The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by theplague42 » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 8:50 PM UTC

fallingfrog wrote: post #47

fallingfrog wrote: post #36

I’m pretty sure that anyone who is willing to swallow massively implausible theories like qanon is not the kind of person who will be amenable to logical arguments and fact checking. You can’t just argue those people out if their positions because it’s not about truth for them, it’s about feeling like one is a member of the elect. Denying reality is not a bug, it’s a feature of every millenarian belief system. Facts…

Downvoted! Look: we here on hacker news are used to thinking about the world in a logical way. We test our ideas against reality and reject what doesn’t fit. We have rational enlightenment ideals about democracy and reason. Well some people don’t! They really don’t. They have a prescientific, premodern understanding of the world. I know this is hard to accept but it’s clearly true. And every time they turn on the tv…

HackerNews is just as vulnerable to confirmation bias and reactionary behavior as any other group of people. Being an engineer does not make one magically immune to cognitive bias.

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

#122

Post by njharman » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

api wrote: post #29

jmnicolas wrote: post #3

Of course everybody knows the right way to convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong is to go after them. I don't see what's wrong with having internet trash bins. At least the trash is in a know location, it doesn't spill everywhere. I'm not from the US, the only mentions of those sites I have ever encountered was journalists making a few articles about them.

I sympathize with this view, but visit Reddit /r/qanoncasualties for a counterpoint. On one hand I am pretty close to a free speech maximalist. On the other hand, I do believe in the “fire in a crowded theater test.” I am starting to think that certain forms of public speech, namely that which harms large numbers of mentally ill people or has the potential to create a huge outburst of stochastic terrorism, may fail t…

You can't stop attacks. You can only defend against them. Which means; treat the mentally ill, reduce ignorance (education), and widely and pervasively teach critical thinking skills.

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

#123

Post by klmadfejno » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 8:58 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #110

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…

> The ACTUAL TRUTH is that... No, the actual truth of what Qanon -is-, is what Qanon is . There is that which exists in reality, and then there is mankind's best efforts to measure and describe it (what you read in Wikipedia, history books, scientific textbooks and papers , etc). These things are related, but they are not the same thing. > If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporte…

> If you were to attempt to compile a substantial list of their beliefs and their correctness that is consistent with measurable reality, I propose that you would immediately notice a problem - a severe lack of specific content.

Why don't you list them for us then and give us your opinion on whether something is Provably True, Not provable but probably true, not provable but probably false, and provably false.

Let's say top 5 beliefs to keep it simple.

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

#124

Post by anoraca » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

ibejoeb wrote: post #55

fallingfrog wrote: post #36

I’m pretty sure that anyone who is willing to swallow massively implausible theories like qanon is not the kind of person who will be amenable to logical arguments and fact checking. You can’t just argue those people out if their positions because it’s not about truth for them, it’s about feeling like one is a member of the elect. Denying reality is not a bug, it’s a feature of every millenarian belief system. Facts…

I've been able to avoid it entirely. Can you point to a good primer on qanon? Not an opinion piece or a takedown or anything, just an explainer. The only thing I know is what I've heard from MSM, and that has been that there is a secret cabal of pedophiles, and many members occupy powerful positions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/qanon-n...

https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-qanon.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2020/10/qano...

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

#125

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #98

tptacek wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> First, you know you're on extremely weak rhetorical ice a) You do not know what I know b) I would say that I am not on "rhetorical ice" at all - rather, I am combating rhetoric with precise, non-rhetorical ideas > and also kind of outside the norms of our community This is my very complaint . It may be true that I am "outside of the norms (Overton Window) of the community", but have I violated the HN guidelines? Is…

I think this is the kernel of what you are saying, and I hope that it finds its way above all of the noise about specific websites or conspiracy theories:

> Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or informal) and pretending they do not exist?

And I believe this is your end goal:

> the abilty ... to ascend to a level of more thoughtful, less combative/partisan communication and sense making

Is that a fair set of summary quotations?

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

#126

Post by will4274 » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

klmadfejno wrote: post #119

will4274 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I see two issues with what you're saying.

First, it's not just that some rich people are pedophiles. It's called a conspiracy theory for a reason - there's conspiring going on. The CEO of the Ritz knows that his hotels offer underage prostitutes. The personal concierge directs the CEO to club which is known to be "good for rich people." The club owner knows that the company they outsource to for renting table dancers on the weekends also has dancers doing some prostituting on the side. The other rich attendees of the club (who are not purchasing) can see that that girl is clearly not 21. There's more than just pedophilia going on here - a system of winks and nods whereby powerful people are offered the opportunity to engage in illegal behavior and make no moves against the powerful people who facilitate these opportunities.

The second thing is that you're missing the point around alignment. These people DON'T align themselves with each other. They frequent the same forums as each other (e.g. 8chan) and disagree with each other on those forums. It's only in the eyes of the media and in people influenced by the media that the various flavors of conspiracy people are actually aligned.

Edit: was thinking about this line.

> 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.

What is the right way to address e.g. the widespread availability of illegal prostitution in hotels owned by American companies in foreign countries? I saw a few news articles in the press exploring the phenomenon a few years back, but nothing changed. Am I supposed to found a non-profit? A newspaper? Do the investigation myself and publish it to LiveLeak? Write a letter to my congresswoman? I'm honestly not sure how to work that problem, other than just talking to other people about it.

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

#127

Post by bigbubba » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

vonwoodson wrote: post #111

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 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,…

I assume 'your part of the world' is America. I can flip somebody the bird for obeying the speed limit and nobody calls cops with guns to stop me from being a shithead. I think it's generally true that people are more willing to be assholes to strangers than their close acquaintances. This has certainly been my observation of American culture at least. People are ruder to people the further removed from those people they are and are very rarely ever ruder than they are in public. I've heard similar sentiments from people who work in public facing jobs, particularly retail.

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

#128

Post by Covzire » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

theplague42 wrote: post #108

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…

What about it makes it "state level"? Dozens of failed predictions. Vague, open-ended insinuations that can be interpreted by anyone in totally different ways. No legitimate information that can't be found with a search engine. Whoever made up Q is similar to Trump in that they identified a group of people with real problems (loss of faith in institutions, fear of losing social power) to whom they could spread propag…

"made-up scandals"

If I had the choice of a superpower, whether flight, or invincibility, or setting things on fire with my mind, I wouldn't be all that disappointed if I had to settle for a superpower where I could force half the population and the vast majority of journalists to simply give me the benefit of the doubt of any situation and not question things too much beyond that. There's almost nothing I could do wrong and be punished for by society.

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

#129

Post by mistermann » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #125

mistermann wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, you know you're on extremely weak rhetorical ice a) You do not know what I know b) I would say that I am not on "rhetorical ice" at all - rather, I am combating rhetoric with precise, non-rhetorical ideas > and also kind of outside the norms of our community This is my very complaint . It may be true that I am "outside of the norms (Overton Window) of the community", but have I violated the HN guidelines? Is…

I think this is the kernel of what you are saying, and I hope that it finds its way above all of the noise about specific websites or conspiracy theories: > Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or inform…

Very much so!

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

#130

Post by ed25519FUUU » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

bigbubba wrote: post #112

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 k…

> 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.)

The Epstein saga, I think, is providing the most fuel for the fire right now. Just yesterday Ghislaine Maxwell's 2016 deposition was unsealed, and it mentions Clinton and Prince Andrew, among others[1].

The conspiracy burned for 2 years, and when more information is unsealed it only confirms things people believe. Anyone watching knew something was up with Epstein, his sweet-heart deal for sex crimes against children, and that island, and his untimely death. Until everything is unsealed and in the light, things are only going to get more intense.

Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of bipartisan appetite for truth in regards to Epstein, partly because many believe it also implicates Trump. How powerful is something that unites Qanon and Trump's critics under the same flag?

1. https://free.law/pdf/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.2_2.pdf