Global network controlled by erratic billionaire Qracks down on Qanon Qranks Facebook has followed Twitter and decided that QAnon’s Qnonsense represents sufficient risk that it should be turfed out. Or at least some of it. “Today we are taking action against Facebook Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts tied to offline anarchist groups that support violent acts amidst protests, US-based militia …
It’s notable that the people who are stupid enough to believe this rubbish are also the same people who are stupid enough to vote for, and enable, the likes of Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, and believe in nationistic tosh like Brexit.
How did we let these cranks ruin our countries?
How did we let these cranks ruin our countries?
Democracy. The same way the cranks voted to let empire-building politicians try to create another centrally-controlled European empire, and the same way we let woke millenial cranks redefine our language.
Defintion of crank: /kraŋk/ - someone who doesn't agree with me, and I know I'm right.
> The same way the cranks voted to let empire-building politicians try to create another centrally-controlled European empire
EU military budget (20188): €11.3bn EU – parliament briefing: security and defence with 6 ongoing military missions/operations
US military budget (2019): $732.0bn – that's nearly ¾ of a trillion dollars: list of countries by military expenditures with the US operating in “40 percent of the world’s nations”
You tell me, which looks like a centrally-controlled empire to you? Quit pretending the EU is something it is not. EU member states do have a large combined defence budget but those are sovereign nations which act in their own interests and are not subservient to the EU. It's funny how the EU is both evil and draconian yet let Britain (it's second wealthiest contributor and arguably it's largest military power) leave. It's funny how Germany is building Nord Stream II over the objections of the US and its EU neighbours. There are many such examples. Subsidiarity is an actual EU principle designed to counteract the forces of centralisation. I get it, you need a bête noire (apologies for inflicting a bit of French on you there) and you've decided that the EU is to blame for all your woes but any sane person who looks at reality semi-objectively can see the EU is not the anti-democratic imperialist cabal you make it out to be. Sorry, your troubles are mostly all self-inflicted but that would mean you'd have to engage in a bit of self-reflection and soul-searching and we can't be having that now, can we?
Post under your real name next time you xenophobic jingoistic coward.
Note, I am not the above AC.
The EU did not "let the UK leave", it did everything it could to prevent that outcome - short of making actual concessions, of course. But once the British public had reaffirmed its referendum vote with a decisive election outcome, what more could it do?
We saw the true face of the EU in its punitive treatment of Greece and Spain, and to a lesser extent Italy, after the financial crash. That was way more gratuitous than the Tories' idiotic "austerity" programme in UK, and did harm far beyond the victim countries (remember the gilets jaunes?) Spain, for instance, last year only just managed to drag its youth unemployment down to around 30% - after hovering around 40% or more for most of a decade.
I still think that if the pandemic hadn't rewritten the entire book of rules this year, we'd by now be watching the EU tear itself apart over its diminished budget - but every government has gratefully seized on covid-19 as an excuse to blow the budget into the stratosphere, thus allowing them to put off that fight. (Mind, I'm not saying they're wrong to do that - only that it was an amazing stroke of luck.)
As for "post under your real name", that's rich coming from "Poncey McPonceface".
"The EU did not "let the UK leave", it did everything it could to prevent that outcome "
You mean they wouldn't let the UK out without a border or paying the money they owe? So, they were being sensible then? Also, Greece would have been a lot worse off if the EU hadn't stepped in as they haven't controlled their own inflation in decades. They also have HUGE amounts of corruption throughout their country and waste money everywhere. You can't blame the EU for trying to reel them in.
Similar in Spain. If they are going to pin all their hopes on Tourism while selling all the good houses to foreigners, where do they expect to get money from? Don't blame the EU for nations making bad decisions. Same as trying to blame the EU for France not following the EU's advice, leading to the gilets jaunes movement.
Trying to blame the EU for nationalist idiots burning their own countries is beyond stupid.
You tell me, which looks like a centrally-controlled empire to you?
Interesting that you choose to look at it in military terms, which is actually the least important part. The US is a federal republic, which is what many EU politicians would like to see in Europe, but although the US is happy to interfere in other countries it rarely shows much interest in expanding beyond its current borders, indeed building walls seems more of a theme these days. The EU, on the other hand, is steadily determined to expand, while moving inexorably from a comonwealth-style partnership of neighbours to a unified political and monetary bloc.
you need a bête noire (apologies for inflicting a bit of French on you there)
No apology needed, I'm a fluent French speaker having lived in France for many years. Unlike many in the UK I have direct and personal experience of just how bad EU protectionalism and paternalism is, from living in its heart.
let Britain (it's second wealthiest contributor and arguably it's largest military power) leave
Let it leave? The EU does everything it can to prevent countries leaving. When it was created by the Maastricht treaty in 1993, until the Lisbon treaty was agreed in 2007, there was no way for any country to legally leave the EU. It's only thanks to euro-sceptic countries like the UK and Denmark that the possibility of leaving even exists, thanks to the addition of Article 50 by the Lisbon treaty.
Post under your real name next time you xenophobic jingoistic coward.
Et tu, Poncey.
It's interesting that any time such discussions appear in El Reg comments, the anti-EU commenters are willing to agree that the EU has it's good and bad points, but will argue the very nature of its structure leads to economic and political mediocrity, stagnation & eventual instability. The pro-EU crowd rarely gets much beyond "The EU is wonderful, and everyone who disagrees is a xenophobic/racist idiot".
It doesn't lead to much in the way of good intellectual debate.
Many are not really ‘cranks’ but even worse ‘concerned citizens‘. Take a look at this article in The Alantic for example.
That's Shadow Banning. The message is pushed into the shadows so is only seen by people who already know it's there. The message poster is unaware this has been done as they still see their message. It is playing dirty and gives the green light to the opposition to play by these rules. Facebook threw the first punch.
Qannon readers are also Trump supporters. These sorts of groups were very important in getting Trump elected in 2016 and their role is important in 2020 then blocking them is election interference. Basically Facebook say can't get them for breaking the actual rules so they are doing so by calling them 'harmful'. Really they think it would be harmful if Trump gets re-elected so they are doing their part to oppose that. It's illegal.
Mandatory XKCD.
If I create a website with a message board, I am completely allowed to decide in any way I want which messages to remove and which to keep. I can ban people, filter opinions, prevent access from countries. Users in turn have the choice whether to use my site or not. If Facebook was owned and operated by the government, that would be illegal. However, it is not.
So if there was a "NAMBLA members for Trump" group on Facebook would that be "election interference" if it got banned?
QAnon groups serve no positive purpose, and plenty of negative ones. There are untold numbers of groups for Trump voters to congregate that don't spread lies about celebrities, and random small businesses.
Anyway, the shadow banning doesn't affect people who are already in the group, they can keep discussing Trump and their crazy theories. The difference is that their posts won't show up in the feeds of their friends, or have the group recommended to others, so it won't grow. If people not in the group want to talk Trump, they will have an easy time finding such a group and as a bonus it won't be one that wastes their time with a lot of nonsense.
Literally NONE of it has turned out to be true. But like the "end of the world" cults, they keep changing the targets and re-interpreting things after previous predictions fail to claim past successes. And you are dumb enough to believe it.
The two major tenants of QAnon are obvious bullshit:
1) that powerful people have a sex abuse ring using code names like 'pizza', and do it in nondescript basements of random small businesses. Given that Epstein did his thing out in the open with no code names and on his private island, at people's mansions etc. there is clearly no need for codenames or dirty cellars for the rich and powerful to do terrible things without hiding it from anyone.
2) That Trump is the white knight to stop it all. This is even more stupid, given that Trump was buddies with Epstein for well over a decade and knew everything he was up to - and even commented on it publicly. The fact he said he "wishes her [Maxwell] well" when any reasonable person would hope she spends the rest of her life in prison shows how scared he is she will spill what she knows about his activities at Epstein's parties in the 90s. And if Epstein was murdered as seems pretty likely, Trump is by far the leading suspect behind it since the prison where it happened was under control of his administration.
“Today we are taking action against Facebook Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts tied to offline anarchist groups that support violent acts amidst protests, US-based militia organizations and QAnon”
Aha, now I see! So it were militia organizations and QAnon followers who rioted, looted and set on fire American cities for weeks! Would never suspect it from documentary footage!
People only ever talk about the protests and the damage caused, without even mentioning the events that caused it - murder without consequence by the police.The police were at the core of a lot of the trouble. It's an old tactic; Police go in hard and brutal until they provoke anger and violence that they then film and broadcast on MSM and say "Look! See what we are up against!" The Maggies Farm tactic - antagonise them then fine them when they slam the door. From documentary I have seen it's the thugs in uniform and armour who were the worst of the gangs on the street. All those moms going out to form a protective wall around their children was a fabulous tactic; the sight of police beating mom and shooting her with less lethal bullets would have made for extremely poor propaganda.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
