[Discussion] Ban Q-Anon content?

[Xoriet]

I am fairly certain that a rule banning QAnon content would apply to those posting QAnon content, rather than applying to those having debates with subject matter related to the group. If moderation decides that a ban on QAnon content involves simply discussing it, don't fret, as I'll join you in the backlash.

In implementation, that is about how it would most likely look: discussion of Q-anon as a group and its antics would be one thing, espousing Q-anon theories is another. The former would be fine, the latter would be quite the minefield to navigate in a manner that isn't considered trolling. Again, using Nazis as an example; it is very, VERY difficult to argue the Nazi ideology in a manner that doesn't trip over advocating violence against real people or making broad, sweeping All X are Y flavor arguments about its targets or detractors. I imagine a Q-anon supporter is liable to find the same issue when trying to argue their ideology if we crack down on it.

There was a region called QAnon a while back. All the dispatches of the founder nation were full of Covid misinformation, allegations of child abuse by a long list of random supposed Democratic politicians and individuals, and generally crackpot conspiracies in general. The WFE proclaimed itself to be a bastion of truth in a world full of lies, essentially. It read as a recruitment/fostering platform for the conspiracy theory itself. Ban them from promoting their ideology onsite? Sounds good to me.

[CoraSpia]

I don't see a point in banning this content. It's an ideology held by a not-insignificant amount of people, and should be perfectly permissible

[CoraSpia]

(Image)

I'm approving of the direction of the current conversation in the mod lair, but if I can add an amendment: extend it to discord too. If you saw evidence of ISIS supporters their content on discords linked to this game, like a regional discord, you'd ban the discord link or the people who posted said content if their nation was a known quantity. Extend that to Q-Anon content, too. With this ideology, even the current leaning is too soft.

Here's my thinking:
-You run a games that's pg-13 and you have vulnerable children with malleable minds that play.
-Around 75% of the community is american, the majority of the target 'audience' for Q-anon.

Even if you do the current ruling If I was say somebody like a white supremacist of Q-anon promoter looking for new sources to recruit new blood for the movement because all the previous sources for it are blocked now, this would still be an ideal platform for it. Even if I couldn't promote content on site, I could still get into discords, and the private channels and DMs of other players, especially children. I'd befriend them and ask them to visit another website that I tout 'is pretty cool'. They'd go there and I could manipulate their opinions to my own.

That's how it will happen. It's likely to have already happened, and if it hasn't it's a matter of time until it does. This website can enforce the ban on discords, with the help of the NS community. Regions like the pacifics have spent years putting spies into other communities and politics being what it is, it's left-wing vs right wing and the feeders are firmly left wing at this time. If you give them the ability to report inappropriate q-anon content on discords, they'll find the shitty q-anon promoters and white supremacists for you and it'll be a whole heck of a lot more feasible to prevent this game from supporting extremists on the discord platform. Because at this time discord servers are a major platform remaining for the far-right terrorist movements.

This has never been NS' job, it isn't now and it should never be. Some regional discord servers are huge, and I can't speak for some regions but I'm not going to be giving a moderator the member role unless he or she joins my region, the same as any other player. Screenshots can obviously be faked, which is why they're not accepted for ns reports.

[Ohmygodletmepickaname]

That being said if QAnon content is banned because of extremism, why not ban Christianity? or Islam? or Atheism? Almost every movement large enough has violent fringes.

I think that the problem with saying that is that all of QAnon is a conspiracy theory and is harmful. Promoting what they perceive to be love and peace has nothing quite similar to a president saying that the people trying to do a coup are "wonderful people".

[The New California Republic]

I don't see a point in banning this content. It's an ideology held by a not-insignificant amount of people, and should be perfectly permissible

As Reppy said, a ban on QAnon ideology in particular likely isn't necessary anyway, as like Nazis they will likely struggle to actually argue in favour of their ideology without breaking one of the pre-existing rules.

The whole QAnon thing seems to be in disarray at the moment anyway due to Trump's defeat, despite them predicting he'd somehow hold on to power, and over the course of this year it might die out or get to such a low ebb that it becomes a non-issue.

[SKM]

Would harmless Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself memes qualify as QAnon content? What about terms such as CCP virus that are widely used by Falun Gong-owned news outlets?

What about all this nonsense about widespread fraud in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election? Would that qualify as QAnon content too?

How about general pro-Trump talking points such as "there is no evidence of Russian collusion"? Do all expressions of support for Donald Trump qualify? "MAGA?" "Four More Years?"

Or would content have to explicitly relate to QAnon in order to qualify? Would said content specifically have to encourage illegal acts in order to qualify? How wide should the net be cast?

And as one user said, NS is not even an American website. Why stop at banning just U.S.-centric content? I'm already under the impression radical Islamist material is already de facto banned on this site.

I'm not a huge fan of private companies and governments alike taking it upon themselves to decide what constitutes truth vs untruth given their sheer propensity for bias as well as the likelihood of abuse by bad actors even if there is a lot of misinformation out there. I have already criticized the ban on coronavirus misinformation for the same reason.

Yes, I see there is a significant possibility of bias when it comes down to a private company, as they will generally do what will make them the most money. Governments, however, are far harder to predict.

I propose this should be part of a rule which covers more, and it would have to do with truth as opposed to lies. It’s really just common sense: fact is truth, something which is not a fact is either a fact-neutral thing or a lie. E.g. ‘The Earth is a near-spherical planet’ is a fact, ‘I have a cat named “Moggy”’ could be either depending on circumstance, while ‘vaccines cause autism’ is a lie. I will classify a ‘fact-neutral thing’ as an opinion which does not violate a fact, e.g. Orange is the best colour.
Thing brings me to the world of opinions.
First, the mistake most idiots with opinions make is that ‘I am entitled to my opinions no matter what’. Opinions are things which are facts to a person due to preferences which are unique to them, e.g. ‘My favourite colour is orange’. However, if an opinion is in violation of a fact, it is not an opinion, but a lie. The village idiot will say, “but I’m entitled to my opinion!” No. If your “opinion” violates a fact, you are not entitled to it. Nobody should be able to put an opinion as a substitute for - or indeed as something higher than - a fact. Thus, since science has proved that the Earth is round, vaccines are safe and effective, etc. to be facts, if you still claim otherwise, you are no better than the village idiot at this point.

This rule I propose should use common sense as a guide - ban outright lies. There are lies like “SKM is dumb” which are not serious or problematic, and there are lies like “vAccINes cAySe MeNTaL iLLnEsses” which are outright lies. Of course, there is potential for abuse: one moderator may be a communist and decide to ban someone for saying “Stalin killed 30 million!”, or an Atheist may ban a Catholic for preaching. This would not be legal under my rule, as there is no consensus on how many people Stalin killed (mainly due to a certain World War), and religious statements from normal, globally accepted, religions would be exempt, like Buddhism, Christianity, and some others, but it would have to be decided by consensus or Max Barry as to other ones could stay or go, within reasonable limits.

Since this QAnon shit is entirely in violation of fact, and therefore the stuff of lies, my rule would ban it completely.

Please give me reasonable, civil, feedback on this please?

[Kragholm Free States]

Would harmless Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself memes qualify as QAnon content? What about terms such as CCP virus that are widely used by Falun Gong-owned news outlets?

What about all this nonsense about widespread fraud in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election? Would that qualify as QAnon content too?

How about general pro-Trump talking points such as "there is no evidence of Russian collusion"? Do all expressions of support for Donald Trump qualify? "MAGA?" "Four More Years?"

Or would content have to explicitly relate to QAnon in order to qualify? Would said content specifically have to encourage illegal acts in order to qualify? How wide should the net be cast?

And as one user said, NS is not even an American website. Why stop at banning just U.S.-centric content? I'm already under the impression radical Islamist material is already de facto banned on this site.

I'm not a huge fan of private companies and governments alike taking it upon themselves to decide what constitutes truth vs untruth given their sheer propensity for bias as well as the likelihood of abuse by bad actors even if there is a lot of misinformation out there. I have already criticized the ban on coronavirus misinformation for the same reason.

Yes, I see there is a significant possibility of bias when it comes down to a private company, as they will generally do what will make them the most money. Governments, however, are far harder to predict.

I propose this should be part of a rule which covers more, and it would have to do with truth as opposed to lies. It’s really just common sense: fact is truth, something which is not a fact is either a fact-neutral thing or a lie. E.g. ‘The Earth is a near-spherical planet’ is a fact, ‘I have a cat named “Moggy”’ could be either depending on circumstance, while ‘vaccines cause autism’ is a lie. I will classify a ‘fact-neutral thing’ as an opinion which does not violate a fact, e.g. Orange is the best colour.
Thing brings me to the world of opinions.
First, the mistake most idiots with opinions make is that ‘I am entitled to my opinions no matter what’. Opinions are things which are facts to a person due to preferences which are unique to them, e.g. ‘My favourite colour is orange’. However, if an opinion is in violation of a fact, it is not an opinion, but a lie. The village idiot will say, “but I’m entitled to my opinion!” No. If your “opinion” violates a fact, you are not entitled to it. Nobody should be able to put an opinion as a substitute for - or indeed as something higher than - a fact. Thus, since science has proved that the Earth is round, vaccines are safe and effective, etc. to be facts, if you still claim otherwise, you are no better than the village idiot at this point.

This rule I propose should use common sense as a guide - ban outright lies. There are lies like “SKM is dumb” which are not serious or problematic, and there are lies like “vAccINes cAySe MeNTaL iLLnEsses” which are outright lies. Of course, there is potential for abuse: one moderator may be a communist and decide to ban someone for saying “Stalin killed 30 million!”, or an Atheist may ban a Catholic for preaching. This would not be legal under my rule, as there is no consensus on how many people Stalin killed (mainly due to a certain World War), and religious statements from normal, globally accepted, religions would be exempt, like Buddhism, Christianity, and some others, but it would have to be decided by consensus or Max Barry as to other ones could stay or go, within reasonable limits.

Since this QAnon shit is entirely in violation of fact, and therefore the stuff of lies, my rule would ban it completely.

Please give me reasonable, civil, feedback on this please?

Facts change as new information becomes available. Sometimes things we think are facts now might be lies tomorrow. Sometimes things we think are lies now might be facts tomorrow. Sometimes someone will say something untrue that they genuinely believe is a fact because all they've seen is evidence for it being true, even if other people have seen stronger evidence for it being untrue. Sometimes we may all genuinely believe that something untrue is a fact, simply because none of us have access to the evidence that it is untrue. Sometimes evidence either way may be inconclusive, but there must *be* a truth regardless.

I think it is wholly infeasible and unreasonable to expect the mods to essentially fact-check every single post to ensure it is wholly compliant with current understanding of what is true and what is not (and who that is decided by) and then act on it accordingly; it would simply be an impossible workload. And trying to do so would be further complicated by the absolute hideous mess that would arise when old posts presumed factual but later proven untrue start getting reported, or the inevitable hundreds of appeals from people whose "lies" (considered such at the time) have since been vindicated by new information.

The problem with anyone trying to become the arbiter of truth, even with the best of intentions, is that nobody actually knows all the truth. And people who think they do are very, very wrong.

[The Reformed American Republic]

How much would this site lose if a conspiracy theory that literally thinks the Democrats are pedophiles in a pedo cabal that worships Satan were to be banned? It's just dangerous misinformation and is obviously false.

[Parxland]

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.

[Fauxia]

How much would this site lose if a conspiracy theory that literally thinks the Democrats are pedophiles in a pedo cabal that worships Satan were to be banned? It's just dangerous misinformation and is obviously false.

Such a thing is basically already banned, because pedophilia discussions are banned.

I’d reiterate what NCR and Lord Dominator and others have said. Basically, there isn’t really much of a need for special treatment here, as the conspiracy theory is inherently rule-breaking.

Cracking down on any recruitment, of course, would be good.

[Frisbeeteria]

How much would this site lose

We'd lose at least half of the fees you pay to play. Not stamps or site supporter roles, mind you - just the fees ... which we don't charge.

It's not about money - never has been. It''s about freedom to discuss unpopular topics from all sides. The moderators are not and should not be arbiters of content.

We do have a few concepts that we don't permit on the site due to a number of factors including the age of some of our players. We don't like people discussing graphic sex. We don't like people being mean to other people. We don't like players recruiting other players to join groups that are generally considered abhorrent, such as Nazis and racial purity proponents. It's the last one we're discussing.

It's an ideology held by a not-insignificant amount of people, and should be perfectly permissible

The bandwagon fallacy is still a fallacy.

"One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the broad acceptance of some claim or action is not always a good indication that the acceptance is justified. People can be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational. And when people act together, sometimes they become even more foolish — i.e., “mob mentality.” People can be quite gullible, and this fact doesn’t suddenly change when applied to large groups."
- Source

[Kranostav]

That being said if QAnon content is banned because of extremism, why not ban Christianity? or Islam? or Atheism? Almost every movement large enough has violent fringes.

I'm down, let's ban it all. Religion is silly anyway.

[Townsvalley]

Lets not ban them, they are extremists but whatever forget it, trump is gone so just forget it.

[CoraSpia]

How much would this site lose

We'd lose at least half of the fees you pay to play. Not stamps or site supporter roles, mind you - just the fees ... which we don't charge.

It's not about money - never has been. It''s about freedom to discuss unpopular topics from all sides. The moderators are not and should not be arbiters of content.

We do have a few concepts that we don't permit on the site due to a number of factors including the age of some of our players. We don't like people discussing graphic sex. We don't like people being mean to other people. We don't like players recruiting other players to join groups that are generally considered abhorrent, such as Nazis and racial purity proponents. It's the last one we're discussing.

It's an ideology held by a not-insignificant amount of people, and should be perfectly permissible

The bandwagon fallacy is still a fallacy.

"One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the broad acceptance of some claim or action is not always a good indication that the acceptance is justified. People can be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational. And when people act together, sometimes they become even more foolish — i.e., “mob mentality.” People can be quite gullible, and this fact doesn’t suddenly change when applied to large groups."
- Source

You appear to have misunderstood me. NSG is a political discussion and debate forum. It isn't wise, therefore, to ban a whole ideology especially when people who hold that ideology are relatively common in the sites largest market if you want a wide-ranging debate.

[Juristonia]

Lets not ban them, they are extremists but whatever forget it, trump is gone so just forget it.

The world is bigger than America and Qanon has been growing in several countries.

[The Reformed American Republic]

How much would this site lose

We'd lose at least half of the fees you pay to play. Not stamps or site supporter roles, mind you - just the fees ... which we don't charge.

It's not about money - never has been. It''s about freedom to discuss unpopular topics from all sides. The moderators are not and should not be arbiters of content.

We do have a few concepts that we don't permit on the site due to a number of factors including the age of some of our players. We don't like people discussing graphic sex. We don't like people being mean to other people. We don't like players recruiting other players to join groups that are generally considered abhorrent, such as Nazis and racial purity proponents. It's the last one we're discussing.

I got a kick out of the first line.

With that being said, I know Max Barry isn't about the money. My point was that intelligent debate and content on this site wouldn't be that negatively impacted if such content was cracked down upon. The site would probably just lose a bunch of trolls, which would be a good thing.

[Lord Dominator]

We'd lose at least half of the fees you pay to play. Not stamps or site supporter roles, mind you - just the fees ... which we don't charge.

It's not about money - never has been. It''s about freedom to discuss unpopular topics from all sides. The moderators are not and should not be arbiters of content.

We do have a few concepts that we don't permit on the site due to a number of factors including the age of some of our players. We don't like people discussing graphic sex. We don't like people being mean to other people. We don't like players recruiting other players to join groups that are generally considered abhorrent, such as Nazis and racial purity proponents. It's the last one we're discussing.



The bandwagon fallacy is still a fallacy.

"One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the broad acceptance of some claim or action is not always a good indication that the acceptance is justified. People can be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational. And when people act together, sometimes they become even more foolish — i.e., “mob mentality.” People can be quite gullible, and this fact doesn’t suddenly change when applied to large groups."
- Source

You appear to have misunderstood me. NSG is a political discussion and debate forum. It isn't wise, therefore, to ban a whole ideology especially when people who hold that ideology are relatively common in the sites largest market if you want a wide-ranging debate.

I think we can live without people who say that most of their political opponents are pedophiles out to ruin the world.

[Kranostav]

Speaking from the experience of being mod/admin of many different communities of quite a large size. It should be understood that asking mods to take on the task of cracking down on an additional topic is not a small ask. Especially when it involves politics and just how charged that can get.

Is Qanon radical drivel with zero truth behind it? Yes it is.
Will people who believe and repeat Qanon rhetoric probably break a plethora of other rules? Yes they will
Is moderation of Qanon content an easy task? Like moderation in all political subjects, it won't be.

Straight banning topics can get weird to enforce, especially when the public criticism vastly outweighs the support. Imo it's easier to call out the lies and shoot down their efforts at misinformation instead of pushing them to an echo chamber, but also for the sake of subjecting a moderation team to figuring out what crosses the line in simply talking about it.

Like the alt right and radical movements, their members flame and become aggressive in response to engagement that is at odds with their worldview. This will lead to bans anyway. It generally takes fairly reasonable people to calmly discuss politics without flaming and breaking forum rules, and reasonable people generally do not subscribe to Qanon and most other radical beliefs.

The current ruleset is sufficient to moderate extremes imo.

[Great Algerstonia]

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.

[Atheris]

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.

I feel called out. /j

[Senkaku]

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.

The Khmer Rouge and ISIS aren't currently using the Internet to coordinate an insurgency in the country where most (or at least a significant plurality of?) NSers live, though.

You appear to have misunderstood me. NSG is a political discussion and debate forum. It isn't wise, therefore, to ban a whole ideology especially when people who hold that ideology are relatively common in the sites largest market if you want a wide-ranging debate.

We ban all kinds of objectionable ideological content already, without regard for the fact that lots of people believe those things too.

[Fahran]

I'm a little bit concerned about what content we would associate with Q-Anon in this context. If for instance, we lumped discussion of Jeffrey Epstein and his less than savory activities that involve a good number of affluent and well-connected people or discussions about the predatory and problematic nature of Hollywood, towards actors and actresses especially, to Q-Anon, it's plausible, probable even, that a wholesale ban could suppress legitimate critiques of the attitudes and behaviors of social, economic, and political elites. Mind you, the moratorium does some of that at present already, which is why my stance on that remains that NS as a site should actively choose a side the same way we have on a lot of other "controversial" issues such as advocating genocide or misgendering trans people (We shouldn't have to accept "Polanski didn't do anything wrong" as an acceptable argument within site rules if we're going to ban stuff, especially not when we've been pretty bad about self-policing both on-site and off-site grooming and advocacy for illegal activities. It's pretty horrid optics.), but, without clarification on what precisely constitutes a Q-Anon conspiracy theory, we risk going even farther down that road.

After a brief Google search, if we're not going to change the rules themselves, we could assert that advocating for the Storm (a violent uprising where Satanic pedophiles will be arrested or whatever lol) is advocating criminal activity. That's already banned. Some of their arguments might be trolling, but most of them are just bad arguments - which aren't banned. Otherwise we'd probably have to ban the entirety of NSG. I don't know how we've historically treated support for Islamist fundamentalists that didn't involve advocacy of violence. We've had some pretty quirky characters through the years, a lot of whom have said controversial things. I think we should stick pretty rigidly to site rules unless we have a really, really good reason to engage in innovation

[Frisbeeteria]

You appear to have misunderstood me.

I didn't misunderstand you. I just didn't agree with you.

In your ideal web space, there would be no limits on what could be posted and debated. You've made that argument multiple times over the years. The site owner, staff, and (I believe) the majority of players disagree with you. We have limits, and the mods enforce them. I don't see that changing no matter how many times you make that complaint.

If you want your ideal of an un-moderated forum, this ain't it. You're going to have to create that on your own.

[Western Theram]

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'?

[Middle Barael]

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.

Plus this is a private website, so free speech doesn’t apply, and even then considering QAnon is promoting terrorism they should be banned

Lets not ban them, they are extremists but whatever forget it, trump is gone so just forget it.

The world is bigger than America and Qanon has been growing in several countries.

[I’m agreeing with you Juristonia]
And the entire point of their Coup/insurrection/revolt/riot/attack/whatever-you-wanna-call-it was to reinstate Trump by delaying the electoral process. So as much as Trump may be gone for these 4 years at least, these people are still trying to destroy democratic principles and are still promoting violence to give Trump the presidency again