Facebook Removes QAnon Conspiracy Group With 200,000 Members (bbc.com) 188
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Facebook has deleted a large group dedicated to sharing and discussing QAnon conspiracy theories. QAnon is a wide-ranging, unfounded conspiracy theory that a "deep state" network of powerful government, business and media figures are waging a secret war against Donald Trump. A Facebook spokeswoman said the group was removed for "repeatedly posting content that violated our policies." The deleted Facebook group, called Official Q/Qanon, had nearly 200,000 members. There are, however, many other QAnon groups that are currently still active on the platform. Reuters reports that Official Q/QAnon "crossed the line" on bullying, harassment, hate speech and the sharing of potentially harmful misinformation.
In Soviet valley... (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook conspires against YOU.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this.
And I thought the QAnon conspiracy is that President Trump bought the election to get back at Jeffery Epstein for raping little girls at Mar Lago (and thus had vowed to take down Epstein's entire sexual abuse ring, which includes many prominent Democrats and people involved in the Hollyweird movie industry, which is based on sex abuse).
I'm not sure I believe that conspiracy, but at least describe it correctly.
They are a conspiracy group?!? (Score:3, Funny)
I thought they were a support group for Quaalude addicts.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were a support group for Quaalude addicts.
In a way, they are.
Re: They are a conspiracy group?!? (Score:2)
Probably works on Democrats, too. Guessing a search for "Quaalude & Democrat" will give a roster including Ley lines or chakra crystals or somesuch, free to choose from.
I would assume the top entry would be a link to the Wikipedia article on Bill Cosby.
Re: They are a conspiracy group?!? (Score:2)
I laughed, but that's the worst dad joke I've heard in a while.
Re:In Soviet valley... (Score:5, Insightful)
In case anyone doesn't know of Qanon (Score:5, Funny)
Re: In case anyone doesn't know of Qanon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In case anyone doesn't know of Qanon (Score:1)
by BanHammer ( 5567450 ) on 08-08-20 3:48 (#60379723)
They look crazy and I don't like them as some are hardcore christians but why ban them?
"BanHammer" says "why ban them"... what a world.
TFS has the answer to your question:
HTH, HAND.
Re: (Score:2)
the sharing of potentially harmful misinformation.
That last part is the important thing. How DARE they!!
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded
I wish them luck. (Score:2)
This will be no doubt as effective as trying to get rid of cockroaches by wiping down all the counters.
Re: (Score:3)
Keeping your kitchen clean is actually a pretty good start to getting rid of cockroaches. Your house is a disaster, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen a cockroach in my living area for over 40 years now. Last time was when living with roommates during the college days.
Ants, though. Had problems with ants now and then.
Re: I wish them luck. (Score:2)
Not to pile on, but, well.... itâ(TM)s possible that the ants are attracted to the food residue on your counters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, who told you about the cockroaches?
Re: (Score:2)
You're right of course: wiping the counters won't get rid of cockroaches therefore there is no point in ever wiping the counters.
On an unrelated note, it turns out I need to wash my cat so I must respectfully decline your dinner invitation.
Re: (Score:2)
The cockroaches will check anyway.
Can someone learn how to summarize please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reuters reports that Official Q/QAnon "crossed the line" on bullying, harassment, hate speech and the sharing of potentially harmful misinformation.
No, Reuters didn't report anything of the sort. Reuters reported that's what a Facebook spokeswoman told them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Reuters didn't report anything of the sort. Reuters reported that's what a Facebook spokeswoman told them.
A distinction without a difference. It's Facebook's platform and Facebook's decision where the line is. So if Facebook says they crossed the line, even without telling you where that line was it still is accurate to say "Reuters reports that Official Q/QAnon "crossed the line""
Re: (Score:2)
>"A distinction without a difference."
That is simply not true. His is a PERFECT example of one of many ways how "news" becomes more inaccurate. Such mistakes make it sound like there are more sources, when there are none. And this wasn't even a mistake made by a news outlet, it is just a posting on Slashdot. Quoting someone quoting someone else becomes interpreted as two interviews or two sources when it is not. It is also "hearsay." Someone might now point to the Slashdot post and spread it on the
Re: (Score:2)
That is simply not true. His is a PERFECT example of one of many ways how "news" becomes more inaccurate.
Except it's not. QAnon crossed some line defined by Facebook or they wouldn't have banned it. What that line was is something you want to evaluate for yourself and delve deeper into, but that doesn't change anything about the statement. It is not a mistake to say Reuters reported because that's precisely what they did. They spoke to Facebook, Facebook said they crossed a line, Reuters reported.
It really is that simple regardless of your or the GP's contrived assertions to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Qanon won't be the last. If people haven't realised this yet there's truly no hope.
It doesn't matter if you believe it or not... Facebook will decide what is and isn't true.
The establishment long ago got control over the mainstream media. Now they are getting control over social media.
You will only see the establishment line.
Again, for the hard of thinking, it doesn't matter if you think Qanon is bonkers nonsense. This is about principles of free speech.
If you're too stupid to grasp that and all you can thi
Re: (Score:2)
Moral of the story (Score:3)
Don't build anything on Facebook.
Re:Moral of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
More like, don't trust anything you read on Facebook. If you use Facebook as your news source, you're basically the guy that takes The Onion serious.
Re: (Score:2)
>"More like, don't trust anything you read on Facebook"
Really, one should be wary of anything read from anywhere. No conspiracy implied (although there might be some). It is good to question everything (motives, the info itself, its wording and interpretation, its meaning), gather multiple ORIGINAL sources (not just places quoting other places), and be open to alternative information and interpretations.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is not a news source, but people do repeat news there. You can clicky on the linky to read the story... In these regards it is exactly as valid as Slashdot as a news source. And let's face it, who among us doesn't occasionally find out about something here?
Re: (Score:2)
More like, don't trust anything you read on Facebook. If you use Facebook as your news source, you're basically the guy that takes The Onion serious.
Well, yeah. But who is it conferring legitimacy here? Mainstream news organizations treat things said on Facebook as news. Government dweebs and private mobs want to censor and regulate it.
Conservatives like me think FB is a glorified multi-user blog.
Hey QAnon... (Score:3)
I'll be glad when they're finally gone someday (Score:2)
We have a 1999 Blue Bird Q-Bus which, time permitting, I am converting into an RV. (I got kind of sidetracked becoming an RV repair technician, a job I got just before Covid hit. But at least I'm learning the best way to do everything. To wit, mostly not how the big boys do it.) And occasionally when I mention that I get some QAnon lackwit all excited about the Q in Q-Bus. Then I have to explain that no, I am not a dipshit.
Deleting Means They Might Be Right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you're the de facto "Town Hall" you've got to uphold the right for all viewpoints, not just the ones that agree with The Narrative.
Okay, what does that have to do with Facebook? "Town Halls" still exist, in town. For everyone else, there is the wider internet. Discussions go on all over it. Most Facebook posts are viewed only by their respective echo chambers.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is getting like broadcast TV (Score:2)
sharing of potentially harmful misinformation (Score:2)
Nooooooo!!!! (Score:2)
Censoring a conspiracy person or group is the absolutely worst thing you can possibly do if you are not trying to encourage it/them!
The QAnon crap is all based around the idea of a big shadowy conspiracy between "deep state" operatives within the government and globalist billionairs, many of them tech giants. The worst thing you could do is to have those billionaire tech giant globalists use their power to muzzle these folks.
The only thing I can think of is that Zuckerberg had made himself such a group-th
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, Dem here, that was me (Score:2)
Re:Not the best way to deal with a conspiracy theo (Score:5, Informative)
I regret to inform you that there are 73 current and former candidates who have endorsed the QAnon conspiracy theory to greater or lesser degrees.
So far, 15 of them will be on the ballot this November. At least one (Jo Rae Perkins) is nearly assured a seat, because she's running as a republican in a deep red district and beat her primary opponent handily.
The article I'm citing also has a couple paragraphs at the top explaining the bones of the conspiracy theory, which is worth reading just for itself if this is new to you. [mediamatters.org]
Re:Not the best way to deal with a conspiracy theo (Score:5, Informative)
What rock are you living under and are there any rooms still available?
QAnon is a particularly deranged and popular conspiracy theory linked to a number of instances of real-world violence. Most of the people who are into it are fascists who have motive to oppose truth, objectivity, or sanity as you might describe it, in the interest of political power.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
where the fuck are the bans on all these lunatic rioters and their posts?
Right here [history.com].
Maybe if the cops would stop pepper spraying (Score:4, Informative)
But that's not what the cops want. They want those rioters & looters out there and they want the peaceful protestors to go home. Because the cops are afraid you'll notice their bloated budgets, that they're being sent to do the work of social workers but they're armed to the teeth, that they're being used as a literal Gestapo pulling people into unmarked vans and that we're fast becoming a Police State with the help of the Grand 'ole Party.
Nope, they want you scared shitless of a handful of rioters (the looters stopped after day 3). Because that fear is why you keep giving them more and more money & power.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the same Hillary Clinton who wished Ghislaine Maxwell Maxwell well?
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And it isn't even what QAnon Conspiracy is. Has almost nothing to do with Donald Trump, except for he's their chosen messiah to stop using child sex abuse to harvest fountain of youth treatments from small children.
I don't (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH If they, for example, took down scientifically accurate information about the Corona virus in an effort to, say, force schools to reopen when it wasn't safe, then I can call them out on that too, while being consistent the entire time.
See, the thing that makes all this consistent is a desire to see truth promoted over falsehoods and the ability to tell the difference between the two. Sure, it's not always as stark as a clearly political motivated disinformation campaign meant to undermine people's faith in government & democracy, but in this case it is. And as a thinking, reasoning human being I can and will applaud that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is risk in allowing anyone, especially a social company, to impede the free flow of information.
Thing is, every one of them already does it to a certain extent, and it would be bad enough on us if it was limited to social media sites... unfortunately, it proliferates the entirety of the news media. Every one of them has an angle, and their news is slanted toward it.
Right/left is where current battle lines are drawn, and both sides have news super-spreaders that promote events deemed positive, and dem
Re: (Score:2)
There is risk in allowing anyone, especially a social company, to impede the free flow of information.
Sadly it works both ways- there's no doubt that deliberately allowing (and even aiding in) the publication of outright lies and misinformation is bad for everyone. The signal to noise ratio these days is completely out of control.
Re: (Score:2)
Precedent is the problem. Unpopular revelations may now be squashed when given the proper label. This is censorship for the people's own good, but it will not fix the the throngs of people who believe unsubstantiated claims that fit their own narrative. It could easily be misapplied to the next Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.
Let the publication of the wildest theories stay in the light, the best disinfectant. The QAnon's will be shown for what they are, and every now and then, a stunning claim will survive th
Re: (Score:2)
Let the publication of the wildest theories stay in the light, the best disinfectant. The QAnon's will be shown for what they are,
Agreed, but at what cost? That is, how much damage will they do before they're finally no longer in fashion? That's the thing that concerns me.
We can laugh at them until one of them uses their conspiracy craziness as an excuse to harm or kill somebody; I mean it's not like it hasn't happened before. People that get spun up on this kind of thing can pose a genuine danger to innocent victims.
I don't want to ban ideas; at the same time I think we have to recognize that this freedom comes with some downsides.
Re: (Score:2)
De facto. Freedom comes with trade-offs, compromises if you will, and some of them are, indeed, downsides. In a truly enlightened society, you must allow the same freedoms you desire for yourself to the person or ideal that you find most abhorrent.
This is contrarily as difficult and wildly exciting as having sex with your lifelong crush on the back of an angry bear; but, if you make it work, everyone (except perhaps the bear) is the better for it.
Re: (Score:2)
>"They can enforce house rules against trolling, hate speech or unlawful stuff, but those rules themselves have to be politically neutral as well."
With the exception of "unlawful stuff", which is generally pretty well defined, how exactly can anyone be "politically neutral" on censoring "trolling" and "hate speech"? You will not find any consensus, much less a good and workable definition, as to what "hate speech" is or is not. We might be able to pick some specific examples that get great agreement, b
Re: (Score:2)
Right now with FB and Twitter (and many others), we don't even know the actual rules being used, and there is no evidence of what is being done. This is so far away from reasonable, it is shocking. Something can be "disappeared" even before anyone can see it, much less afterwards.
All good reasons not to take Fb too seriously. Don't use it to plan your insurrection. But it's fine for meme-sharing, so long as you keep that to well-curated private groups. I'm in several groups that regularly contain material that can get people in trouble with the Fb censors, but it's not an issue because we don't let in the people who would complain about it.
Shadow banning, selective editing, scoring and placement, de-monetizing, selection bias, steering, deletion, forced editorial inclusion, it is all there still, and has been for many years.
Most of that is (or at least has been) present here on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Most of that is (or at least has been) present here on Slashdot."
I have wondered. I haven't seen much evidence of it, though. I have seen stories disappear. I have also seen stories reposted, presumably when the comments and mods didn't go the expected direction. There isn't much way we can know that comments disappear or are shadow-banned, other than people following up on their comments later and sharing that info with others also monitoring. And really no way to know if modding is done above-ta
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The question was: "why do you trust Facebook to be the final arbiter...?"
And it was a stupid, manipulative question. If Facebook were the only site on which people could post (shudder) then your question ("[...]final arbiter[...]") would have merit. But it isn't, so it doesn't. People can post in other places before, after, or instead of posting to Facebook, so Facebook is clearly not the "final arbiter" of anything. But calling them that is scary, because those are scary words. Some of us, however, are not frightened by your mischaracterization. It's not frightening, just borin
Re: (Score:2)
The question was: "why do you trust Facebook to be the final arbiter...?
I don't. Which is good, because they're not. If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion about whether their action was appropriate (it was!).
Re: (Score:2)
See, the thing that makes all this consistent is a desire to see truth promoted over falsehoods and the ability to tell the difference between the two.
Except no. Your party, for just one example, thinks that boys can magically become girls by wishing it. And you can have as many facebook groups as you want promoting that completely false, unscientific idea.
The point isn't which side you come down on; it's that something as simple and basic as that is a subject for bias and political dispute. It's almost as though we should just let people speak and let other people make their own decisions.
Re: I don't (Score:2)
And a counter point . The other side believes their is only boys and girls and that is only defined by their bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
JFC even a bad excuse like "qanon has shown to be using FB for calling for the use of illegal drugs / calling for violence against others / whatever' not this 'we banned them for wrong thoughts' bullshit. What kind of lawyers does facebook employ?! Yes Q is filled with moron goobers looking for attention, and FB just gave it to them.
Actually, you do (Score:2)
Its funny how those who are t
Re: (Score:2)
What they do is twist about occurrences that have nothing to do with what they claim it has to do with. Sort of claim any arrest of any paedo as part of the overall operations, claim all sorts of stuff will happen that never happens, try an tie anything that happens as something the group caused. Just a PR troll thing, nothing unusual and nothing that needs to be banned. For many it is just fun story telling. For Facebook the biggest liars and scammers of all, perhaps it is just unwanted competition to Face
Re: (Score:2)
For fuck's sake, just type "QAnon" into any search engine and you'll find all the qanon shit you could ever want. Or is Facebook your only source of info?
Re:Facebook is right! (Score:5, Insightful)
I trust neither Facebook nor any random Facebook group, but it's the thousands who do that make it a problem.
I haven't used it in close to a decade, so it doesn't affect me either way. (Nor do I feel like I'm missing out on any grand discourse, casual sex, cat pictures, super top secret information, or whatever else. Did the story of Eugene Hasenfus need Facebook to break?)
When the medium our politicians, businesses, government agencies - voluntarily - choose to communicate with us, also hosts political conspiracies, it is enough to affect the feeble-minded. Having it in the same venue confers an air of legitimacy. Some of them will end up voting in a dictator, shooting up a pizza parlor, or any number of other things you can persuade a dummy to do.
Short of the real solution I've already implemented in my life, the best way to mitigate the damage seems to be moderation on the "mainstream" platforms. If you want to post or read anything, go ahead and do it on 8chan, some Tor service, or AM radio after midnight... even Slashdot. There will always be alternative or uncensored venues to fill that demand. The upshot is, the air of legitimate venue is gone, allowing the ideas to truly stand on their own merits.
And despite the current -1 mod, the grandparent is right, there's nothing secret about people being against Trump. Nor is it unreasonable. If you're having to use the phrase "deep state" to describe it, though, it's because hearing the best wild tales lets you avoid discussing the actual reasons.
Re:Facebook is right! (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't used it in close to a decade, so it doesn't affect me either way.
Oh it definitely affects you. Those idiots have the same voting power as you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it definitely affects you. Those idiots have the same voting power as you do.
They probably even have more, because of the insular nature of community. They are more likely to be in a flyover state where people have drastically more voting power than people who live in states that people want to live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Facebook is right! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're having to use the phrase "deep state" to describe it, though, it's because hearing the best wild tales lets you avoid discussing the actual reasons.
That's funny. When pro-Trump peeps talk about "the deep state", that's like totally bullshit. When everyone else talks about "The Military Industrial Complex" that's like totally legit and a real thing. Meanwhile both groups are talking about the same phenomenon.
No, what is funny is that when one side talk they use vague and opaque terms that hints at something but doesn't tell what it is. This is purposeful. Because you don't outright say what you mean, you leave to the listener to infer what you mean. That way you don't have to be accountable for the information when it is interpreted in the "wrong" way, you can easily claim it was "parody" or "satire" and ultimately the claim you made is not possible to falsify due to the ambiguous nature. The highlighted part is actually one of the requirements for a conspiracy theory –every way of falsifying it only "strengthens" the conspiracy theories narrative in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists. This should be enough to get every sane persons BS meter go off on high alert.
Why not speak out and make it clear when you know what you are talking about?
Well, as I see it, you are either dishonest or you actually don't know shit about what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't in the slightest.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As usual, you are too stupid to get it.
Deep State = against the president
MAC = works with the president
Both are toxic, Deep State is a paranoid delusion of the president, MAC is something that really exists, not just an unfocused boogeyman - you can name names of companies involved, but he Deep State is a mysterious nebulous force just on the edge of perception, so ineffable that it cannot be named or quantified. Ya know, bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When pro-Trump peeps talk about "the deep state", that's like totally bullshit. When everyone else talks about "The Military Industrial Complex" that's like totally legit and a real thing. Meanwhile both groups are talking about the same phenomenon.
Not even close.
The MIC is a bunch of companies that exist. You can go look up their financials and see that they are sucking the government teat. It's all right out in the open, so you can verify that it exists and that it profits from war. Nobody has to wonder if the MIC really exists. Further, you can see that they're influencing government, again right out in the open. There are public records of their campaign contributions, and of the facts of the revolving door system that keeps them in power.
The "Dee
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. When pro-Trump peeps talk about "the deep state", that's like totally bullshit. When everyone else talks about "The Military Industrial Complex" that's like totally legit and a real thing. Meanwhile both groups are talking about the same phenomenon.
If you think they're the same thing, you don't know what either of them are.
Re: (Score:2)
to fund a war in Central America was a "conspiracy theory"
Not really. The Contra scandal may have sounded far-fetched, but not crazy to anyone with any knowledge of US military history and culture. The term does not refer to just any hypothesis about a run-of-the-mill conspiracy, but about a grand conspiracy involving a large number of powerful people, working in impossible secrecy.
To say the JFK killing was organised by members of the CIA is not a "conspiracy theory" because it needs only a plausibly small number of conspirators.
Or that Trump did a deal with Put
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Facebook is right! (Score:4, Informative)
The 434-page report issued Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the FBI had an “authorized purpose” when it initiated its investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, into the Trump campaign. In doing so, Horowitz implicitly rejected assertions by the president and fellow Republicans that the case was launched out of political animus or that the FBI broke its own rules on using informants.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Safe Harbor? (Score:4, Insightful)
So a recently-born truther movement is equivalent to one of the most influential political concepts to ever exist? A concept that, whether you think it's a terrible idea or not, actively influences the founding principles and daily operations of many countries worldwide?
Your opinions of neither Q-Anon nor Socialism matter— that analogy is about as half-baked as they come. You probably ought to stop making assertions about this until you actually form some coherent thoughts on the matter.
Re:Safe Harbor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Murder is an eons old concept. Guess we should hold that in high regard as well, just cause it's old and influences a number of people.
As a nation, we do hold murder in high regard. Murder is done in our names on a regular basis, and we do nothing to stop it... because we're afraid of being murdered if we try.
Socialism, Communism, and Marxism are dangerous ideologies that, when implemented into power structures, have resulted in the murder of millions of people.
That argument would be a lot more compelling if 99% of the supposed examples of Socialism and Communism that people hold up as hazardous were either of those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Some day, you may actually learn things. If you do, you're sure going to feel stupid about typing bullshit like that.
Re: (Score:2)
* learn factually correct things
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-tip: Try getting your history from books instead of other uneducated, confused morons on anonymous forums. Soon, you'll start having worthwhile thoughts, effortlessly, without spewing out the sort of moronic noise in your comment.
Re:Safe Harbor? (Score:4, Interesting)
Odd. I've had a socialist government here for the better part of the time after WW2 and we're doing great.
I guess socialism is a concept that ensures prosperity and growth for everyone. Why people in the US are so scared of it is beyond me, but then again, those nutters are afraid of healthcare, too, so... yeah, it's Bizzaroland.
Re: (Score:3)
Socialism in Nazi Germany, that's a good one. If you have more zingers like that, you have a career in Las Vegas.
Are you done carrying your ignorance like a monstrance in front of you or should I give you more rope to hang yourself? Seriously, dude, you're such a prime example of someone falling for bullshit propaganda that I can't help but like you, you're awesome at making my case for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be too hard on him, he believes what regimes say about themselves.
I expect he believes North Korea is a democracy because it says so right there in the name of the country.
Re:Safe Harbor? (Score:5, Informative)
I know what NSDAP stands for. I also know that it was not a single one of that letters.
It was not national, because there wasn't even an attempt to create a nation, neither before nor during the war. The occupied zones were treated like colonies to be exploited and ransacked, not to be structurally integrated into the Altreich.
It was not social, because it was exploitative and steered towards only allowing "worthy" members of society to exist, especially targeting "useless eaters" as something to be eliminated.
It was not German, because it neither limited itself to wanting to reunite German lands nor did it even attempt to reunite all German lands, at least as long as those lands were already in the hands of other fascist countries like Italy or Hungary.
It was not for Workers, because one of the first things the NSDAP did as soon as it got to power was to ensure that the dreaded Arbeitsbuch [wikipedia.org] that basically made any worker fully dependent on his employer was reestablished. Also, any kind of union (aside of the "official" ones, which were about as useless as the ones in the Soviet dictatorships) was forbidden. Germany under the Nazis was a corporate state, as any fascist state was.
And it was not a party, it was a one-person dictatorship with an organization around it that affirmed this person's leadership.
Don't just believe any bullshit anyone tells you about themselves. By your logic, China is a republic because it calls itself that.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't just believe any bullshit anyone tells you about themselves. By your logic, China is a republic because it calls itself that.
Funny how they always focus on the word Communist instead, to describe arguably the most capitalist nation on Earth, which also happens to be very authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
China in its present state is closer to Fascism than it ever was to Communism.
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't. Hitler and Stalin are the same guy in different clothes, and they are what socialism always trends toward.
Plenty of democratic socialist states did not trend toward that, which suggests that the important factor here is dictatorial authoritarianism rather than socialism. Hayek famously argued that the supply-side socialism that Western European nations and Canada experimented with after WWII would put them on an inevitable "road to serfdom", but he was wrong. In cases where socialized indu
Re: (Score:2)
By the actual power structure, both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia under Stalin had a lot in common. Both had a highly centralized power structure with a single point of failure on top and a bureaucratic structure beneath that solidified that one-person dictatorship.
That has little to do with communism or fascism, though, and everything with authoritarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
Some nutty fruitcakes that didn't want that label anymore so they are now fruity nutcakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's the problem. You linked to three far right sources, and Twitter, and you still don't know if the far right agenda-pushing, non-scientific websites are scientifically accurate. If you take some time to think about it, I think you should be able to figure out the answer to your own question.
Re: (Score:2)
Policing content is too resource heavy and costly
Too costly? Like 160,000 people dead, trillions down the toilet costly?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to waste my time analyzing articles from far right wing web sites to determine whether or not they're scientfically valid. The sources are garbage, so its' not worth my time. (I'm a scientist... I get my science from actual scientists, not paid political advocates).
Facebook could certainly police ev
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to post that QAnon's level of unification isn't particularly high, and while that's true in a relative sense when considering the fraction of all conspiracy theories it encompasses, in an absolute sense it might be the biggest unified conspiracy theory that has existed so far.
AFAIK apart from its core nuttiness about Trump's heroic quest to out a secret global cabal of pedophiles made up of everyone the far-right doesn't like (that's why he's been good buddies with Epstein & Maxwell, to take
Re: (Score:2)
censorship NOUN:
1) the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
2) (in ancient Rome) the office or position of censor.
Who was it that was wrong?
Re: What is this QAnon thing, i hear you asking? (Score:3)
You should avoid using anything involving Jim Jeffries as evidence to support any claims on pretty much anything, since it is already well established that heâ(TM)s a liar and a fraud. He was already exposed for cutting up an interview he did with Avi Yemini to paint Avi as some horrible person and now he and Comedy Central parent company Viacom are being sued. The interview was secretly recorded by Avi and it clearly shows Jeffries had his version interview edited so that Aviâ(TM)s answers didn