Twitter Takedown Targets QAnon Accounts(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Twitter Takedown Targets QAnon Accounts
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/technology/twitter-bans-qanon-accounts.html
30 comments
Are conspiracy theories a crime?
Should they be censured? This seems short-sighted. How much power should corporate social media giants assume?
> Should they be censured?
Well, look at what happened with Alex Jones and his Sandy Hook theories.
If they cause measurable harm to others, then yes media companies have a responsibility censure people on their platforms who spread conspiracy theories.
Well, look at what happened with Alex Jones and his Sandy Hook theories.
If they cause measurable harm to others, then yes media companies have a responsibility censure people on their platforms who spread conspiracy theories.
But who is keeping score? You can't censure Alex Jones and QAnon, then give the MSM outlets that pushed the Steele dossier a free pass. They caused measurable harm to an entire nation. Most of QAnon is innocuous, even if conspiratorial. I'd argue Q is far less dangerous than a national media outlet that knowingly pushes dangerous narratives.
A private, for-profit social media service can decide which customers they want business from and which customers they don't want business from. It's one of the main rights you have as the operator of a business: the right to refuse service.
The conspiracy theorist's right to free speech doesn't mean Twitter is obligated to carry their speech, either.
If you dislike this your best available remedies are 1) find a service who wants your business, or if none such exists, 2) start your own social media service, or to "solve" the problem for good, 3) engineer the existence of government-operated social media services such that law mandates all citizens have unfettered free speech on the service
The conspiracy theorist's right to free speech doesn't mean Twitter is obligated to carry their speech, either.
If you dislike this your best available remedies are 1) find a service who wants your business, or if none such exists, 2) start your own social media service, or to "solve" the problem for good, 3) engineer the existence of government-operated social media services such that law mandates all citizens have unfettered free speech on the service
#3 sounds a bit scary but I think #2 is what the founders of Parler [1] are trying to do.
1. https://parler.com/
1. https://parler.com/
[deleted]
Stop government officials from making policies on twitter and we will consider twitter private company. Still, no one thinks there should be additional regulation on something like twitter? The past account hack just made me think it should be scrutinized more.
Twitter has the freedom to allow public officials to use the service for either personal or professional purposes. Many government agencies in many countries use Twitter to communicate with citizens via the service, similar to how they use Facebook or e-mail.
As far as President Trump goes, Twitter has had to make policy exceptions in order to ensure his continued access to the service, AND legal proceedings have also resulted in rulings that govern his specific use of the service (for example, he's technically not allowed to block citizens.) As such it's not especially useful to look at Trump's experience on Twitter and try to generalize it to anyone else.
As far as President Trump goes, Twitter has had to make policy exceptions in order to ensure his continued access to the service, AND legal proceedings have also resulted in rulings that govern his specific use of the service (for example, he's technically not allowed to block citizens.) As such it's not especially useful to look at Trump's experience on Twitter and try to generalize it to anyone else.
I am not saying they shouldn't ban accounts or allow free speechers. But I don't buy they should be allowed to do whatever they want because they are private company. If the past hack resulted in market manipulation or a bigger shit show, should twitter be liable for that?
> Over several weeks, Twitter has removed 7,000 accounts that posted QAnon material, a company spokeswoman said. The accounts had been increasingly active, and had been involved in coordinated harassment campaigns on Twitter or tried to evade a previous suspension by setting up new accounts after an old account was deleted.
Maybe it's not just freedom lovers making use of their God-given right to free expression, or whatever.
They are going further than this on also removing many accounts from search, but given the many bad apples, I am unsurprised they're hiding the bunch.
Maybe it's not just freedom lovers making use of their God-given right to free expression, or whatever.
They are going further than this on also removing many accounts from search, but given the many bad apples, I am unsurprised they're hiding the bunch.
One might argue, in the US anyway, that free speech has explicit limits when harming the public: yelling "fire" in a theater is the classic example.
Pushing an agenda of literal chaos and death through theories like "it's only the flu" or "mask = oppression" is getting actual people killed, right now, by the thousands. Of course the devil is always in the details and the fuzzy lines.
Pushing an agenda of literal chaos and death through theories like "it's only the flu" or "mask = oppression" is getting actual people killed, right now, by the thousands. Of course the devil is always in the details and the fuzzy lines.
Yelling "fire" in a theater is a classic misexample.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
Good article. It seems the 1969 test disallowed speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Encouraging people to violate mask orders would fit this definition.
Encouraging people to violate mask orders would fit this definition.
Perhaps, if the speaker incited a crowd to remove their masks at a protest in a municipality in which not wearing a mask was illegal.
Simply advocating that people violate mask orders doesn't pass the imminence test.
Simply advocating that people violate mask orders doesn't pass the imminence test.
How would this statement apply to organizing mass protests during a pandemic? Would you be for or against censoring that type of speech?
Turns out that no meaningful ideas for improving our society can come from a culture of doxxing, brandishing weapons in public, and targeting public figures for vigilante justice. It is good for Twitter to deplatform Q's followers.
I think that this is a really meaningful step. The ability to find community around a conspiracy theory or a wildly unacceptable belief on a mainstream site reinforces that it is valid. If high schoolers discovering QAnon for the first time have to log into a dumpy looking twitter clone, they'll know that they have turned off the highway onto a sketchy back road of the internet.
> they'll know that they have turned off the highway onto a sketchy back road of the internet
...and that just makes it seem cooler and more rebellious.
...and that just makes it seem cooler and more rebellious.
I sympathize with the argument that social platforms are private and can do business (or not) with whomever they please, the counter argument is that these platforms are "Radical Monopolies" (https://wikitia.com/wiki/Radical_Monopoly) apropos of a recent HN thread on Ivan Illich, where the analogy for the effect of being kicked off a platform is not like Ford declining to sell you a car where you can just go get another one, but rather, cancelling your license in Los Angeles.
It's not 1:1, but if you lose your drivers license in a city like LA or non-coastal state, your ability to participate in society (find work, etc) and your social franchise in society is diminished because the automobile has a radical monopoly in American cities.
Twitter and social platforms like Facebook have definitely become radical monopolies for reputation, where if you have no social media presence, you are excluded socially. (Regarding Facebook, try find a date without an instagram page.) Facebook execs even commented publicly early on that people without Facebook accounts should be treated as suspicious.
That QAnon types are so ridiculous and indefensible is what makes them a great example for discussing how and whether to protect minority views. Twitter does have the right to do what they want, and I'm optimistic that these purges will create demand for the divergent platforms that will replace this first generation of them, but to say this right is simple and natural ignores precedents of radical monopolies that were enabled and sustained by political protection, which seems naive. The non-libertarian case for limiting social platforms ability to purge can be summed up in president Obama's thoughts,when he said, "you didn't build that."
Arguably, social platforms that rely on network effects to become radical monopolies didn't "build that," either.
It's not 1:1, but if you lose your drivers license in a city like LA or non-coastal state, your ability to participate in society (find work, etc) and your social franchise in society is diminished because the automobile has a radical monopoly in American cities.
Twitter and social platforms like Facebook have definitely become radical monopolies for reputation, where if you have no social media presence, you are excluded socially. (Regarding Facebook, try find a date without an instagram page.) Facebook execs even commented publicly early on that people without Facebook accounts should be treated as suspicious.
That QAnon types are so ridiculous and indefensible is what makes them a great example for discussing how and whether to protect minority views. Twitter does have the right to do what they want, and I'm optimistic that these purges will create demand for the divergent platforms that will replace this first generation of them, but to say this right is simple and natural ignores precedents of radical monopolies that were enabled and sustained by political protection, which seems naive. The non-libertarian case for limiting social platforms ability to purge can be summed up in president Obama's thoughts,when he said, "you didn't build that."
Arguably, social platforms that rely on network effects to become radical monopolies didn't "build that," either.
This will only serve to enfore QAnon fans belief that they're being censored, and that there's a huge conspiracy against them.
Mainstream progressives have very similar conspiracy theories. For example they believe that tens of thousands of women are shipped around the world for each Super Bowl to serve as prostitutes. See the NY Times article debunking this popular myth held by mainstream democrats: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/opinion/the-super-bowl-of...
Qanon, of course, pushes ideas that are batshit crazy. My point is more moderate people dress them up a bit and push the same concepts.
Qanon, of course, pushes ideas that are batshit crazy. My point is more moderate people dress them up a bit and push the same concepts.
What makes you say mainstream progressives? The article says it was brought up by a NJ republican representative, executed by republican governor, and supported by Cindy McCain. And it calls out response task forces in Superbowl cities Dallas, Indianapolis and New Orleans, which are in red states.
Never seen this particular conspiracy theory before. I think if it were actually a mainstream democrat or progressive theory you'd see it brought up pretty often given pro football's clashes with racial and social justice advocates in the last decade instead of one NYT op-ed from years ago.
If you look up the author of that op-ed piece, she's a lawyer and devoted anti-sex-trafficking advocate, so it is most logical to just view it as an op-ed representing her personal interests and point of view, not representative of The Times, or The Democrats, or The Mainstream.
If you look up the author of that op-ed piece, she's a lawyer and devoted anti-sex-trafficking advocate, so it is most logical to just view it as an op-ed representing her personal interests and point of view, not representative of The Times, or The Democrats, or The Mainstream.
Yeah, I would have heard that, I maintain ties with both Democrats and lefty progressives, which isn't always an easy task. Never seen that, even once.
>For example they believe that tens of thousands of women are shipped around the world for each Super Bowl to serve as prostitutes.
Absolutely no idea what you're even talking about.
Absolutely no idea what you're even talking about.
literally never heard of this one before.
I've heard it about the FIFA world cup, and as far as I know it's not been debunked (but of course the scale is not the same, the Super Bowl is huge but only in the USA).
Anyway comparing this to "some guy on 4chan is pretending to be a high ranking official with highly classified insider knowledge without offering a single proof" is just a stupid way of deflecting. It's not remotely on the same level.
QAnon is at the tier of flat-earth conspiracy theories, not Watergate. It's been debunked countless time, none of the predictions have come true and the official account has been caught multiple photoshoping pictures to make people believe he had access to the president himself. It all started with a LARPer on 4chan, the most trustworthy of online forums.
People believing that crap are either roleplaying or prefer to live in a made up world than face the truth, it's as simple as that. The problem as always is that a tiny minority of these people eventually become radicalized enough to actually try to act on this fantasy.
Anyway comparing this to "some guy on 4chan is pretending to be a high ranking official with highly classified insider knowledge without offering a single proof" is just a stupid way of deflecting. It's not remotely on the same level.
QAnon is at the tier of flat-earth conspiracy theories, not Watergate. It's been debunked countless time, none of the predictions have come true and the official account has been caught multiple photoshoping pictures to make people believe he had access to the president himself. It all started with a LARPer on 4chan, the most trustworthy of online forums.
People believing that crap are either roleplaying or prefer to live in a made up world than face the truth, it's as simple as that. The problem as always is that a tiny minority of these people eventually become radicalized enough to actually try to act on this fantasy.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23912455