mondite:

It can't be that hard to determine that 'X is demonstrably untrue', and have that censored? It can almost feel like the nutters are growing in number, & influence. It's not good. :-/

Post edited at 11:28
1
 mondite 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> It can't be that hard to determine that 'X is demonstrably untrue', and have that censored?

Yes it can be when you get into opinions and Q (as in the fictional source in the deep state) has been careful after a few initial slip ups to make claims which cant be immediately shown to be false.

1
 TomD89 07 Oct 2020
In reply to mondite:

> The question is who choses whether something is misinformation or not?

Exactly. With the ever growing problem of opinion bubbles, algorithms creating echo chambers, personal/political bias and gaps in individual knowledge I wouldn't be comfortable with presuming some other entity will get this right, least of all an entity like facebook.

It's a path that means any dissenting voice can be quickly portrayed and labelled as 'misinformation' and censored. To be honest I think we're past the point of being able to trust institutions as we did historically and with the advent of the information age the more open discourse and variety of viewpoint, opinion and expertise available the better informed each person can be.

While imperfect and often extremely messy, fully open dialogue on all subjects is preferable to allowing potentially bad actors to take control of the worlds information flow. Whoever is against open access to information and discussion for all, I'd like to know why and what checks and balances you propose to stop 'authorities' abusing the censorship power. 

Post edited at 12:39
1
 john arran 07 Oct 2020
In reply to TomD89:

> While imperfect and often extremely messy, fully open dialogue on all subjects is preferable to allowing potentially bad actors to take control of the worlds information flow. Whoever is against open access to information and discussion for all, I'd like to know why and what checks and balances you propose to stop 'authorities' abusing the censorship power. 

Independent regulation of malign actors or malign content has been happening for a great many years, and in general with positive results. You could argue that some regulators/censors are not sufficiently independent or sufficiently representative, but that's very different from wanting them removed altogether. There's little surprise that we seems to be in a misinformation age, because for the first time in a long while a major source of public information, namely the world wide web, is notably unregulated.

What you appear to be arguing for is information chaos, where truth and lies must compete for acceptance by each individual. I don't think you fully appreciate the psychological tactics that are often used to make lies sound plausible and make otherwise right-minded individuals believe them. Such information chaos is really where we are now and what we have now in the online world. It doesn't seem to be working, as we appear to have wider belief in conspiracy and fabricated stories than we've ever had before.

In place of information chaos we need better information. This doesn't mean simply denying some people or some opinions the right to be heard, but it does mean getting together to agree standards of information credibility that cannot simply be changed or ignored by individual governments, tech companies or press barons. It also means identification at source as to whether information presented online meets those standards, so people can make better, more informed assessments of information presented.

 Timmd 07 Oct 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Yes it can be when you get into opinions and Q (as in the fictional source in the deep state) has been careful after a few initial slip ups to make claims which cant be immediately shown to be false.

I suppose if one was to talk about removing things which can't be demonstrated to be true, opinions about the meaning of life, or how well governments are doing and about how much they care about the people they're charge of, could become removable, so there could indeed be a lot of censorship, burgeoning investigations could be stopped before they bore fruit as well. That's annoying, or else Q could be removed fairly easily. 

Unless one actually comes across it and feels moved to act, it almost seems like something best not thought about too much for the good of one's peace of mind.

Depending on how much spare time one has, to spend seeking them out and questioning their theories and what have you....

Post edited at 13:40
 wercat 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

> The lizard pedophile stuff is false flag that sets a crazy bookend that makes other stuff seem acceptable. Plenty of folk within the Q sphere of influence that reject that part as nuts but go in full tilt for the Liberal conspiracies. 

but Skynet is real!

Removed User 07 Oct 2020
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Good thread here giving a qualitative account on the effectiveness of FBs actions.

https://twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1313637359544606720?s=19

One explanation for this sudden burst of activity from FB is that they can see the way the wind is blowing and with a change in Presidents coming they have decided to act now rather than wait until legislation is forced upon them. Who knows.

They have started moving to another platform [Gab?] but their reach will be much diminished because their are many fewer users if that platform.

Personally I'd like to see the individuals responsible for spreading lies blocked, at least for a year or so. Whether or not they believe the crap they're spreading is neither here nor there. The point is that it's anti social, damaging to our way of life and should be stopped.

In reply to Removed User:

> Good thread here giving a qualitative account on the effectiveness of FBs actions.

That's interesting to read thanks.

In reply to john arran:

> There's little surprise that we seems to be in a misinformation age, 

The 'democratisation of publishing', which is what these platforms provide, allows anyone to express their views. The sad thing is that the ones who seem to have more time on their hands are those with counter-factual beliefs, and they can find like-minded delusional people. And these people can then be manipulated.

QAnon was being discussed on the news this morning. In earlier times, it would have been one nutjob with a duplicator, getting high on duplicator fluid, and handing out their delusional rants on street corners, or being laughed at on Speakers Corner.

In reply to Timmd:

> opinions about the meaning of life,

Well, I suppose we might only be going back a few centuries, where having the 'wrong' views on 'the meaning of life' could see you burnt at the stake...

 Timmd 07 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia: I didn't quite mean it as a literal example, more as an indication of the nature of things which would be unprovable to be true - opinions rather than facts.

Post edited at 21:35
 TomD89 08 Oct 2020
In reply to john arran:

Clearly there are ways to make lies sound plausible, but there's also plenty of possibility for corruption and bias in educational, media and governmental institutions.

I'm suggesting the only true bulwark against lies or misinformation is informed individuals, and that we are well past the point of putting the lid back on Pandora's box. There is good information out there that you would simply never come across if you let 'the powers that be' curate what you get  to see. This would be self evident if we were living in a dictatorship, but we are often lulled into a false sense of security because we are comparatively well off.

You must also understand that conspiracy doesn't just spring up in a vacuum, we've been sold a great many lies via media in the last 3 decades. I do wonder how many genuine secrets would not have been revealed if we still only had the traditional media channels available to us (TV/radio/newspaper) eg. war atrocities and lies/misinformation that got us to go to war, racial prejudice in law enforcement, sexual assault victims staying silent etc. The rich and powerful had far too much ability to keep these injustices under wraps and avoid scrutiny before this greater level of information sharing was made available to us.

I've absolutely no desire to return to the old way because some people might take up the search for bigfoot, question aspects of reality or the machinations or global power. By all means create demonstrably trustworthy institutions that people can choose to go to, but to force a filter on the worlds information is untenable in my view. 

 john arran 08 Oct 2020
In reply to TomD89:

If you're arguing for better education so people are more able to make informed decisions, then I'm with you. If you're arguing for that to be separated entirely from the source of the misinformation/lies on the grounds that it's impossible ever to be able to trust any organisation of any nature with that task, then we'll have to disagree. I think it's vital that harmful nonsense is identified and flagged right away at source, because once beliefs are formed, even if they're provably nonsensical and based on lies, it takes far more effort to dislodge them.

2
 wbo2 08 Oct 2020
In reply to TomD89: Filtering information is one thing , but wht Q-Anon is based on is a long way from information.  It's misinformation, and created mystery and stories, rumour, and it is also deliberately mangaed to keep it 'mysterious' and inviting to those susceptible to conspircy theorists.  Doing nothing is not much of an option,

And yes, it is deliberately harmful and encourages violence 

 TomD89 08 Oct 2020
In reply to john arran:

Yes more education on these matters would be good. These problems are all quite recent, being related to the internet and other advances in information technology, so not surprised we haven't fully grasped the magnitude of them right out of the gate.

> I think it's vital that harmful nonsense is identified and flagged right away at source, because once beliefs are formed, even if they're provably nonsensical and based on lies, it takes far more effort to dislodge them.

Again you'll have to convince me of the benevolence of who is doing the identifying and flagging. Science needs to change and advance over time, and so what could seemingly be a factual explanation now could in 10 years be almost totally revised or disproved. Likewise a far out hypothesis can be true, but not if dismissed by the status quo immediately. If you allow current understandings and those who are invested in maintaining those (think fossil fuel industry backed scientists vs renewable energy based scientists) then you may get stifling of much needed changes in thinking and attitudes.

If you could give suggestions on who would be trusted with information flow and the checks and balances that would prevent them from abusing this power then I may be able to follow you further. However countries like China clearly have a stranglehold over the information their populace can access and I can't say I'm envious.

1
 wbo2 08 Oct 2020
In reply to TomD89:  It's not science that needs to catch up if you invent a rumour that person xxx is a paedophile imprisoning children under Edinburgh castle and paying the newspapers off to keep it seecret, and spatter that all over Facebook.  WWG1WWGA you know.

Worth censoring.?

1
 john arran 08 Oct 2020
In reply to TomD89:

It has nothing to do with who or what sources I personally would find acceptable, the question is whether you think any source could be better than offering no assistance whatsoever to people in identifying bullsh1t at source. If you accept the possibility, then it's really a matter of working with as wide a cross-section of our society as possible to make it happen as responsibly as possible. If you don't accept the possibility, you maintain the status quo. The status quo clearly isn't working: what's your plan B?

 dread-i 08 Oct 2020
In reply to TomD89:

>If you could give suggestions on who would be trusted with information flow and the checks and balances that would prevent them from abusing this power then I may be able to follow you further.

The problem with self policing of platforms is that it doesn't appear to work. You would need an arbitrator with the ability to fine a company, to make them up their game.

You want people to uncover issues like Thalidomide and birth defects. Vaccines = autism, for example, has been raised and proved to be false.

As you've alluded to, there isn't a simple answer. If there were it would be an algorithm by now, and we'd all be happy. You want diverse voices across the spectrum in a democracy. Some will be wrong, some will be right and many won't care. I don't think we can carry on with 'alternative facts' as having the same weight as facts.

I'd be interested to hear your solution, if you think it is a problem that needs a solution.

1
 mondite 08 Oct 2020
In reply to dread-i:

> The problem with self policing of platforms is that it doesn't appear to work. You would need an arbitrator with the ability to fine a company, to make them up their game.

Then we run into the issue of who chooses the arbitator and how do we ensure they arent pushing a specific line.

The companies,not unreasonably, might also point at the opinion pages and shows in the media and ask why they are being held to higher standard than those.

 TomD89 09 Oct 2020
In reply to john arran:

I feel your talking past my last post somewhat. I'm wanting to focus on who is trusted to curate the information the rest of us receive and how can we ensure this power won't be weaponized to control populations as it has demonstrably in other countries already? Will you accept this societal setup will transition us out of what we know as democracy and into something else? 

Is it ok to talk about conspiracy/rumours with your work colleagues, but just not post about it on the internet? If so, why? Is a facebook post any more or less legitimate than a face to face conversation? I certainly don't believe everything I'm told by people I know, nor do I believe everything I read on the internet. Why do I need a third party forcibly taking over my critical faculties for me?

If I want myself to be granted the right to be free to access information, assess it, test it, cross reference it, discuss it openly and come to a conclusion I don't feel I have the right to tell someone else they can't be trusted with information because they're stupid.

> It has nothing to do with who or what sources I personally would find acceptable, the question is whether you think any source could be better than offering no assistance whatsoever to people in identifying bullsh1t at source.

There are plenty of businesses, websites, news outlets, organizations and individuals that offer assistance in identifying truth from falsehood. Thankfully I'm not forced to use any one of them, nor are they given a monopoly on our attention. I'd be careful not to equate "offering assistance" to "censoring information without your knowledge or consent".

1
 john arran 09 Oct 2020
In reply to TomD89:

Earlier, I said: "This doesn't mean simply denying some people or some opinions the right to be heard, but it does mean getting together to agree standards of information credibility that cannot simply be changed or ignored by individual governments, tech companies or press barons. It also means identification at source as to whether information presented online meets those standards, so people can make better, more informed assessments of information presented."

I can't help thinking that, with your repeated references and allusions to denying people access to information, you haven't really taken that on board.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...