Friend is now full on Trump-supporting, QAnon-believing conspiracy theorist

[Offskki]

I just can't believe it and I'm a bit gutted to be honest. Any advice on how to deal with this?

I wouldn't 'cancel' a friendship for this reason. Scepticism towards the world of politics, wealth and power is healthy IMO. Of course there are greedy, dishonest individuals among them, as in many other walks of life. I actually would rather talk to a misguided sceptic than someone who took everything at face value.

I was absolutely appalled with the storming of capitol hill by the thugs and criminals like most people, but I think it is questionable as to whether Mr Trump 'incited hatred and violence' when I looked at his twitter messages that day. I could not reach that conclusion. He spoke of marching not law breaking. In court I am not sure it would pass any threshold for hate speech, and this is the issue - no court in the land will get the chance to test the ruling made by twitter or facebook, as tech companies are a law to themselves.

And making someone a digital non person is significant in some industries and roles, and absolutely essential in others, and to give anyone a blanket ban without recourse or appeal is very worrying. Who is deciding who gets a voice and who doesn't? Someone behind a screen with their own agenda, and way too much power in my view.

This is not about Trump, he is just a useful example, this is about how much power our faceless tech companies have - and their lack of accountability.

@pointythings

I think there aren't many people on this thread who don't think that we need a more structured approach to managing who says what online, and that it shouldn't be up to tech companies. However, when you use Trump's ban as an example of what is 'concerning', you're shooting down that argument, because he should have been sanctioned online, and much much earlier. What happened at the Capitol last week shows how dangerous unhinged leaders can be online.

It also doesn't help if you say 'but extreme left national leaders do it too' but then fail to come up with any concrete example of that happening.

Its the only example to use because who else ca you away has been given a lifetime ban or had all social media ban them?

Its an example if you cant look past the person and look at this objectively like I've been saying that's on you.

Again I ask those who have been calling me a trump supporter is thag what you think of those ministers in Germany and France whove been voicing their concerns using trump as their example?

Do you call the news reporter who also voiced the say a trump supporter?

Mrs Merkel has publicly stated she does not in fact agree with the tech companies decision at all.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/11/germanys-merkel-condemns-twitters-ban-trumps-accou/

Certainly no one could accuse her of being a Trump supporter - but even she does not agree with this course of action.

It is a stain on free speech, that needs to be retracted and fast, not so we can enjoy more of Trumps twitter messages (I for one never read them anyway) but to stay in line with the principles of free speech in the west.

I am sure Russia and China will seize this as their own victory against the evils of democracy and the West.

@SnappedAndFartedInMaui Look after yourself there is a lot about the language used that can be very triggering (or "crazy-making"). Even people who havent been through abuse can find it difficult to be confronted with that sort of iron clad certainty. Plus, the current situation we are all in, the fear thats been swirling around for all of 2020 and the social isolation, is perfect for tipping people over, either into believing conspiracy theories or into depresssion, unhealthy thought patterns etc. But you are not evil, and Qanon are talking bullshit.

@cyclingmad ‘protesting too much’ comes to mind tbh

I am alarmed and concerned that tech has now become politicised in a way they never were before.

You've just noticed now, in January 2021, that tech is highly politicised? Tech has been politicised in this way for years.

Facebook actually had staff embedded in the Trump campaign in 2016, helping them push out microtargeted ads which wouldn't be seen by most vost voters or other observers. This allowed them to say completely contradictory things to different sets of voters without being challenged on it.

The Facebook staff sat in the Trump campaign office and gave them constant feedback on how the messages seemed to be going down, so that the Trump campaign could tweak them. Ir was called Project Alamo.

Twitter made a decision years ago to allow Trump to tweet things that they would have banned other people for. They've now decided to apply to him the rules they do to others.

And he's just one example. I know very well that people who watch other areas have seen huge involvement, and huge variability in what gets allowed to stand, by the tech companies.

Removing Twitter from a man with a press office in his own house is less impactful on his ability to be heard, than removing it from you and me.

But I'm glad to see people have finally noticed that Twitter and Facebook and the rest are now an important part of the political landscape and have enormous power.

It's a shame it's taken until now for some people to care.

perking I totally agree with your post, it was the case in other elections too. However at no point before have they made it so public. This is a change of direction, a far more brazen one in my view.

It is wide open to the abuse of power, because it is entirely unregulated.

The EU is arguing for more control over social media posting – not less!

From the article I linked above (my bolding):

Thierry Breton: Capitol Hill — the 9/11 moment of social media
www.politico.eu/article/thierry-breton-social-media-capitol-hill-riot/

The unprecedented reactions of online platforms in response to the riots have left us wondering: Why did they fail to prevent the fake news and hate speech leading to the attack on Wednesday in the first place? Regardless of whether silencing a standing president was the right thing to do, should that decision be in the hands of a tech company with no democratic legitimacy or oversight? Can these platforms still argue that they have no say over what their users are posting?

Last week’s insurrection marked the culminating point of years of hate speech, incitement to violence, disinformation and destabilization strategies that were allowed to spread without restraint over well-known social networks. The unrest in Washington is proof that a powerful yet unregulated digital space — reminiscent of the Wild West — has a profound impact on the very foundations of our modern democracies.

The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing. It is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.

These last few days have made it more obvious than ever that we cannot just stand by idly and rely on these platforms’ good will or artful interpretation of the law. We need to set the rules of the game and organize the digital space with clear rights, obligations and safeguards. We need to restore trust in the digital space. It is a matter of survival for our democracies in the 21st century.

Europe is the first continent in the world to initiate a comprehensive reform of our digital space through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act, both of which the European Commission tabled in December. They are both based on one simple yet powerful premise: What is illegal offline should also be illegal online .

I understand the EU's concern about the invasion of free speech and silencing figures they do not agree with. They may decide next week that they do not like bird watchers, what can the bird watchers do to stop themselves being banned? Nothing. I agree it is no way to run such a powerful and influential network. The lack of appeal process or regulations is the most concerning.

I think what they are really saying is you are either an open space free for all, or you become a regulated space that abides by laws.

They prefer the latter. I prefer the former.

Free speech is now at real risk. Law makers in the EU, China and Russia wishing to control the narrative tugging against the tech companies that want to decide who uses their space, and are slowly encroaching on those freedoms to their own ends and political agendas. Who is fighting for our voice?

This is NOT about Trump. He is just a very visual example.

cyclingmad it's easy to look up who has had permanent Twitter bans. A quick Google gave me this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions#List_of_notable_suspensions

So no, Trump is by no means the only example, only the latest and most high profile at present.

And I reiterate: The French and Germans want more control of what gets posted online, not a free-for-all. They are objecting (rightly) to the way Trump's ban has been enacted, not saying it should not have been enacted at all.

By the way, Trump really may have to answer in court for inciting a mob to intervene in the certification of the Electoral College votes in the Capitol, after lying to the mob that Mike Pence had the power to refuse to certify.

He also lied on Twitter many times claiming that he was the winner of the 2020 election. This was the reason that he fed to the mob, as to why they should act.

I doubt the fact that his total message was spread over a combination of Twitter, White House videos released to TV and speeches from a podium will save him.

Sally Bercow was found guilty of libel just for tweeting "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? innocent face" because of context. Different country, differ transgression, and I was actually surprised at the judgement. But it's clear that context matters.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/24/sally-bercow-tweet-libelled-lord-mcalpine

@cyclingmad

"... then ban those leaders who had invited genocide as well." I ask for the seventeenth time - who are you referring to here?

@PerkingFaintly thank you.

I'm confused as to why some posters are more upset about a fascist, racist, sexual harasser and accused rapist being blocked from social media

than

a social media company covertly acting in concert with a fascist, racist, sexual harasser and accused rapist to ensure his election.

"Free speech is now at real risk"

Yes, as it should be for all white supremacists, as per post World War Two Germany.

[quote youvegottenminuteslynn]@Foobydoo

I am no fan of Trump but there is something really off about what is happening at the moment

Genuinely not goady - what do you mean by this?

"What is happening at the moment" could cover anything happening anywhere in the world right now.

What are you referring to and what is off about it? If you can't specify then it does come off as pure rhetoric and nothing based in fact which is obviously troubling and unhelpful.

I'm open to hearing any ideas from anyone if there is a basis to a hypothesis.

I wouldn't usually be as pushy as to ask someone specifically but this is such an emotive, important debate that I think people should be asked to explain their opinion when stated as fact. [/quote]
I wrote that comment before reading the rest of the thread which has been both eye opening and informative.
I am not a fan of Trump and if I were a US citizen I would have voted for Biden. I felt a sense of relief when he won. Particularly because Boris was sucking up to him. However, there is just lots of weird stuff happening at the moment and I don't think we are being told everything. I have watched one of the Qanon videos and it was absolutely ridiculous but I do think the Clinton's have too much power. I suspect there is a lot we don't know about the Epstein/Prince Andrew stuff including the involvement of both The Clinton's and Trump.
I am not implying the Qanon stuff is true by the way just that something is off. The way that stuff like paedophilia is covered up to protect powerful people.
Then I am concerned about the slippery slope we seem to be going down with the erosion of our freedoms. Even Angela Merkel has spoken out about Trump and twitter. These platforms should not have this much power it is dangerous. Trump should be tried in a court of law for inciting violence not sent to some sort of social media/internet Coventry.

perking Absolutely - the correct way for Trump to be dealt with, if he has broken the law, is in the courts.
It is not for Twitter or facebook to set up a summons and execution without a fair trial or any opportunity to challenge the decision. Judge and Juror.

In a court one is allowed representation, to defend their position and to be heard. The Jury is there to ensure there is balance and fairness.
The law is applied to everyone in the land, and not just one person because they happen to be very vocal.

I welcome the court hearings, I do not welcome the moves made by Twitter et al to silence and censor. It is a grave error on their part, and is a slippery slope to a global police state run by a unknown, unaccountable cabal.

@Icanseegreenshoots

'In a court one is allowed representation, to defend their position and to be heard. The Jury is there to ensure there is balance and fairness.
The law is applied to everyone in the land, and not just one person because they happen to be very vocal.'

That's an interesting summary of the American justice system that would not be supported by any person knowledgable about how Amerikkka actually works.

No one has been censored ffs. Trump is welcome to walk into any news studio or office in the country and communicate his message.

Were you and @Foobydoo this upset about free speech and justice when Cambridge Analytica cooperated with Facebook to create a pro-Trump propaganda campaign in the lead up to 2016? Where facts and good people were undermined and slandered in order to ensure the election of a fascist?

You're showing your true colours now.

[quote SugarbabyMilly]@cyclingmad ‘protesting too much’ comes to mind tbh [/quote]
No I don't think I am, just pointing out the hypocrisy of some posters who continue to call me a Trump supporter but won't call Angela Merkel one or the news reporter one.

Even though my original post is what they are saying too.

Oh but thats okay cos its clear they were wrong to call me a Trump supporter and ive called them out on it and they don't even have the decency to admit they were wrong an apologise.

So no im not protesting much.

Fooby, I think you have completely accurately picked up the intent of the QAnon vids and the like. Thank you for your succinct summary: I think you've done a very good job of identifying and articulating it.

The point of QAnon and like conspiracy material is to induce unease and distrust, to detach people from their usual sources of finding out about the world, and to throw their usual healthy scepticism out of kilter by casting doubt on everything.

They don't have a real case to make that the US is going to declare war on China in 30 mins time, or that the Royal Family are lizard people. It's not about establishing this case, using facts, as we are used to; and therefore cannot be rebutted with fact. ("Look, US not currently at war with China!") It's about creating unease and distrust.

Sometimes this unease will be directed at something or someone in particular (Clintons, vaccines, you-name-it). Again, not by creating a factual case which would stand up in a court of law, in science, or tested it in any way. But by creating Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

FUD has been used a marketing tool by companies for decades, to discourage clients from buying their competitors' better products. It's ironic that Bill Gates has been one of the targets of the current Covid FUD, because IIRC Microsoft was big into using FUD to trash competitors! (Anyone remember the SCO debacle?)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt

Anyway, conspiracy vids are the FUD of the social and political world at the moment. They're absolutely supposed to make you feel like that; it's a very self-aware person who is able to articulate so clearly the effect experienced while watching them.

chookie I am not going to engage with you, you seem very determined to label everyone and everything a facist. Which is a tiny bit aggressive and scary.
I am not even based in the states and could not care less who is president, but I do care very much about free speech and the values of democracy!

@Icanseegreenshoots I've called Trump a fascist. No one else.

If calling your attention to the realities of violent white supremacy in the US makes me aggressive and scary, so be it.

If calling your attention to the ways in which many in the white community give zero fucks about free speech - until it affects a white nationalist fascist - makes me aggressive and scary, then so be it.

@PerkingFaintly thank you for your considered, knowledgable and patient responses. I'm too deep into hearing about the real affect of Trump and his allies on vulnerable communities in US (and increasingly here in Australia) to 'play nice' anymore. So thanks:)

@Icanseegreenshoots

chookie I am not going to engage with you, you seem very determined to label everyone and everything a facist. Which is a tiny bit aggressive and scary. I am not even based in the states and could not care less who is president, but I do care very much about free speech and the values of democracy!

Such a shame Donald Trump doesn't care about the values of democracy. Or free speech, unless it's for him and his.

Can't you see that when it comes to free speech, Trump isn't the hill to die on? If we had sensible regulation of what could and could not be posted on Twitter and the likes, he would still be banned for inciting violence. Give us examples of people who really should not have been banned and let's have a discussion. I have no doubt at all that there are many, on both side of the political divide.

Free speech is not the freedom to say whatever the hell you want - it comes with responsibilities, especially if you are as powerful as the President of the US.

I am sorry if this has already been posted, I have not been able to read the full thread. I don't have any answers but here are some interesting things I have read in the last week.

I saw this on twitter "This piece, by a games developer, on how the QAnon experience is built like a game - but one that MUST have had a LOT of money put into it - explains why so many people tried to storm the Capitol this week"

A Game Designer’s Analysis Of QAnon: When I saw QAnon, I knew exactly what it was and what it was doing. I had seen it before. I had almost built it before. It was gaming’s evil twin. A game that plays people.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9128133/How-Jodie-Kidds-brother-forefront-conspiracy-theorists-say-worlds-run-paedophiles.html

Very interesting links, CFSKate.