>My view is that the press 'narratives', even if they technically 'do not lie' (i.e. standards) are more damaging than for example, QAnon
I would disagree here. We are being told what to believe but that's nothing new, just look at how much press coverage minority issues got 100 years ago. Qanon, on the other hand, isn't misrepresentation but outright misinformation that turns some into outright insane conspiracy theorists believing JFK Jr is returning from the grave.
And one of the more insane subreddits, I got linked from a nursing subreddit, is a "penectomy" subreddit for people who want to remove their members, not because of gender dysphoria, but because of a sexual fetish. I regret to say there were pictures as well. That's straight up mental illness, but it's got a whole community to validate peoples delusions. The power to normalize is as worrying as the power to fashion a narrative. It's more than political, it encompasses everything.
Anyone who's been on /b/ can tell you, while the media is awful, places where CP is so common there are memes about it represent another level entirely. In a sense that's being told what to believe through social concensus. It'd sound insane to say one of the most popular websites in the early 2000s regularly had CP posted but it's okay because that's just free speech. Unless you've been there, which many people here have, in which case it becomes normalized and just "one of those bad things that happens regardless of policing". That's so much more worrying to me than governments and the media trying to control information as they always have.
> Yeah seriously. What a weird false equivalence to try to suggest.
Honestly, it's probably part of a real justification narrative for trusting things like QAnon and talk radio over the mainstream media. If you do that, you at least have to put them on the same level, and if it's too difficult to build up things like the first two, then you can always try tear down the latter (since it's easier to cherry-pick enough stuff to make that passably believable: just set a very high bar then catalog the inevitable times one of the thousands of journalists didn't live up to it over the last century).
> More people are able to live their truth publicly.
You've said this twice now and I just need to push back on this a bit because on its face it is ridiculous.
There is no "your truth". These people are living out whatever they want to live out. It doesn't make it "their truth". Truth is what is observed, tested and known by more than any single person. When you start throwing around relativist measures of such, you devalue truth as it is. QAnon is a conspiracy theory. It is not "someone's truth" any more than Russia is conducting a special operation in Ukraine is "Russia's truth".
>"I think then it fulfills the role I intended, as actual consequences of misinformation."
How so? I am skeptical, but what actual negative consequences have resulted from this?
>"That seems like dangerous amounts of cover for any topic where bringing them up is automatically discounted."
Do you likewise feel the urge discount any story that brings up Antifa? I do. It is because in the minds of most partisans they loom larger than their real life impact. While QAnons and Antifa are completely different, they are utilized as boogeymen by ideologically motivated reporters. Still, the mention of these two groups only serve to raise my skepticism level rather than make me outright deny everything around their mention.
> Drivel. No sensible person believes blocking QAnon nonsense is a "scandal.
The fact that you conflate QAnon with this story indicates an extremely myopic and unrefined understanding of the world. This story was first published by the NY Post, not by someone on 8chan. These are completely unconnected things in terms of which communities are the source of this story.
> I'm not interested in who large media say are dissenters or conspiracy theorists because I can make that judgment myself: it being trivial on first listen.
Yet you are repeating exactly the same things as they do in the same manner by focusing on the crazy people.
I have said many times in this thread that are always those that are on the fridge and they do not represent the whole.
Dismissing all dissent (which is what you are doing) as crazy people is wholly disingenous.
> Like I don't actually need someone to tell me Qanon dudes are crazy. I just have to listen to the Qanon dudes themselves. Of course they are convinced they are dissenters exposing the corruption in Big Pizza. Heroes, I'm sure.
Again you keep on strawmanning by saying that everyone is a crazy and ignoring the very prescient point about dissent. It is very tiresome when people engage like you do.
> That's the funny part. You keep bringing up this Big Media Telling You Who Is Real thing like Big Brother is in charge when I kinda don't really need Big Brother.
Then why are you repeating what they say point for point? Odd that.
> When this guy comes walking up to me saying that Joe Biden has a secret sex dungeon where he keeps children he abuses that he farms using mutant tadpoles
I am 100% certain this event didn't happen. So you are basing your stance on a falsehood. That must be fallacious.
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 supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles.
The difference between you and I is that I base my beliefs on what is known to be true, rather than on what others tell me is true, or on my subconscious heuristic predictions of what is true (ie: what I "want" to claim). What the "firm consensus" of what Qanon (or anything, for that matter) is may be interesting, but I am more concerned with what is actually True. If the "firm consensus" of global warming was that it's not happening, would your mind willingly accept that with no complaints? If not, why not?
> Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory
a) I have not denied this story.
b) Is "Conspiracy Theory != False, necessarily)" logically correct, or incorrect?
> and many others, are obviously false
"Obvious" falseness is a heuristic prediction - it has not been objectively established what is known(!) to be False (or True, or Unknown) in many instances - rather, it has only been asserted (typically with little if any evidence) what is False. Again, apply your same logic to climate change and see if your thinking changes.
> Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you took this philosophy into the workplace when implementing software, or if a new hire brought it to you.
> I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing.
You have no way of knowing what most conspiracy theorists are, or are not, or what they believe, just as a racist has no way of knowing the same about people who have a different skin color than them. This should be fairly easy to realize: ask yourself what the literal source of that knowledge is. Is it a broad, accurate survey of a large number of conspiracy theorists, or is it a subconscious heuristic operating on a dataset of some anecdotal personal experiences combined with large numbers of news articles and forum conversations that are also not based on direct evidence?
> But they're still terribly incorrect.
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.
> This happens on every type of definition, from Feminism to Socialism, to Nazism.
Indeed it does, including right here on HN.
> If you want to have a nuanced discussion about aspects of QAnon in the context of what it means to you, you need to recognize that there's not point in pushing the brand.
Completely agree, and I do realize this, and I am not "pushing the brand" - rather, I am discussing abstract principles like the value and importance of truthfulness, and the possible consequences of a culture that decides to turn its back on such principles. These are not exactly easy conversations to have, but that's why they are so important.
> You need to state specific issues with their own identity.
Actually, this is what I am requesting of others who are asserting that reality is composed of a specific state - my disagreement should not be considered an assertion of the opposite, because it isn't - that is undisciplined, non-logical thinking. In fact, I am simply following the "critical thinking" advice suggested by the media: do not accept things you read at face value - ask questions, challenge assertions (especially those that lack evidence, especially when their proponents are opposed to discussing evidence, preferring instead to use rhetoric), etc.
> All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified
Oh? What was it nullified by?
> and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man.
Pure rhetoric.
> Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate.
Implying that I have implied that is yet another example of the very thing I am protesting: a lack of concern for what is true.
> People dont like to think they are being tricked, and will actively reject truth if it contradicts what they already believe.
I never liked that study because people always read it like that.
When people receive new information, they try to make it consistent with what they already believe by making the smallest possible change to the existing belief system to make them consistent.
That could be as simple as just not believing you.
This can strengthen their belief in the existing thing because they just evaluated it against some potentially conflicting new information without rejecting it.
Just not believing you doesn't work for an article like that because it's reasoning rather than facts. They have to find a hole in the logic if they want to keep their existing beliefs. So they'll come up with something like, maybe that's how it works for other conspiracy theories, but this one is real so it doesn't apply.
But now the logic is in their head, so the next time the conspiracy theory has to be reframed to match a changing reality, they notice that what's happening is consistent with the logic. It makes them doubt.
And the more information and reasoning they're exposed to which is inconsistent with the conspiracy theory, the more they doubt. It just like how the Big Lie works, but in reverse. You expose them to truth and logic over and over until they can no longer make the conspiracy theory consistent with it.
> Doing something like this can be great, but it takes time and effort, meanwhile acts of terrorism are being committed now.
"Acts of terrorism" aren't speech so as soon as they go there they go to jail. I mean they were planning it openly on Facebook, it was kind of a discredit to law enforcement that they weren't arrested for the conspiracy to begin with.
> Most qanoners dont really believe it, and if separated from their echo chambers, will deradicalize themselves
But that's why we need free speech, right? To avoid echo chambers.
Even if private censorship is allowed, that doesn't make it a good idea if it causes people to leave for some Voat-like cesspool where they won't encounter ordinary people anymore.
> I don't understand what you're asking for. What I stated as facts can be independently verified by anyone with minor research.
"Troll farms are operated on a massive scale in Russia, China and most G20 nations, operated by their respective governments. Their direct goal is to spread disinformation and propaganda on social media" is a mostly binary (True/False) assertion, thus it is vague.
The magnitude of these operations, and what they actually did (as opposed to what is claimed/implied/believed they did, typically without conclusive evidence, but lots of innuendo and rhetoric) is not actually known.
Basically: imprecise framing of reality is misinformative.
> QAnon started on an online forum, where most conspiracy theories live and grow.
This is a subjective ontological claim, and it is not possible for you to prove that it is true (which is not required for belief, but is required for the JTB definition of Knowledge - not that anyone is able to care, anyways). It may also be possible that it is not possible for you to realize this.
> Cambridge Analytica and similar companies are a reality.
Reality may appear to be binary (True/False - and portions of it are), but it is actually fundamentally ternary (True/False/Other).
> Information warfare exists on an unprecedented scale thanks to the internet, whether you're aware of it or not.
I wonder which of us possesses more knowledge on that topic. Does your intuition suggest to you that it is you? Do you possess any tools and techniques in your epistemic toolkit for dealing with this very tricky aspect of consciousness?
>I've always assumed that you go to reddit, twitter or facebook with your mind made up
Well, that definitely happens, and maybe I'm thinking more of independent fact-checking sites like Snopes, where people visit explicitly to verify the veracity of something.
>The removal of (dis-)information is what I'm least comfortable with
I understand, but, unfortunately, we have an absolute explosion of explicit disinformation.
The funny thing is that the notion of being uncomfortable with removing disinformation is itself partly the product of the idea that there are no objective facts. And, that is a function of how successful the firehose of disinfo has been at attacking the value of truth and the existence of objectivity.
So, we kind of conflate removing disinfo with undertaking a subjective political act.
But, not long ago, it wasn't so easy to argue base reality.
>This is a well-respected publication commenting on a matter of great importance that injected false information into it.
And the [likely politically deliberate] regularity with which this has been happening for years makes me very uneasy to read articles by the same outlets crusading against "misinformation". This movement isn't about combating misinformation, it's about combatting their misinformation, and ensuring that people only see our "true" information
> Not that the authors were necessarily doing this, but I think that simply attempting to associate misinformation vulnerability with mental illness really misses the whole point.
Exactly. Besides, it is unethical, unscientific, and dangerous; i.e., you'll end up labeling large masses of people as insane because disinformation and misinformation are merely new terms for propaganda, which is public relations, which is marketing and advertising, and so on and so forth. Maybe they, the authors, the arbiters of truth, would allow me to test their sanity by asking them questions about my field? Or maybe they'd like to also classify people's sanity based on things like who buys some unneeded garbage prompted by online advertisements? Or based on who votes whom?
I think anywhere that libel and slander are enforced. Any random person with any random agenda can write on facebook or make youtube videos advancing that agenda.
> News sources are always biased, even when they try to stay neutral. The trick is to learn to extract useful nuggets of information from a number of biased streams. Having these streams biased differently helps.
I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about obvious made-up QAnon garbage.
> This is much like raw data in science: all data have noise and imperfections, but statistics help extract a signal if there is one.
I would argue that baseless data is not data at all.
> Why exactly is this such a problem? People have been making up bullshit stories to sell a narrative since there have been printed media
You've answered your own question. It's tough to get your bullshit spreading when you need to yell it in the town square. When you have instant access to hundreds of millions of idiots, it's far more dangerous.
> The problem always becomes that few think their faction has this problem. Most people think that they and their side believe in the truth, and that the other side is peddling false information. In such an environment, "combating misinformation" inevitably becomes "trying to get everyone to agree with me."
The problem with your line of thinking is that it assumes good faith and a certain amount of competence, which are assumptions that I don't think we can reasonably make anymore in light of the insane success of things like QAnon and "Stop the Steal."
> but I'm very worried about what actually comes out of it given the media landscape
We've seen recently that some people believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts. This doesn't mean the rest of us should be deprived of facts, or that we should throw our hands up and give up on seeking the truth.
> On the other hand, I'm aware that certain influential figures explicitly manipulate their speech in order to primarily amass personal power regardless of any second-order effects. E.g. cults are horrible, even though people are freely congregating, they just feel like they can't leave because of the emotional abuse these influential figures are heaping via their speech.
> On a third hand, the loved one of a politician was severely injured because of someone who believes the incorrect speech of influential figures and I desperately do not want further injury or violence to occur spurned by incorrect speech on the facts of reality.
Terrible things, but I wonder how someone can come to the conclusion that it is a better solution to police the information than actually strengthen people's ability to detect arbitrary BS by themselves. Policing disinformation does not scale (Brandolini's law), while teaching people to think does. Why aren't logical fallacies a part of every school's curriculum? Is it because the "official" disinformation would suffer from that too?
Before we start to police disinformation, don't we need a court-proof definition of the term disinformation? I tried to look up the definition of truth, only to learn that there is no commonly accepted philosohical definition of that. So most likely, any definition of disinformation that is used to depress certain information will be BS too.
>> And yet, the majority of the people do not care at all.
> I really, really dislike this meme.
I dislike it too, but for a different reason.
This story is a conspiracy theory. Literally.
At least one difference I notice in this case is that neither the article itself, nor the comments in this thread (at the time of writing this) contain either of the terms "conspiracy theory" or "QAnon" - but attach either of those, and you'll find all sorts of people who will suddenly develop a very passionate sense of caring/interest of a different kind: in discrediting, downvoting, and silencing anyone who in any way supports or perpetuates this type of a story.
In this case, I suspect the main difference is that the "public relations" departments of the Canadian Government and CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) are bush league compared to that of the US. In the US, this story would probably have been preemptively "taken care of" in the media before it even broke, or in 24 hours via a full court press if it did happen to accidentally fall through the cracks, and people would fall in line as they always do.
I would disagree here. We are being told what to believe but that's nothing new, just look at how much press coverage minority issues got 100 years ago. Qanon, on the other hand, isn't misrepresentation but outright misinformation that turns some into outright insane conspiracy theorists believing JFK Jr is returning from the grave.
And one of the more insane subreddits, I got linked from a nursing subreddit, is a "penectomy" subreddit for people who want to remove their members, not because of gender dysphoria, but because of a sexual fetish. I regret to say there were pictures as well. That's straight up mental illness, but it's got a whole community to validate peoples delusions. The power to normalize is as worrying as the power to fashion a narrative. It's more than political, it encompasses everything.
Anyone who's been on /b/ can tell you, while the media is awful, places where CP is so common there are memes about it represent another level entirely. In a sense that's being told what to believe through social concensus. It'd sound insane to say one of the most popular websites in the early 2000s regularly had CP posted but it's okay because that's just free speech. Unless you've been there, which many people here have, in which case it becomes normalized and just "one of those bad things that happens regardless of policing". That's so much more worrying to me than governments and the media trying to control information as they always have.
reply