this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
49 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37712 readers
254 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sadly, I suspect this is to protect adults on the network...
I mean, that would be kinda crazy, and I also don't think it would do any good to try and filter them. Like, you've got conspiracy-driven right wingers under your domain - no matter what way you spin it, you're dealing with shitty people. You're either going to bring them to a fever pitch in an argument over you blocking their internet access, or you're going to give them access and have to deal with them perpetuating their harmful views to you and all around them.
If you're at that point, better to consider whether or not you really want those people in your lives.
If you're in a situation where you can't cut those people off, what do you expect to achieve other than a different form of conflict by inhibiting their internet access? If you're going to be quiet about doing it and hope they don't understand, is it really healthy to be pulling those strings and manipulating like that? Hell, I'm not even sure it would be ethical, I feel like that kind of manipulation would be really shitty to do, even to shitty people and their shitty views.
EDIT: I'm of course assuming the adults need "protection" because there's no path to just, like, discussing things healthily. If there's a healthy way to discuss... that should really be the preference.
Easily conned elderly parents with poor internet savvy are a thing. They get manipulated out of their life savings too often. Keeping them from being linked to conspiracy sites they otherwise may not encounter on purpose probably isn’t a bad thing.
Just an example.
OK, I guess that's a valid edge case. Still, I'd be wary of how that would really work out - if they were to become aware that you were filtering the internet, I would suspect that could lead to some really bad conflict.
Though, for the very elderly, yeah they probably wouldn't notice. There's some nuance there I didn't think about.
Well, if they’re of the mindset that they want to visit websites like that and are mad about it, there’s probably drama going on no matter what.
But if they’re just confused and wondering why you’re doing it, probably sitting down with them and a curated list of Jim Browning’s YouTube channel on scammers would be a good step.
yeah, OK, I didn't realize QAnon had outright financial scams out of it. Wow.
(Found this research on one particular scam - helps put it into perspective. Linking for anyone else who might be unaware)
Oh shit yeah, with the current grassroots environment everyone and their mother has a donation page up for themselves or a cause.
Also makes it really easy for people who don’t care about anything qanon to inject their own scams in, because requesting money for incomprehensible bullshit reasons blends right in.
Mm dunno if you ever read the qanon casualties posts on Reddit. There's no discussing or reasoning with the people who have fallen prey to believing this shit. And if often leads to financial ruin. Blocking access to those sites is, for many, like taking the car keys away from an elderly parent who will only hurt themselves and others if you don't intervene.
Yeah, that's fair - but I suspect if it is anyone not super elderly, or just anyone not bumbling their way into it unintentionally, they may be more likely to be aware of your actions - and that's bound to create some very nasty conflict that you might be no better off if you get into.
As the other commenters pointed out though - for certain classes like the elderly, and maybe anyone else not-at-all technically savvy, it might make sense. I'm sorta responding assuming intent of the person to get to QAnon, and assuming they might know enough to find they can access it on other networks but not home.
I don't think I have an iron in this fire, but I do think that filtering some crap out of a gullible person's Internet feed is way kinder and way healthier than cutting them out of your life completely.
Yeah, another commenter made the point of very elderly people, which admittedly I might not have the best perspective on needing to handle. They would probably not notice, and it would probably not create any real issues.
My reaction was more if you tried to do this to a normal, younger to middle aged person - where I would suspect if the filtering were to come to light, it could create some very nasty conflict. But also in that case I'd suspect anyone trying to reach QAnon material is more likely intentionally trying to get to it, versus some 80-something who might have one Q moron in their Facebook feed that sends them somewhere no one ought to go.
Regarding your third paragraph, it's been shown (anecdotally at least) that blocking access to these kinds of sites and fox news does a lot in bringing older, easily manipulated people out of the q anon rabbit hole. It's difficult at first, but with nothing feeding the conspiracy, they go back to normal eventually.
If that’s the case foxnews would like cut out most of the challenge. I’m not old enough to have adult children yet but I still have a hard time grasping news channels are entertainment venues.
News used to be actual news done by reporters. It had credibility and a degree of respect. This shift has been near impossible for my parents generation