[Discussion] Ban Q-Anon content?

[Fahran]

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

Fair enough.

[Picairn]

2: Use a satellite, is there a tiny teapot? No? Exactly. Negatives can be proved just as positives can.

Ok, now I claim aliens exist. Kindly do me a favor by searching the entire Galaxy to disprove me.

No? Exactly.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

Not appropriate to meme about this, but,

'I fear no man....'

'But that thing...'

*QAnon*

'It scares me.'

[Jebslund]

2: Use a satellite, is there a tiny teapot? No? Exactly. Negatives can be proved just as positives can.

A satellite staring at the Sun would not be able to see well enough to see something as small as a teapot against something as large as the Sun. Seriously. We can't even look directly at the Mars rover (which, by the way, is closer to us than the Sun) and see it from any Earth-based satellite. And don't bother saying to send a satellite to the Sun. If it was (currently) possible, it would have been done.

There's also the possibility that the teapot could be microscopic, in which case... Well, if the Earth is a golf ball, the Sun is a volleyball. Good luck searching for that teapot.

[Sedgistan]

Several people here are asking to be warned for spamming in Moderation.

Stick to the topic or don't post.

[Whitemore]

I think that all Q-Anon content should be banned from the site, it's a dangerous ideology that isn't needed to be on here. My father personally believes in some of Q-Anon and has been unnecessarily rude/racist to some of my friends that are on the left side of the Political spectrum just because he knows their beliefs and I know where he goes for his news, so I hold Facebook and other social media sites as responsible for not banning any Q-Anon related content earlier enough, if they had maybe then my dad's exposure would have been more limited. If people still want to see Q-Anon related things they can go to other websites where that is the purpose of them like Parlar, they shouldn't get it from Nationstates (Which I think can be a example of how to handle this correctly.)

[CoraSpia]

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.

This discussion is somewhat different to my personal beliefs regarding whether we need rules on trolling, flaming etc. Q Anon, though in my opinion a somewhat nutty and potentially dangerous ideology, is one which is very much relevant to the world today. Banning advocating an ideology, beyond advocating for obviously illegal activity, inherently reduces the range and therefore the quality of debates on nsg. It is the same reason that it is not against the rules to advocate for fascism, or extreme forms of islam or Christianity. We may find them unpleasant and the same issue with them potentially recruiting young members of the community applies, however they are still honestly held beliefs that are subscribed to by large numbers of people and inform the political discourse. The normal rules regarding trolling and flaming should still apply to them, I don't feel like fighting that losing battle at the moment, but they are sufficient to hold back the worst excesses of any ideology present on the site.

[CoraSpia]

I think that all Q-Anon content should be banned from the site, it's a dangerous ideology that isn't needed to be on here. My father personally believes in some of Q-Anon and has been unnecessarily rude/racist to some of my friends that are on the left side of the Political spectrum just because he knows their beliefs and I know where he goes for his news, so I hold Facebook and other social media sites as responsible for not banning any Q-Anon related content earlier enough, if they had maybe then my dad's exposure would have been more limited. If people still want to see Q-Anon related things they can go to other websites where that is the purpose of them like Parlar, they shouldn't get it from Nationstates (Which I think can be a example of how to handle this correctly.)

That's entirely on your dad, not the websites. The websites do not have a duty to protect your dad from reading things that might change his mind; he has the ability to check the accuracy of what he reads on the internet and act accordingly.

[The New California Republic]

I think that all Q-Anon content should be banned from the site, it's a dangerous ideology that isn't needed to be on here. My father personally believes in some of Q-Anon and has been unnecessarily rude/racist to some of my friends that are on the left side of the Political spectrum just because he knows their beliefs and I know where he goes for his news, so I hold Facebook and other social media sites as responsible for not banning any Q-Anon related content earlier enough, if they had maybe then my dad's exposure would have been more limited. If people still want to see Q-Anon related things they can go to other websites where that is the purpose of them like Parlar, they shouldn't get it from Nationstates (Which I think can be a example of how to handle this correctly.)

That's entirely on your dad, not the websites. The websites do not have a duty to protect your dad from reading things that might change his mind; he has the ability to check the accuracy of what he reads on the internet and act accordingly.

Counterprecedent: Covid misinformation being banned from the site.

[CoraSpia]

That's entirely on your dad, not the websites. The websites do not have a duty to protect your dad from reading things that might change his mind; he has the ability to check the accuracy of what he reads on the internet and act accordingly.

Counterprecedent: Covid misinformation being banned from the site.

I made my thoughts clear on that when it was the point of discussion. Max can obviously choose to ban certain things, however it is wrong for Whitemore to hold particular websites responsible for the changes in his fathers political beliefs. I guess it's easier to blame a faceless company than a member of your own family.

[Whitemore]

Counterprecedent: Covid misinformation being banned from the site.

I made my thoughts clear on that when it was the point of discussion. Max can obviously choose to ban certain things, however it is wrong for Whitemore to hold particular websites responsible for the changes in his fathers political beliefs. I guess it's easier to blame a faceless company than a member of your own family.

I don't think it's wrong, I think it's correct to blame private companies when websites of theirs won't ban dangerous beliefs that call for the physical harming of people belonging to different political parties or the spread of misinformation. This is what I believe and I'm sorry to see we disagree.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

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.

Just like child porn, Q-Anon has hurt people. Also oppositely, child porn is only an idea, there is no proof that child pornography is inherently always harmful, but it is banned.

But Q-Anon is definitely dangerous it has killed people, it advocates to kill people both individually and genocidally, so yes, by your definition it should be banned.

[Twilight Imperium]

Of course you should ban Q-anon bullshit. Why is this even a question?

[Fahran]

Just like child porn, Q-Anon has hurt people. Also oppositely, child porn is only an idea, there is no proof that child pornography is inherently always harmful, but it is banned.

Weird stand but go off, I guess.

It is inherently always harmful and the fact that I have to state this is why NS really should take a side on this instead of remaining neutral and entreating people not to discuss it. It involves rape. Rape is harmful. Full stop.

But Q-Anon is definitely dangerous it has killed people, it advocates to kill people both individually and genocidally, so yes, by your definition it should be banned.

We do not ban people from NS for believing that killing civilians is morally right. Plenty of our right-wing extremists probably like Hitler and plenty of our left-wing extremists probably fantasize about sending the rich to gulags. What is banned, and very explicitly so, is advocating for those things on the site.

I haven't seen a whole lot of explicit QAnon rhetoric on NSG. I've seen a couple people accusing certain figures (sometimes with evidence and sometimes without it) of engaging in sexual impropriety and sexual violence. I've seen a couple people accusing Dems of stealing elections. The usual reaction from the community is to ask for evidence, which they usually cannot provide if they're a conspiracy theorist, or to laugh it off. I feel like we're jumping on a bandwagon that we really don't need to jump on with the rules we have in place.

We can simply add QAnon-affiliated sites to our "do not link" list, continue enforcing rules against trolling and advocating illegal activity, and call it day.

[Elkendia]

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.

[Minoa]

The storming of the US Capitol on 6 January has created an extraordinary situation where, regardless of how they try to spin it, the promoters of Q-Anon appear to be not interested in civilised debate, but instead recruiting as many people as possible before directing them to attack people that they do not like (source). It is outright divisive and threatens reasonable debate, even on NSG.

It also beggars belief that they capitalise solely on the myth of "Satan-worshipping paedophiles": despite the fact that child human trafficking is really a serious problem, I have not seen evidence of its promoters trying to uncover actual perpetrators, other than blaming people that they do not like with completely unfounded claims (source).

If the moderation team does decide to crack down on Q-Anon content, then it should be against the promotion or glorification of Q-Anon, and not general discussion about it. The is still a lot of discussion about Q-Anon, including a growing Reddit forum where people have been posting accounts of how their lives have been turned upside down by relatives who have been taken in by Q-Anon (source).

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

No. We do not ban people simply for having unsanitary views. I believe current guidelines on trolling, baiting are enough.

[Cordel One]

No. We do not ban people simply for having unsanitary views. I believe current guidelines on trolling, baiting are enough.

Why not? They're dangerous conspiracy theorists and I'd argue that it's a public service not to allow it to spread further.

[Great Algerstonia]

No. We do not ban people simply for having unsanitary views. I believe current guidelines on trolling, baiting are enough.

Why not? They're dangerous conspiracy theorists and I'd argue that it's a public service not to allow it to spread further.

Because there's things far worse than Qanon that are allowed?

[CoraSpia]

No. We do not ban people simply for having unsanitary views. I believe current guidelines on trolling, baiting are enough.

Why not? They're dangerous conspiracy theorists and I'd argue that it's a public service not to allow it to spread further.

Because we're living, thinking humans and it's our job to decide what bullshit on the internet we believe rather than being wrapped up in cotton wool?

[Drew Durrnil]

My opinion:

Ban all Q-Anon content due to it having misinformation, advocating violence, and more. If Trump came onto this site and was banned (he would be banned by existing NS law), there's no reason not to ban QAnon.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

My opinion:

Ban all Q-Anon content due to it having misinformation, advocating violence, and more. If Trump came onto this site and was banned (he would be banned by existing NS law), there's no reason not to ban QAnon.

We do not ban particular beliefs or ideology. We do not even ban racism or fascism, there are many open racist, fascists, even nazis roaming freely on this site. Banning QAnon would go against precedent.

[Katganistan]

My opinion:

Ban all Q-Anon content due to it having misinformation, advocating violence, and more. If Trump came onto this site and was banned (he would be banned by existing NS law), there's no reason not to ban QAnon.

We do not ban particular beliefs or ideology. We do not even ban racism or fascism, there are many open racist, fascists, even nazis roaming freely on this site. Banning QAnon would go against precedent.

The site does not.
You are not representing the site, as a reminder. That comes mighty close to sounding as if you're speaking with authority, like a moderator or administrator.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

We do not ban particular beliefs or ideology. We do not even ban racism or fascism, there are many open racist, fascists, even nazis roaming freely on this site. Banning QAnon would go against precedent.

The site does not.
You are not representing the site, as a reminder. That comes mighty close to sounding as if you're speaking with authority, like a moderator or administrator.

I am a member of the site and have been for nearly 3 years now, which is why I used the term 'we.'

I did not intend to sound like i was in authority.

[New Visayan Islands]

We discussed among ourselves the concerns surrounding QAnon, especially considering the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol on January 6th. The decision has been made to treat QAnon in the same way we treat Nazis: links to QAnon-related sites are forbidden, QAnon-themed flags will be treated like Nazi-related flags, QAnon-related themes endorsing real life violence will be treated as actionable, et cetera. This does not mean QAnon-themed discussions that otherwise abide by the Rules are forbidden; we leave Nazi-themed discussions be unless they cross into trolling or other violations, and as mentioned QAnon will be treated in the same way.

Thanks!
NVI