Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks The Internet Politics

Facebook Bans QAnon Across Its Platforms (nbcnews.com) 302

AmiMoJo shares a report from NBC News: Facebook said Tuesday that it is banning all QAnon accounts from its platforms, a significant escalation over its previous actions and one of the broadest rules the social media giant has put in place in its history. Facebook said the change is an update on the policy it created in August that initially only removed accounts related to the QAnon conspiracy theory that discussed violence, which resulted in the termination of 1,500 pages, groups and profiles.

A company spokesperson said the enforcement, which started Tuesday, will "bring to parity what we've been doing on other pieces of policy with regard to militarized social movements," such as militia and terror groups that repeatedly call for violence. "Starting today, we will remove Facebook Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts for representing QAnon. We're starting to enforce this updated policy today and are removing content accordingly, but this work will take time and will continue in the coming days and weeks," Facebook wrote in a press release. "Our Dangerous Organizations Operations team will continue to enforce this policy and proactively detect content for removal instead of relying on user reports."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Bans QAnon Across Its Platforms

Comments Filter:
  • About time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ambassador Kosh ( 18352 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @05:02AM (#60580350)

    This group should have been shut down a long time ago. At least Facebook is finally doing something useful on this.

    • Re: About time (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Evtim ( 1022085 )

      And they'd achieve precisely nothing....

      • Re: About time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @06:52AM (#60580546)

        False. If anything it has become clear in the past 10 year that the ease of which information is disseminated has been a large contributor to the expansion of this fuckwittery. If we can ban them from everywhere popular and put them back to circle jerking in their own chan board, or leaflet dropping, or newspaper subscription we'd have done a good job in relegating these nutjobs to their status of 20 years ago: a curious niche to be mocked.

        At the very least I won't have to hear my mother repeat their incorrect bullshit. The less we can expose weak minds to bullshit the better. People don't actively go out of their way to seek this shit out until they are committed.

      • Re: About time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @07:56AM (#60580664)
        Some of the more hardcore incorrigible idiots will sleaze off to somewhere else to carry on their echo chamber insanity but the remainder will drift away and new membership to this stupid club will be severely diminished.

        So yeah it will achieve something, certainly more than allowing this shit to run rampant.

    • QAnon is the dumbest shit I have seen in a long while. It's almost as if it is done deceptively to wage a war of an over-inflated ideology for people with anosognosia.

      • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @06:36AM (#60580516) Journal

        It's an enabling fascist apocalyptic death cult for people with fascist and apocalyptic ideas and beliefs... and other mental issues.
        As such, clashing with reality and demanding that reality is wrong somehow - is its core feature.
        Much like how the flat Earth believers see the world.

        Dan Olson (Folding Ideas) has a good video essay on that.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        • Except the exact opposite. You could describe them as believing that there is a "fascist apocalyptic death cult" in existence that seeks to dominate the world, but QAnons see themselves as being dedicated to opposing and exposing it, not being it. I have had the misfortune to have been exposed to more than enough of it to know that your description is diametrically opposed to the reality.
    • This group should have been shut down a long time ago. At least Facebook is finally doing something useful on this.

      Why? The best they can do is publish all the people who participate. Same for 5G.

      Good list of people who are so mindbogglingly dumb that they cannot be trusted with a job.

  • Censorship? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by simlox ( 6576120 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @05:10AM (#60580360)
    I know, Facebook is a private company and can do what they want. But the right wing will still see it as a suppression of free speech and therefore create a story of martyrdom and lefties suppressing them. In my opinion extreme views shall be left out there in the open to be argued against, not hidden in closed foras. It must be concluded that social networks aren't after all a benefit for free speech. It doesn't create a forum where extremes can be countered by good arguments, but only a echo chamber where extreme views get amplified.
    • Yup (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Viol8 ( 599362 )

      It is censorship pure and simple. Its one thing to ban hate groups who threaten violence against people, its quite another to ban a group because they have silly beliefs. If thats the criteria then most world religions should also be banned too. A man rose from the dead and saved the world? Seriously?

      This is the problem with the left leaning metro liberals who are the majority in old and new media - they only believe in free speech if its speech they agree with.

      • Re:Yup (Score:5, Informative)

        by Knightman ( 142928 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @05:44AM (#60580416)

        > It is censorship pure and simple
        No, it's not. Their platform, their rules. It would be censorship if the government decided what speech is allowed/disallowed.

        > This is the problem with the left leaning metro liberals who are the majority in old and new media
        Problem? What problem? Perhaps ask yourself WHY a large percentage of the media is liberal (and they are only left leaning viewed from the perspective of a US conservative) in one way or another?

        > they only believe in free speech if its speech they agree with.
        Seems they are exercising their right to free speech then. Free speech doesn't mean the right to be heard. No one is entitled to use a platform they don't own.

        • In your theoretical universe, the existence of "freedom of speech" is defined fully and solely on whether the GOVERNMENT takes actions to repress speech. Let's define this as the "Government-Freedom" universe.

          This is opposed to a universe where freedom of speech is defined based on the actions of governmental and non-governmental powers. Let's call this the "All-Freedom" universe.

          In the GOVERNMENT-FREEDOM universe, you could have people killed in the street for criticizing the local overlord, and whether th

          • Have you considered that the all-freedom universe would require the government to take control of all private means of communication to ensure that censorship is not taking place? It could get even more messy and ridiculous if it extends to things like boycotts. Speaking of scope creep, I don't know how murder got into a discussion about speech, obviously murder isn't speech.

          • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

            In your theoretical universe, the existence of "freedom of speech" is defined fully and solely on whether the GOVERNMENT takes actions to repress speech. Let's define this as the "Government-Freedom" universe.

            This is opposed to a universe where freedom of speech is defined based on the actions of governmental and non-governmental powers. Let's call this the "All-Freedom" universe.

            In the GOVERNMENT-FREEDOM universe, you could have people killed in the street for criticizing the local overlord, and whether the killed people had "zero free speech" or "completely full free speech" depended solely and exclusively on a highly academic discussion about whether the local drug overlord or gang leader should be defined as a "government" or not. You could have a pile of protester bodies in the street, and a bunch of academics would argue whether the dead had FULL or ZERO freedom of speech based on citing various definitions of "government".

            The "academics" can argue all they like about "FULL or ZERO freedom of speech" the "local overlord" would still be facing criminal charges for murder. I'm not sure how your example even really deals with free speech other than the forced way you tried to add it in.

            In the ALL-FREEDOM universe, none of this would take place - the degree of freedom of speech would be independent of who did the killing, would not flip between zero and hundred based on political recognition, and would align with the Press Freedom definition.

            Again it doesn't really matter if you are in an "ALL-FREEDOM universe" or a "GOVERNMENT-FREEDOM" universe the matter would come down to murder not whether the person was exercising free speech.

            To me, the GOVERNMENT-FREEDOM definition seems insane and antihuman, probably by the same personality type to organize show trials in the Soviet Union. Knowing that there's people supporting the GOVERNMENT-FREEDOM definition makes me want to buy a gun, and prepare myself mentally that I may have to use it against people in my lifetime.

            Not even sure what this rant has to do with free speec

        • But it if its a public forum then its censorship regardless of how its owned and funded.

      • > This is the problem with the left leaning metro liberals who are the majority in old and new media - they only believe in free speech if its speech they agree with.

        "Woke Supremacy" may be the term you're looking for.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Why does it have to be Facebook? What is wrong with Gab, Parler, Voat, Mastodon and all the others? Why is it not enough that there are websites which cater to QAnon, why does every website have to give up control over content?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

        If thats the criteria then most world religions should also be banned too.

        That's not such a bad suggestion. The indoctrination of religion has done more damage in this world than Qanon has so far. So let's censor away.

        The world is full of weak and easily influenced minds. Maybe we should help protect them rather than just feed them to an endless array of bullshit.

        they only believe in free speech if its speech they agree with.

        Not quite. They only believe in speech that they can't get away with censoring. Banning a conspiracy nutbag group is more palatable to the general populace than pointing out that their skydaddy isn't real.

      • It is censorship pure and simple. Its one thing to ban hate groups who threaten violence against people, its quite another to ban a group because they have silly beliefs. If thats the criteria then most world religions should also be banned too. A man rose from the dead and saved the world? Seriously?

        It's almost as if you're unaware that a thing called "separation of church and state" was written into the constitution as a special clause.

        • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

          Its almost as if you're unaware that facebook is international and the US constitution doesn't apply beyond the US borders.

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      I know, Facebook is a private company and can do what they want.

      No, Facebook has been public since 2012. But WTF does that have to do with their legal and moral obligations?
      I keep hear that sentiment - from Americans, to be honest - and it puzzles me. Only the government should be held accountable to a social contract?!
      Private citizens cannot always do "what they want". We as a society create rules for the common good.
      What exactly is the thinking here?

    • one group with an agenda bans another ground with an agenda that the first group doesn't like, from using the first group's platform to further the second group's agenda goals. what'd you expect really.

      the key question is: is Twitter/Facebook a kind of modern town hall? (in my opinion, they are.)

      if yes - they need to be regulated in regards to freeze peach etc.
      if not - then perhaps there should be a public alternative - which is not even that expensive to create and run these days, if done properly and not

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

      But the right wing will still see it as a suppression of free speech and therefore create a story of martyrdom and lefties suppressing them.

      That stopped working a while ago. We've been hearing right wing complaints of censorship for so long that a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" effect has kicked in. Flooding social media with cries that you're being censored only works for a little while. The act got old.

      Why is it that the loudest voices complain the most that they can't be heard?

  • by Anonymouse Cowtard ( 6211666 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @05:15AM (#60580368) Homepage
    ... someone throws popcorn. Just get out and vote. Doesn't matter who for. Don't let the RWNJs suppress the vote.
    • > Just get out and vote. Doesn't matter who for.

      Gives you a feeling of control, doesn't it?

      • Gives you a feeling of control, doesn't it?

        No. No it does not. Not while the electoral college exists. I'll vote anyway (just got my mail-in ballots yesterday) but it still gives me a feeling of futility.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @05:25AM (#60580384)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gacattac ( 7156519 )

      Pizza parlor manager James Alefantis was ranked as one of the top 50 most powerful people in Washington DC by GQ magazine: https://www.washingtontimes.co... [washingtontimes.com]

      James Alefantis' instagram page contained sexual language directed at infants and toddlers, like calling a baby a "HOTARD" (combination of "ho" and "tard"), and describing a guy carrying a baby as a "chickenlover" (Google definition: "An adult male homosexual sexually attracted to underage males.").

      He then set his instagram page to private, but the post

    • Plausibility is not the standard. In fact, every great troll has plausibility in common. If you want to get people riding your crazy train, it has to look like it's going somewhere.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @09:05AM (#60580960)

      Said that they never saw a single working class guy.

      Well yes. Working class guys just have to molest children the old fashioned way rather than having them couriered to their house.

      Don't pretend that this is some rich = evil, working class = pure bullshit. Pedophiles do not have some magical arbitrary income threshold, and while your friend may be involved specifically in bringing down some of the big dicks, there are plenty of smaller ones to go around. They just often get caught by local police rather than a coordinated national effort. Both myself and my wife worked with people (who seemed perfectly normal) who are now doing hard time. One was a school teacher caught diddling a student, the other an operator at a refinery who was dumb enough to use a work computer to download copious amounts of child pornography.

      People are horrible. Not rich, not poor, not black, not white, not religious, not atheists, but people of all possible descriptions.

  • QANON is a bunch of conspiracy theory goofballs and FB is afraid of them?

    FB's response speaks more about the insecurities of FB than anything else.

    • Facebook isn't concerned about conspiracy theory goofballs, they're concerned about being regulated for giving voice to conspiracy theory goofballs.
      • Facebook isn't concerned about conspiracy theory goofballs, they're concerned about being regulated for giving voice to conspiracy theory goofballs.

        Yup. It's Zuckerberg's standard token gesture so that when he gets hauled before Congress yet again in two weeks time he can say "what are you complaining about, we've already taken action". Lather, rinse, repeat.

    • Who has ever said Facebook is a free speech platform? I mean I've heard it called a lot of things, but I've never heard them or anyone else claim that they openly support free speech.

      I have heard that they support political speech, but that's something different.

      We don't really need the world's weakest minds exposed to endless conspiracies. True free speech isn't all that it's cracked up to be. I know that thought freaks out Americans, but true Free Speech is a rarity even in the western world, and most of

    • QANON is a bunch of conspiracy theory goofballs and FB is afraid of them?

      If I kick some Q-dickweeds off my porch, it doesn't mean I'm afraid of them. It means I'm tired of hearing their shit, and don't want anyone to be confused as to whether I agree with it just because it's happening in my front yard.

      On the other hand, it is natural to fear a bunch of gun-toting racists who openly espouse violent solutions to imaginary problems.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @09:06AM (#60580966)

      QANON is a bunch of conspiracy theory goofballs and FB is afraid of them?

      If there's anything this shows it's that FB isn't afraid of them in the slightest, otherwise they'd have taken the opposite action. Not giving someone a platform from which to abuse your customers does not mean you're afraid of someone.

  • What's their motto again?

    Where one goes, the others all go - in this case to the Facebook trash bin.

  • by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @06:08AM (#60580460)

    Someday these folks will find out all these "conspiracy" theories have actually been generated by the U.S. government in an effort to track the mentally unstable. Someday these folks will disappear and we'll find out there are camps full of those who are too stupid to discern fact from fiction and this has been the most elaborate social engineering experiment ever.

    Next to the moon landings.

    • Someday these folks will find out all these "conspiracy" theories have actually been generated by the U.S. government in an effort to track the mentally unstable.

      Why bother? It's not like the USA has ever given any care or consideration to the mentally ill. At least beyond sending thoughts and prayers to their victim's families.

      • Plus it would mean the US government would have to suddenly stop treating homegrown far-right threats with kid gloves. The sad truth is that the hilarious sport of conservatrolling finally caused the disaster it was always risking when the nutjobs took a post and ran with it.

  • Does this apply to private and closed groups? To group chats and individuals? If not, then I see this as theatre.

    The ideas are already there. People already believe. They can create new groups and share related content without overtly mentioning the group by name, and I don’t trust FB to put a lot of energy into policing as long as they are not flagrant about it. After all, engagement leads to profit. Banning a type of engagement costs them money.
    • They can't spread their ideas anywhere near as quickly in private and closed groups, quarantining them into these is the goal.

    • Does this apply to private and closed groups? To group chats and individuals? If not, then I see this as theatre.

      This applies to accounts. It says so right in the fine summary: "[Facebook] is banning all QAnon accounts from its platforms". Which word did you find unclear?

      • It is a rhetorical device to raise your points in the form of a question. Is this really the first time you have seen this?
  • "Dangerous Organizations Operations team" heavily armed, in their flack vests and helmets hunched over their iPhones having a wine next to the pool.

    Failing around trying to protect the cause.
  • by dmpot ( 1708950 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @06:58AM (#60580556)

    Banning one brand and a few accounts will achieve nothing as the same crazy ideas will continue to spread under other innocently looking tags (such as Savethechildren). The real issue with FB and other social networks is that they create echo chambers where extreme views get amplified by algorithms, which are looking for messages that invoke more emotional response from users. So outrages claims and enunciation tend to spread very well, while impartial analysis of arguments tend to be ignored by algorithms.

    • Indeed. The problem is what do they ban? Another person has already posted here that in terms of damage done for falsifying information wouldn't it make more sense to ban religion itself? Qanon is an easy target. They aren't popular, their name is being dragged through the mud in the media, and Facebook can claim the side of virtue for banning them right now.

      That's not the same as banning something more general. You start banning things people don't know about then you just start looking like an evil censor

  • Ah, the smell of blanket bans in the morning....

    The precursor of social media, that pretty much killed itself.

  • ...let me get that barn door for you.

  • by minogully ( 1855264 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @08:57AM (#60580914) Journal
    Education. -- The general population are too easily fooled by arguments that contain logical fallacies. And are too easily swayed by their own cognitive biases. To top it off, cognitive biases like the backfire effect cause them to dig in deeper once they've been "convinced" so it is near impossible to undo the damage done.

    So, there needs to be a core subject in schools, right along-side math and science, to teach our kids to be well versed in picking out these flaws in arguments. Not just a part of science, like it currently is - because it's not reaching everyone. That way, they'll see right through the bad arguments before they are convinced. Probably wouldn't cure this problem 100%, but it should make a big difference. Gradually, society in general will become better and better at this as generations of kids grow up.

    "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
  • by dohzer ( 867770 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:20AM (#60581248)

    I never got what the big kerfuffle was anyway. Why are Facebook so against Queer people staying Anonymous?

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.

Working...