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

The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 270 posts

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#111

Post by vonwoodson »

leftyted wrote: post #44
motohagiography wrote: post #31

It's an interesting find. The difference between these sites and spam sites is that they are mostly self-contained comment boards. You have to actually go do them to interact with them, where spammers were breaking the internet. What clicked for me in this article is asking why I ever thought the internet was about ideas, what it might have meant pre-internet for people to be free of a "mainstream" in the old music a…

> Internet trolls use the higher bar for entry of tech focused platforms to harass people who are competing in the desperate political struggle for approval that is mainstream social media. Conversely, this mainstream culture is also the source of the visceral disgust some people have for lawyers, journalists, activists, and other people who affect being underdogs so they aren't held to the standards of honest people…

The idea that we are “good in private” is a cultural statement. In fact, I’d have argued against it only a few months ago before I became aware that this is the norm for most of the world. In my world, all the dirty lies and secrets are kept private. We “put our best foot forward” and “manage our personal brand”. I think that this idea alone is worth discussing more, especially as it relates to justice. In my world, if you act out in public the police get involved. The police carry guns here, and they use them. On the internet, if you act out... ... ...honestly, I can’t finish that. It’s liberating to those of us who have suppressed ourselves, but it’s also culturally devastating to be so viciously attacked openly by people in public. It makes me want to shut down the offenders, with a violent righteousness of a public super-hero. Yet, I’m as helpless ever.

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#112

Post by bigbubba »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #104

> The public face of 8chan is Jim Watkins, a pig farmer in the Philippines who many experts believe is also the person behind the shadowy persona of “Q” at the center of the conspiracy theory movement. It’s funny to me that people think Jim is capable of leading a worldwide movement and has enough opsec not to get caught. Have you seen the guy on YouTube? Give it a watch and decide for yourself. I followed Q (not qan…

> The only way to attack it effectively now is to get transparent [...]

I think you're right. Looney theories flourish when authorities are perceived to lack credibility. It's little wonder that politicians of any persuasion are popular focal points for such doubt; either because they are known habitual liars or because they are simply perceived as such by those on the other side. Transparency and blind justice are key to stopping the spread of loony theories. If Jeffery Epstein hadn't received preferential treatment when he was convicted in 2008, I think few would remember him today (much less harbor so many suspicions about what politicians may have been involved with him.)

Consider moon landings: Many people doubt they occurred because the American government lost a ton of credibility during the cold war. I considered the possibility that it was faked, but easily concluded that it was real because NASA is very transparent with the details. The information they've made public about it has breadth and depth; for nearly any little tiny detail of those missions you can think of, a little bit of research will reveal information about it. Autistic detail of anything from the helmet visors to the guidance computers is all available for anybody who chooses to look; to fabricate a story with such breadth and depth is simply inconceivable. The truth of the moon landings is apparent because NASA is open with it.

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#113

Post by watwut »

leftyted wrote: post #44
motohagiography wrote: post #31

It's an interesting find. The difference between these sites and spam sites is that they are mostly self-contained comment boards. You have to actually go do them to interact with them, where spammers were breaking the internet. What clicked for me in this article is asking why I ever thought the internet was about ideas, what it might have meant pre-internet for people to be free of a "mainstream" in the old music a…

> Internet trolls use the higher bar for entry of tech focused platforms to harass people who are competing in the desperate political struggle for approval that is mainstream social media. Conversely, this mainstream culture is also the source of the visceral disgust some people have for lawyers, journalists, activists, and other people who affect being underdogs so they aren't held to the standards of honest people…

The private sphere is where the most severe abuse happens.

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#114

Post by theplague42 »

s9w wrote: post #73
mathgorges wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who spent a decent amount of time on 8chan and boards like it in high school, this comment legitimately confuses me. Can you expand please?

It depends on who you are on what you define as hate. The sites both have a very clear political preference. And both are harsh towards the other. But the chans due to the way the work have less of a vendetta style activism and mostly ignore or ridicule outsiders. There's some rough language - I would say on average the chans are certainly more direct and less signaling, but the lows are pretty equal for both sites.…

One regularly talks about killing Jews and one doesn't.

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#115

Post by watwut »

jmnicolas wrote: post #15
happytoexplain wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is not to convince conspiracy theorists that they are wrong, the goal is to prevent them from hurting people or society and, to that end, keep the dangerous ones from organizing anonymously online in large numbers (I honestly don't know if that's possible).

If I'm not mistaken the NZ killer was on 8chan? It's the same argument with serial killer movies (at the risk of showing my age there was a strong controversy with "Natural Born Killers" at the time): you don't kill people because you chatted on the internet or watched a movie. You kill people because you had it in you. The things you were exposed before might color your act but that's it.

You can get radicalized by people you communicate with via internet. Especially when you are isolated irl.

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#116

Post by theplague42 »

ufmace wrote: post #19

Man, I never cared much for QAnon, but the way so many mainstream institutions are joining together, using the exact same misleading talking points, to censor something off the internet makes me wonder if they're onto something after all.

What misleading talking points? How does the media mis-represent what QAnon is?

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#117

Post by nitrogen »

tptacek wrote: post #92
mistermann wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a lot of words that could be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'" This statement is objectively incorrect. The "lot of words" contained within my comment cannot, in fact , be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'" This is the sort of response that interests me, especially on a high-intellect site like HN. > My long sentence did not in fa…

Two things. First, you know you're on extremely weak rhetorical ice, and also kind of outside the norms of our community, when you start quoting the dictionary as a rebuttal. The person you're debating told you what they meant; what they meant is no longer a part of the debate. Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read…

Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are.

I've seen such used before (though with italics to help the eye find the breaks), when a comment makes too many points or is too complex to reply to without making it clear which part of the comment is relevant to which part of a reply.

Is there a better way to format conversations on HN when comments reach this level of branching complexity?

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#118

Post by [deleted] »

watwut wrote: post #113
leftyted wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Internet trolls use the higher bar for entry of tech focused platforms to harass people who are competing in the desperate political struggle for approval that is mainstream social media. Conversely, this mainstream culture is also the source of the visceral disgust some people have for lawyers, journalists, activists, and other people who affect being underdogs so they aren't held to the standards of honest people…

The private sphere is where the most severe abuse happens.

[deleted]

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#119

Post by klmadfejno »

will4274 wrote: post #107
klmadfejno wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, numerous people asserting that QAnon, and conspiracy theories (conspiracy theorists) in general, "are" or "believe" certain things. If one pays close attention to these threads every time they appear on HN (or elsewhere, be it social media or formal media), one may notice that the asserted descriptions are always very vague, and always only include the very worst/silliest of ideas that exist within the…

I actually thought the comment you replied to made a good point, but I think I can explain it differently (with examples), which might make it easier to understand. I browsed some conspiracy sites back in the day, including 4chan and /r/conspiracy. There seemed to be three levels of thought about Jews. A small number of people thought that Jews had a conspiracy whereby they coordinated with each other to run the worl…

I don't disagree, but it's more or less what I meant by this line

> All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man. Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate.

If you think there may be some rich people who engage in with underage prostitutes, you are almost certainly correct. It's kind of dumb to make that a salient issue in your day to day if you don't have any specifics, but sure, it's probably still true somewhere. But let's say you, for whatever reason, still think its really important to make sure people ask the question, are there rich pedophiles.

It should be patently obvious that aligning yourself at all with stupider ideas, even if they share a similar vein, is a bad idea. It harms your credibility to defend QAnon and then qualify that you only mean your portion. If you want to have a discussion, all you need to do is say "pizza parlor stuff is dumb, QAnon is dumb, but there is some merit to rich pedophiles somewhere.

The weakness of conspiracy theorists is that they align themselves with other conspiracy theorists who offer some form of affirmation to their beliefs because they think a larger force is telling them lies. And maybe they are being told some lies. Because that's really all it is. You can adjust your level of craziness but the entire point of a conspiracy theory in-group is getting affirmation from others. If you had a genuine interest in an issue that you wanted to raise in public awareness or do something to combat it, the route of the conspiracy theorist is an awfully dumb way to do it. The spectrum is, at worst, dumb as rocks, and at best, unwise and lacking in self awareness.

Re: The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

#120

Post by pjc50 »

jmnicolas wrote: post #15
happytoexplain wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is not to convince conspiracy theorists that they are wrong, the goal is to prevent them from hurting people or society and, to that end, keep the dangerous ones from organizing anonymously online in large numbers (I honestly don't know if that's possible).

If I'm not mistaken the NZ killer was on 8chan? It's the same argument with serial killer movies (at the risk of showing my age there was a strong controversy with "Natural Born Killers" at the time): you don't kill people because you chatted on the internet or watched a movie. You kill people because you had it in you. The things you were exposed before might color your act but that's it.

He left a manifesto which explained why he did it, citing both racist conspiracy theory from chan culture and "mainstream" racist Melanie Phillips.
Post reply on HN