Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 281 posts

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#221

Post by r00fus »

shadowgovt wrote: post #152
bezmenov wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disingenuous to compare the relative reach of AOL in the 90s to that of Twitter and Facebook in 2020. In absolute terms, both Twitter and Facebook dominate contemporary discourse at a scale far surpassing any company prior.

I agree. AOL had far more control over the average online user than FB and Twitter do now. The fact we even say "FB and Twitter" indicates this. In the early AOL era, one couldn't even use it to access the web.

It seems as if you and bezmenov actually disagree. AOL was influential online but online was not an appreciable part of the media and national discourse.

So AOL was a big fish in a tiny lake. In comparison today, FB and Twitter both are megaliths that impact how the ocean currents circulate.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#222

Post by Fjolsvith »

shadowgovt wrote: post #209
Fjolsvith wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, "Q" predicted this behavior by the social media platforms over a year ago, so the QAnon movement is not, in general, surprised by Twitter. According to their conspiracy, Twitter just checked off a box in the list of items they believe will happen coming up in the future.

As prognostications go, "The mainstream media will find my nonsense so aggressively hateful that they'll kick it off the site" is right up there with "It'll be cold in winter." Especially when Q controls the level of the aggressive hate in the nonsense.

> Especially when Q controls the level of the aggressive hate in the nonsense.

I'm not so sure that the level of aggressive hate from the populace is attributable to Q. I believe he's just tapping into it.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#223

Post by shadowgovt »

Fjolsvith wrote: post #222
shadowgovt wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As prognostications go, "The mainstream media will find my nonsense so aggressively hateful that they'll kick it off the site" is right up there with "It'll be cold in winter." Especially when Q controls the level of the aggressive hate in the nonsense.

> Especially when Q controls the level of the aggressive hate in the nonsense. I'm not so sure that the level of aggressive hate from the populace is attributable to Q. I believe he's just tapping into it.

So, to give a concrete example: one way Q could ratchet back on the aggressive hate in the nonsense is to just stop posting. Stop posting anything. That would ratchet it down.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#224

Post by thephyber »

codeddesign wrote: post #131
thephyber wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have read another 2 paragraphs lower and had your questions answered: > The spokesperson said while the targeted enforcement against QAnon fell under Twitter’s existing platform manipulation rules, its classification of QAnon as coordinated harmful activity was a new designation. The spokesperson said Twitter was taking action now because of an escalating degree of harm associated with the conspiracy theory…

In regards to your last point: Is it though? That’s a very large generalization for half the country. That’s like saying Obama supporters are pro killing innocent people with drones. Obviously this is ridiculous. Both far right and left have extremists that shouldn’t be tolerated by anyone.

I didn't mean to insinuate that all Trump supporters participate in the QAnon thing.

I have yet to see a QAnon follower who didn't also support Trump, so from my perspective being a Trump Supporter is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a QAnon follower.

> Both far right and left have extremists that shouldn’t be tolerated by anyone.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tolerated" here. I'm fine with calling them out for their silly ideas and actions. Perhaps even "canceling" them if they get too extreme. I'm not interested in actually adopting their techniques.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#225

Post by thephyber »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #186
thephyber wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a feature of QAnon, not a bug. If none of us knows the identity of "Q" then anyone can pretend to be their prophet and there is no way to confirm nor disconfirm. This is why I describe QAnon as a LARP -- it's easy for the average person to participate without knowing any rules (because there are none).

Sounds like they ripped off a lot from Anonymous, except went right-wing w/ it, whereas Anonymous is definitely more likely to be part of antifa. Anyone can say they are part of anonymous and create their own anonymous branded videos....etc..

To be fair, I think they both likely started on 4Chan, which has those same features.

In a way, it's a natural evolution of the "meme", which was originally a word coined by Dawkins to describe the gene of biological evolution equivalent in cultural evolution. Nobody owns a meme. Rarely can we prove who was actually the first to use a meme (KnowYourMeme attempts this, but occasionally can't definitively identify the creator). Memes keep their virility based on the collective LARP that all humans participate in (sometimes the meme goes away and other times it stays active).

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#226

Post by prepend »

pvg wrote: post #214
prepend wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the old guy ironically fucked a goat here. I think he claimed that he was a goat fucker to demonstrate the absurdity of the accusation.

You can add levels of meta to disarm any analogy and excuse any statement but that's silly. Yelling 'white power' is goatfucking and that guy is a goatfucker.

Is Ed Norton a goatfucker for American History X? Are we both goatfuckers for having “white power” in our comments?

I think the context and intent of a statement is really necessary for answering the question.

I don’t think the guy in the video was yelling white power to mean he supports white power. But perhaps you think differently.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#227

Post by prepend »

dvtrn wrote: post #216
prepend wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but brought it up as OP stated that POTUS endorses racism and white power through the tweet. I think I may be automatically biased against his tweets. But if a regular person posted that video I wouldn’t consider it endorsement of white power. Perhaps if there’s more context on the person in the video that would help. It seems like a frustrated response pointing out absurdity. But if the person flies a nazi f…

I don't care what the motivations of the person in the video are , they're irrelevant and I'm not interested in trying to unpack them; it was incredibly poor taste for POTUS to retweet it for any reason. That's the point.

My comment wasn’t whether it was poor taste or not.

I think saying the president is clearly supporting white power because he tweeted this video is incorrect. This video does not support white power. I don’t think it’s intent is to further white power. I think representing its purpose as promoting white power is incorrect, or misleading, or confusing, or anything other than accurate and truthful.

But I agree about the poor taste comment. But I think there’s a big distinction between a rude person and a white supremacist.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#228

Post by viklove »

Apocryphon wrote: post #157
ellyagg wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that's what the debate that is coming to. Are the platforms the townsquare for speech and should we hold them to a standard of free speech that doesn't just mean "no interference from government"? Also, a difference of degree can be such that it becomes a difference in kind.

It's just strange to me that the Internet free speech debate is getting so heated after it's been around for as long as the Internet- or at least the Web- has. People are acting like they suddenly realized websites have TOS that include clauses on acceptable content.

People aren't in disagreement over what social platforms can do, they're in disagreement over what they ought to do. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#229

Post by Apocryphon »

viklove wrote: post #228
Apocryphon wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just strange to me that the Internet free speech debate is getting so heated after it's been around for as long as the Internet- or at least the Web- has. People are acting like they suddenly realized websites have TOS that include clauses on acceptable content.

People aren't in disagreement over what social platforms can do, they're in disagreement over what they ought to do. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's hard to understand why they're acting like they woke up yesterday when "Free Speech on the Internet" has been a hotly-debated issue that's existed for as long as the Internet. Why wasn't there mass anger in the AOL days, at least among the web-surfing public? Facebook has existed for over a decade and a half. Why did it take until now for this issue to peak?

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#230

Post by viklove »

Apocryphon wrote: post #229
viklove wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't in disagreement over what social platforms can do, they're in disagreement over what they ought to do. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's hard to understand why they're acting like they woke up yesterday when "Free Speech on the Internet" has been a hotly-debated issue that's existed for as long as the Internet. Why wasn't there mass anger in the AOL days, at least among the web-surfing public? Facebook has existed for over a decade and a half. Why did it take until now for this issue to peak?

You really can't figure it out? It's because today, and not a decade ago, the internet is the primary place for discourse. If you're banned from FB or Twitter, you're effectively banned from having a conversation. 10 years ago this wasn't the case -- only a minority of the population was using the internet as the primary place of discourse, and even then there was far greater stratification over various discussion boards.

This issue has peaked because a few massive corporations have consolidated the internet discussion market share, and they now wield massive power because of it. People want that power to be limited.

Post reply on HN