[Discussion] Ban QAnon-related content?

[Senkaku]

Question for the mods: is credulously spouting QAnon-linked information trolling, baiting, or anything actionable? If not, should it perhaps become so? Seems to me like seeing as it's thoroughly debunked and appears to be radicalizing terrorists across the Western world at this point, it should be treated the same way the Moderation team would treat jihadist or white nationalist terrorist content.

They also don't sit on their hands for a year when they have actual evidence that the son of a VP and current presidential canadate, has been making deals on his fathers behalf, selling US foreignpolicy in exchange for million of dollars, never mind the coke and raping children, and that he's apparently doing this with the presidents daughter.

(snipping and highlighting mine)

[The Archregimancy]

I will draw attention to this issue for an internal moderation team discussion.

My noting as much should not be taken as an opinion on whether or not this should be actionable.

I would also suggest changing the tag on your thread title to [Discussion] to explicitly allow others to post in this thread.

[Senkaku]

I will draw attention to this issue for an internal moderation team discussion.

My noting as much should not be taken as an opinion on whether or not this should be actionable.

I would also suggest changing the tag on your thread title to [Discussion] to explicitly allow others to post in this thread.

Yeah I will, I just thought the formatting was cutesy lol

ty Arch

[The New California Republic]

Is it that much of a problem on the forums at the moment to warrant having this discussion regarding banning it? I haven't seen any evidence that it's much of an issue on the forums, aside from that veiled reference to it in the quote provided. Give it a few more months, perhaps a year, and folk will have moved on to something else.

[Senkaku]

Is it that much of a problem on the forums at the moment to warrant having this discussion regarding banning it? I haven't seen any evidence that it's much of an issue on the forums, aside from that veiled reference to it in the quote provided. Give it a few more months, perhaps a year, and folk will have moved on to something else.

I mean, we don't get tons of hardcore ISIS-y stuff either, but it's still banned? I don't think it has to reach crisis level on the forum for the mods to say "hmmm, this is bad, let's make sure it doesn't get all over our nice forums."

[The Archregimancy]

Is it that much of a problem on the forums at the moment to warrant having this discussion regarding banning it?

The forums are not the totality of the site.

Any moderation decision on this - and again, my comments should not be taken as advocating a particular perspective on actionability - may need to consider RMBs, flags, and other game-side issues.

I have initiated an internal moderator discussion. This may take some time to reach a decision, so I thank you in advance for your patience. In the meantime, please feel free to continue to discuss the issue in this thread.

[The New California Republic]

Is it that much of a problem on the forums at the moment to warrant having this discussion regarding banning it? I haven't seen any evidence that it's much of an issue on the forums, aside from that veiled reference to it in the quote provided. Give it a few more months, perhaps a year, and folk will have moved on to something else.

I mean, we don't get tons of hardcore ISIS-y stuff either, but it's still banned? I don't think it has to reach crisis level on the forum for the mods to say "hmmm, this is bad, let's make sure it doesn't get all over our nice forums."

I get why ISIS material is banned because that's a whole different kettle of fish, as it's literal promotion of terrorism and the like. I'm not convinced that QAnon reaches those kinds of levels. Sure, it says some stuff that is total bullshit, but that alone isn't enough for it to get banned from the site. Coronavirus misinfo for instance was only banned because of the potential for serious harm that could result from it, rather than being banned because it was bullshit. I'm sure if QAnon material began to result in the potential for serious harm then there would be a far more urgent push to yeet it off the site.

Is it that much of a problem on the forums at the moment to warrant having this discussion regarding banning it?

The forums are not the totality of the site.

Yes I'm aware, I was just using it as an example as that was the example that was given by the OP. I'm aware that if QAnon-related content was deemed unwelcome that it'd encompass both sides of the site.

[Attempted Socialism]

I mean, we don't get tons of hardcore ISIS-y stuff either, but it's still banned? I don't think it has to reach crisis level on the forum for the mods to say "hmmm, this is bad, let's make sure it doesn't get all over our nice forums."

I get why ISIS material is banned because that's a whole different kettle of fish, as it's literal promotion of terrorism and the like.

So is QAnon?

[The New California Republic]

I get why ISIS material is banned because that's a whole different kettle of fish, as it's literal promotion of terrorism and the like.

So is QAnon?

Yes the FBI has recognised that the extreme fringes of QAnon are terrorist in nature, but largely the same could be said of any extreme fringe of a movement or group.

[Attempted Socialism]

So is QAnon?

Yes the FBI has recognised that the extreme fringes of QAnon are terrorist in nature, but largely the same could be said of any extreme fringe of a movement or group.

Except that QAnon is all extreme fringe. You can also say that only the extreme fringe of ISIS is promoting terrorism, if you so desire.

[The New California Republic]

Yes the FBI has recognised that the extreme fringes of QAnon are terrorist in nature, but largely the same could be said of any extreme fringe of a movement or group.

Except that QAnon is all extreme fringe. You can also say that only the extreme fringe of ISIS is promoting terrorism, if you so desire.

Not at all actually, ISIS could be determined to broadly advocate terrorism. The same can't be said of QAnon, and the FBI doesn't assert that QAnon is entirely terrorist in nature, instead identifying "conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists", different from people who may just ascribe to QAnon beliefs.

[Valrifell]

Except that QAnon is all extreme fringe. You can also say that only the extreme fringe of ISIS is promoting terrorism, if you so desire.

Not at all actually, ISIS could be determined to broadly advocate terrorism. The same can't be said of QAnon, and the FBI doesn't assert that QAnon is entirely terrorist in nature, instead identifying "conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists", different from people who may just ascribe to QAnon beliefs.

Perhaps in a similar sense that one can ascribe to ISIS beliefs without condoning domestic terrorism. The call to violence is still there, you're just being quiet about it.

[The Archregimancy]

The forums are not the totality of the site.

Yes I'm aware, I was just using it as an example as that was the example that was given by the OP. I'm aware that if QAnon-related content was deemed unwelcome that it'd encompass both sides of the site.

You have perhaps misunderstood my point.

My point isn't that any ruling on this would encompass all parts of the site, but rather that whether it's a 'problem' in the forums may weigh less with us than whether it's a problem in the other parts of the site which have more users.

[The New California Republic]

Yes I'm aware, I was just using it as an example as that was the example that was given by the OP. I'm aware that if QAnon-related content was deemed unwelcome that it'd encompass both sides of the site.

You have perhaps misunderstood my point.

My point isn't that any ruling on this would encompass all parts of the site, but rather that whether it's a 'problem' in the forums may weigh less with us than whether it's a problem in the other parts of the site which have more users.

Oh right. Well yes absolutely.

[Lord Dominator]

It would seem to me that a ban on Q-Anon content would more easily fit under rules about trolling and flamebaiting for instance, rather than trying to parse out how much promotion of violence adherents may do.

The big factor to me in this is what they're promoting - the single largest claim associated with Q-Anon by the reporting I've seen is the conspiracy theory that top Democrats are pedophiles, which rather seems to be trolling by the basic "all x are y" definition, if perhaps somewhat more narrow than a true "all x." Similarly, they have a noted propensity to advance Covid misinformation, as well more generally serving as a black hole of conspiracy theories in general and antisemitic/racist/misogynistic conspiracy theories in particular.

Which is to say, in my non-expert opinion, the most notable claim of adherents (top Democrats are pedophiles) constitutes fairly clear-cut trolling, while other notable public associations with Q-Anon are in relation to Covid misinformation and various other conspiracy theories liable to tap-dance on the line of the site policies and rules.

My opinion (as a player) then would be that use of Q-Anon associated flags or mottos on gameside would inherently constitute some form of trolling while most credulous use of their claims or sources on the forums or RMBs are pretty likely to fall afoul of the rules by nature.

[Aclion]

You can't ban QAnon related discussion. Anyone can make a post on 4chan claiming to be QAnon and there's no way to refute it, so naturally QAnon has been attached to every idea under the sun. Consequently there's no authoritive QAnon narrative to ban.

As an excellent example; the claim you highlighted doesn't come from QAnon. It was part of the hunter Biden laptop leak.

[Fedel]

You're just QAnon and you don't know it if your give any credence to those rumors of course. Here on NS we don't tolerate that sort of thing. No we don't.

[Echellia]

I don't think that QAnon has really been a problem on the forums. Maybe two or three users believe in it. Hardly a problem. Besides, QAnon related content is already effectively banned by the existing rules. Saying that most Democrats or liberals are pedophiles is trolling and claiming that COVID-19 is a hoax is a violation of the COVID-19 misinformation rules.

This whole discussion is pointless as QAnon is already effectively banned by default.

[Torisakia]

Is it good or bad that I had no clue what QAnon was until this thread? I always thought it was some off-shoot of 4chan, given the "Anon" part.

As some have already said, a lot of the topics involved with QAnon are banned by existing rules. So I guess you could discuss it as a general thing, like what it is and how it came to be, but not anything specific like "are pedophiles running the world" or anything to that effect.

[Arcturus Novus]

The Q folks haven't been a problem here yet, but at the same time, I really don't like the idea of them forming a steady community here. It's only a matter of time before QAnon followers IRL do something especially dangerous and stupid, and I'd like them to have as few safe havens as possible to congregate online. That said, it isn't like we don't tolerate small pockets of Nazis and white supremacists here already, so long as they stay within the lines. I don't think a blanket ban on Q ideology is gonna happen.

[Parxland]

The biggest problem you seem to have with Qanon/Q folks or whatever the fuck they're named, is their politics don't mesh with this community's and that's the primary motivator. The violence & assholery that comes along with random people bragging "lul I'm Q-anonymous" is just secondary argument. It's all about the politics. Some assholes have abused the BLM to commit arson and theft and destroy property of innocent folk and riot, but we're not going to ban the BLM movement from here because it would be fucking stupid to blanket ban BLM due to the actions of a minority of it's supporters. Giving a blanket ban to any movement or ideology, because of the actions of a few people, is also stupid. Judge the message and it's followers separately.

Nothing's broken. The rules are fine. They don't need to be tweaked or adjusted because if somebody's blatantly trolling and breaking the rules, I know from being on here long enough they're gonna get punished. I don't doubt the abilities of this game's moderation team. I do doubt the integrity of the people pushing for this blanket ban on an entire ideology, tossing it into a dumpster fire with filth like Nazism. Like just by virtue of existing in people's minds, the movement has driven followers to commit genocide. I'm sus AF of this just being shitty political bias as usual. But keep building this echo chamber, you all are doing a marvelous job at it.

[Fedel]

Some assholes have abused the BLM to commit arson and theft and destroy property of innocent folk and riot, but we're not going to ban the BLM movement from here because it would be fucking stupid to blanket ban BLM due to the actions of a minority of it's supporters.

You think the rules are applied consistently on this site? Lmao.

[Parxland]

Some assholes have abused the BLM to commit arson and theft and destroy property of innocent folk and riot, but we're not going to ban the BLM movement from here because it would be fucking stupid to blanket ban BLM due to the actions of a minority of it's supporters.

You think the rules are applied consistently on this site? Lmao.

I try to fool myself and pretend you all have at least some integrity, then I look at shit on here and frequently disappoint myself.

[Aclion]

I feel its important to reiterate that OP is not asking for QAnon content to be banned. He is asking moderation to squash a story of corruption within his party.

The content OP is asking us to ban is not from QAnon. It is from a story broken by the Washington post,one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in the United States, it has been recognized by the director of national intelligence and coorberated by an associate of the accused, who provided addional documentsthat very the authenticity of the original evidence. We have no reason to believe that the any QAnon supporter was involved at any point in the story.

[Albrenia]

I don't really see a need to specifically ban it, considering pretty much all of their insane conspiracy theories are just trolling or flaming on their own. Pretty sure it's against the rules to accuse people of being satanic child-eaters, or to say Covid is a great big hoax, or that everyone left of Reagan is in service of alien overlords or whatever.