[Discussion] Ban Q-Anon content?

[The New California Republic]

[...] similarly to why racism isn't allowed on this site are you guys gonna protect being racist on this site cause of "free speech" too'?

A quick point of order: racism as such isn't banned from the site:

We don't have a rule against racism per se. Some racist comments are trolling, but racially-charged words and phrases are allowed if they are not being used to troll.

[Fahran]

yes, "free speech" doesn't apply to the private sector, also literally everything they say is tied to some conspiracy theory bullshit, it's caused countless deaths by making people believe covid is a hoax, misinformation is already banned on this site with people posting false news on here get warnings and punishments, but qanon is not just misinformation, its a CULT. similarly to why racism isn't allowed on this site are you guys gonna protect being racist on this site cause of "free speech" too'?

As a point of order, advocating extrajudicial violence on behalf of any cause, including QAnon, is already a violation of the rules because it runs afoul of the rule against illegal activities. Similarly, COVID-19 misinformation is against the rules as well. Being a member of a cult, believing dumb conspiracy theories, and being racist actually aren't violations of site rules on their own, though one could make a strong argument that they are violations of a person's right reason, common sense, and intellect.

Yes. I mean not only are they promoting hateful, usually racist and anti-Semitic content, and wrongfully claiming people to be pedophiles simply because they are Democrats, but they’ve also just attempted a literally coup against the US government, trying to harm both Democrats and Republicans alike, and heavily associating with neo-Nazi groups.

Certain racist, anti-Semitic, and generalizing remarks would already be banned under our rule against trolling - specifically "all X are Y" trolling. Advocating for extrajudicial violence is similarly against the rules because it violates the rule against advocating for illegal activities. Being a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, or any other stripe of racist on its own isn't a violation of site rules. I think a lot of the rules we have our probably sufficient to stamp out the worst behaviors.

[Katganistan]

Many Leftist places like Hollywood are pretty pedophilic but they only choose to stay leftist because the ideology is so mainstream

Back in the 1950s, Hollywood was strictly anti-left, why? Because anti-leftism was a mainstream ideology back then.

It isn't about the political stances of pedophiles, pedophiles only pick certain ideologies because it gives them a grip on power.

Don't blame leftists for pedophilia, blame PEDOPHILES for Pedophilia.

-A right-Libertarian.

What does that have to do with anything

It's a distraction. Pretty par for the course. Don't get bogged down in what'll turn into a threadjack.

--NOT speaking with the mod-hat on.

[Alcala-Cordel]

If I may pitch in my own 2 cents, Qanon is a dangerous conspiracy theory, and the only reason it took off to begin with was that social media tolerated it. To do our small part in preventing its spread we must ban this content.

[Katganistan]

Anybody advocating for q-anon which causes domestic terrorism in my country is low key shitposting, or probrably a q-anon supporter trying to retain the privilage of posting the stuff on site. This is a private game played by children and max is under no obligation to act as a platform for dangerous bullshit. If people want to regurgitate any opinion or conspiracy they fancy, they can do it on their own websites and blogs.

But Khmer Rouge and ISIS is allowed, both of which are far worse than Qanon will ever be. If Qanon is banned, gonna have to ban those too.

Not that we would, but we could literally ban *anything* and decide not to ban any other thing. Your insistence that banning one thing necessitates banning another does not make it true in the least.

That said, we are working out the parameters here, and it seems that much of the issue would be related to the rules already in effect.

[Senkaku]

yes, "free speech" doesn't apply to the private sector, also literally everything they say is tied to some conspiracy theory bullshit, it's caused countless deaths by making people believe covid is a hoax, misinformation is already banned on this site with people posting false news on here get warnings and punishments, but qanon is not just misinformation, its a CULT. similarly to why racism isn't allowed on this site are you guys gonna protect being racist on this site cause of "free speech" too'?

As a point of order, advocating extrajudicial violence on behalf of any cause, including QAnon, is already a violation of the rules because it runs afoul of the rule against illegal activities.

Are we sure about the bolded, as a blanket statement? It might not hurt to specify that there's a zero-tolerance policy for QAnon-related advocacy of extrajudicial violence, since the general policy on advocating violence is a little bit squishy.

[The Free Joy State]

Another angle to consider is that "Is Q-anon content already covered under the existing rules?" Much like people calling themselves Nazis, flat-Earthers, Scientologists, etc, users who hold or favor extremist beliefs have an increasingly difficult time articulating those beliefs in a way that isn't somehow trolling, flaming, or otherwise rulebreaking. This may be a case where perhaps the rules don't need adjusting, but rather their enforcement does.

For example:

• Q-Anon flags. Is Q-Anon inextricably linked to advocating violence akin to the Nazi swastika?
• How about Q-anon themed regions and nation names? We allow "Nazi" regions/nations, but come down hard on the ones that try to openly support IRL violence. Should Q-anon regions/nations get similar treatment?
• Q-anon conspiracy sites (including Q-anon YT channels) are already on the forbidden links list, perhaps that could be made clearer/louder?

Q-anon itself is a newsworthy topic that will most certainly continue to be discussed and debated in the coming months, and discussion about the movement itself probably shouldn't be prohibited. But there is certainly room to argue that maybe moderation should be coming down a lot harder on supporters of Q-anon when they invariably break the site rules, much like we already do for other extremist ideologies.

^ This. While it's ultimately up to moderation, I personally feel that Q-Anon supporting things (site links, flags, posts that spread Q-Anon conspiracy theories) comes under the current rules.

A Q-Anon flag would appear IMO to openly supports an organisation that has participated in real terroristic acts. Posters that praise Q-Anon's actions would seem to be -- without a very large number of boilerplates -- stating themselves to support armed acts of violence. Posters that repeat Q-Anon's COVID-19 misinformation would seem (through my non-mod eyes) to be already breaching site rules.

So, I don't think we need special Q-Anon rules, just clarification within the current rules.

[Fahran]

Are we sure about the bolded, as a blanket statement? It might not hurt to specify that there's a zero-tolerance policy for QAnon-related advocacy of extrajudicial violence, since the general policy on advocating violence is a little bit squishy.

Neither of those posts was advocating for extrajudicial violence and thus neither one constituted the promotion of illegal activity. One proposed exceedingly draconian punishments for what amounts to a civil infraction, namely crossing the US border illegally. The other was an ill-conceived quip about the situational irony of someone holding a Gadsen flag being trampled to death by her cohorts. Both were rather nasty comments and I would consider them very close to the line on trolling, but they're not promoting illegal activities - of which advocating death/violence is usually a subset. I'm not certain on that last tidbit, since that might actually fall under trolling, but I'll allow the mods to correct me if I erred in that respect. Since they tend to know the rules best.

[Aequalitatis ac Libertatis]

No
Censorship is wrong, plain and simple. It's an idea, not an organization, and if you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct.
And before someone responds with "what about censorship of child porn?", an idea by itself cannot hurt people, child porn can.

[Vassenor]

No
Censorship is wrong, plain and simple. It's an idea, not an organization, and if you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct.
And before someone responds with "what about censorship of child porn?", an idea by itself cannot hurt people, child porn can.

Ah yes, the old marketplace of ideas spiel.

How has that worked out so far?

[Aequalitatis ac Libertatis]

No
Censorship is wrong, plain and simple. It's an idea, not an organization, and if you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct.
And before someone responds with "what about censorship of child porn?", an idea by itself cannot hurt people, child porn can.

Ah yes, the old marketplace of ideas spiel.

How has that worked out so far?

Extremely well, in fact. A "marketplace of ideas" is the origin for nearly every event throughout history. Tell me, did Marx not put communism onto the market? Did Locke not put natural rights? Did the Sumerians not put the written word? Nothing would've happened in this world without the spread of ideas, even simple hunter-gatherers spread that idea. So unless you're willing to just obliterate free thought in general, you've got to take the good with the bad.

[Picairn]

No
Censorship is wrong, plain and simple. It's an idea, not an organization, and if you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct.
And before someone responds with "what about censorship of child porn?", an idea by itself cannot hurt people, child porn can.

Private companies can not censor you, they can only restrict what you say on their platform. Outside of NS I'm sure Nazis, QAnon followers and a ton of other far right movements are congregating in 4chan, Parler, etc.

"If you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct."

That's not how arguments work. The accuracy of arguments follows only one rule: The Rule of Evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and if causing active danger, deplatformed.

[Shazbotdom]

No
Censorship is wrong, plain and simple. It's an idea, not an organization, and if you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct.
And before someone responds with "what about censorship of child porn?", an idea by itself cannot hurt people, child porn can.

Except this website is privately owned and operated. Sooooo.....

[Aequalitatis ac Libertatis]

No
Censorship is wrong, plain and simple. It's an idea, not an organization, and if you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct.
And before someone responds with "what about censorship of child porn?", an idea by itself cannot hurt people, child porn can.

Private companies can not censor you, they can only restrict what you say on their platform. Outside of NS I'm sure Nazis, QAnon followers and a ton of other far right movements are congregating in 4chan, Parler, etc.

"If you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct."

That's not how arguments work. The accuracy of arguments follows only one rule: The Rule of Evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and if causing active danger, deplatformed.

1: What's your definition of censorship? Idk if yours is different, but with my definition (absolutely any restriction of freedom of speech/press) that qualifies
2: No? You can't just prove something wrong by going "hey that's incorrect", you'd need evidence even if the idea was that everyone on NS is secretly fifteen fish in a trench coat or something nonsensical like that
2.5: The people causing danger should be deplatformed, not the idea itself, you wouldn't ban Islam because ISIS exists

[Vassenor]

Private companies can not censor you, they can only restrict what you say on their platform. Outside of NS I'm sure Nazis, QAnon followers and a ton of other far right movements are congregating in 4chan, Parler, etc.

"If you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct."

That's not how arguments work. The accuracy of arguments follows only one rule: The Rule of Evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and if causing active danger, deplatformed.

1: What's your definition of censorship? Idk if yours is different, but with my definition (absolutely any restriction of freedom of speech/press) that qualifies
2: No? You can't just prove something wrong by going "hey that's incorrect", you'd need evidence even if the idea was that everyone on NS is secretly fifteen fish in a trench coat or something nonsensical like that
2.5: The people causing danger should be deplatformed, not the idea itself, you wouldn't ban Islam because ISIS exists

So what about QAnon isn't causing danger?

[Aequalitatis ac Libertatis]

1: What's your definition of censorship? Idk if yours is different, but with my definition (absolutely any restriction of freedom of speech/press) that qualifies
2: No? You can't just prove something wrong by going "hey that's incorrect", you'd need evidence even if the idea was that everyone on NS is secretly fifteen fish in a trench coat or something nonsensical like that
2.5: The people causing danger should be deplatformed, not the idea itself, you wouldn't ban Islam because ISIS exists

So what about QAnon isn't causing danger?

How do people who believe in the theory, without acting in support of it, inherently cause danger?

[Vassenor]

So what about QAnon isn't causing danger?

How do people who believe in the theory, without acting in support of it, inherently cause danger?

And what has acting in support of it done that's not dangerous?

[Picairn]

1: What's your definition of censorship? Idk if yours is different, but with my definition (absolutely any restriction of freedom of speech/press) that qualifies

If you aren't getting government punishments for speech, then you are not being censored. Private companies can only go so far as deleting your posts and retract your content. That's it. Otherwise you still have other platforms and the megaphone to speak.

2: No? You can't just prove something wrong by going "hey that's incorrect", you'd need evidence even if the idea was that everyone on NS is secretly fifteen fish in a trench coat or something nonsensical like that

No, you can't prove a negative. Russell's Teapot says that there is a teapot circulating the Sun, and you can't prove that it doesn't exist. Which is BS, because the burden of proof is on the person making claims, not the people listening to him/her. If he/she provides no evidence, then any rational person can safely dismiss the claims.

He who maketh the claim shall provide the evidence.

2.5: The people causing danger should be deplatformed, not the idea itself, you wouldn't ban Islam because ISIS exists

Yeah, that's why we're banning those who sincerely preaches QAnon content, not the entire right wing or discussions about it.

[Fahran]

Yeah, that's why we're banning those who sincerely preaches QAnon content, not the entire right wing or discussions about it.

Point of order, we're discussing whether or not to ban QAnon and, beyond that, what precisely that would entail. At the moment, I think existing rules applied to existing standards and conventions suffice to address a lot of the worst expressions of support for QAnon that we've seen on the site. The sort of people who begin discussions with "all Dems are devil-worshipping pedos" or "we should storm the Capitol and execute all politicians" don't tend to last long on this site. There doesn't really appear to be a pressing need to outright ban QAnon or support for QAnon as a result in much the same way as we don't really ban support for anarchism, white supremacy, or Islamist fundamentalism.

[Aequalitatis ac Libertatis]

1: What's your definition of censorship? Idk if yours is different, but with my definition (absolutely any restriction of freedom of speech/press) that qualifies

If you aren't getting government punishments for speech, then you are not being censored. Private companies can only go so far as deleting your posts and retract your content. That's it. Otherwise you still have other platforms and the megaphone to speak.

2: No? You can't just prove something wrong by going "hey that's incorrect", you'd need evidence even if the idea was that everyone on NS is secretly fifteen fish in a trench coat or something nonsensical like that

No, you can't prove a negative. Russell's Teapot says that there is a teapot circulating the Sun, and you can't prove that it doesn't exist. Which is BS, because the burden of proof is on the person making claims, not the people listening to him/her. If he/she provides no evidence, then any rational person can safely dismiss the claims.

He who maketh the claim shall provide the evidence.

2.5: The people causing danger should be deplatformed, not the idea itself, you wouldn't ban Islam because ISIS exists

Yeah, that's why we're banning those who sincerely preaches QAnon content, not the entire right wing or discussions about it.

1: Well, we have very different definitions of the term then.
2: Use a satellite, is there a tiny teapot? No? Exactly. Negatives can be proved just as positives can.
2.5: Already responded to

[Aequalitatis ac Libertatis]

How do people who believe in the theory, without acting in support of it, inherently cause danger?

And what has acting in support of it done that's not dangerous?

Not really anything, but we're speaking of censorship of the idea, not of the action

[Fahran]

Not really anything, but we're speaking of censorship of the idea, not of the action

We censor all manner of ideas already. There are plenty of things you can't say on NS because we're a PG-13 social media platform and browser game with a nebulous set of rules that have been uphold for close to two decades.

[Aequalitatis ac Libertatis]

Not really anything, but we're speaking of censorship of the idea, not of the action

We censor all manner of ideas already. There are plenty of things you can't say on NS because we're a PG-13 social media platform and browser game with a nebulous set of rules that have been uphold for close to two decades.

And? I never denied that or claimed that NS can't censor, just that they shouldn't

[Fahran]

And? I never denied that or claimed that NS can't censor, just that they shouldn't

I don't think that argument is going to persuade Max, the mods, or the community in general because it's wholly detached from our conventions regarding the enforcement of rules and standards, our culture as an online community, and the parameters of our present conversation. There are good arguments for not outright banning QAnon, namely that our existing rules and standards and our existing application of those rules and standards, stamps out the most dangerous and rule-breaking behavior already. A ban on linking QAnon websites, on the other hand, might possess more merit.

[Aequalitatis ac Libertatis]

And? I never denied that or claimed that NS can't censor, just that they shouldn't

I don't think that argument is going to persuade Max, the mods, or the community in general because it's wholly detached from our conventions regarding the enforcement of rules and standards, our culture as an online community, and the parameters of our present conversation. There are good arguments for not outright banning QAnon, namely that our existing rules and standards and our existing application of those rules and standards, stamps out the most dangerous and rule-breaking behavior already. A ban on linking QAnon websites, on the other hand, might possess more merit.

Also never claimed i'd be able to persuade anyone, I simply gave my answer, like requested.