QAnon: Won't Somebody Think of the Storage Cabinets?

[idunnosomename]

Where we go wee we go two

[Dog Botherer]

QCunts must be in the throes of ecstasy at the passing of Ruth Gaydar Binsburg

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

For anyone interested in this growing cultural psychosis, the QAnon Anonymous podcast is actually quite excellent. (And not just dirtbag left meandering.) They also have UK correspondent who shows up occasionally.

[Dog Botherer]

For anyone interested in this growing cultural psychosis, the QAnon Anonymous podcast is actually quite excellent. (And not just dirtbag left meandering.) They also have UK correspondent who shows up occasionally.

Travis is very good and informative but Jake and Julian's shtick wears thin at times. it has been fascinating following the development of QAnon along with them though.

[Paul Calf]

Just to jump back to The Algorithm for a little, here is a decent example of how YouTube recommends videos based on the videos those types of people watch. I'm going to guess they've just setup accounts for these and watched tons of videos to set them up properly, some are a little strange (Sargon of Akkad in Liberals?!??!?) but it's good to illustrate how differently it work (and the little sneaky videos added in)
http://www.their.tube/

Stopped bothering here:

This persona is based on a person who had liberal, or leftist, political views

You can't be claiming to do political analysis and get this wrong.

[Retinend]

Just to jump back to The Algorithm for a little, here is a decent example of how YouTube recommends videos based on the videos those types of people watch. I'm going to guess they've just setup accounts for these and watched tons of videos to set them up properly, some are a little strange (Sargon of Akkad in Liberals?!??!?) but it's good to illustrate how differently it work (and the little sneaky videos added in)
http://www.their.tube/

Can't believe I missed this link. Thanks!

[Retinend]

Travis is very good and informative but Jake and Julian's shtick wears thin at times. it has been fascinating following the development of QAnon along with them though.

For me it's a subscription entirely in spite of the presenters, in whom I can hardly find a single redeeming quality. It's the "Howard Stern" school of presenting.

[kngen]

There's now a subreddit called QAnon Casualties which is a meeting place for people whose families or relationships have been destroyed by Q obsessed loved ones. It's pretty desolate reading.

Christ, you're not wrong. Genuine abuse victims being brushed off by Q-obsessed family members, because 'it's not like you were abducted or anything'. Not like the mole children or those trapped in Comet Ping Pong's non-existent basement.

[evilcommiedictator]

Stopped bothering here:

You can't be claiming to do political analysis and get this wrong.

Why are the personas made from individuals and not a group?
We stuck to simulating the Youtube persona of a few individuals we interviewed rather than sampling data from multiple people. We chose this method because it shows the nature of how personalised recommendations work more accurately

If you're bored, you can setup your own bot to see where it leads:

Is the project open sourced?
Yes it is. The different Youtube results are retrieved everyday using puppeteer (headless browser) running on node.js and displayed in the frontend built on React .

You can make your own persona with the open sourced code on Github

[Paul Calf]

I didn't see that. I might give that a pop when I have a spare minute.

[Paul Calf]

Ps: I was referring to the classic American habit of confusing 'liberal' with 'left wing', when liberal economic theory is entirely opposed to state intervention and liberal social policy is not common to all on the left.

[poo]

Dunno what this is

[Retinend]

Good point, but they didn't get anything "wrong"; they simply use the bastardized political language of "liberal" vs "conservative" as broad pools. I would, however, like to see the difference between a "liberal" and "leftist" (i.e. economic center vs economic left) in terms of YouTube recommendations: my hypothesis would be that there would little difference anyway.

[Paul Calf]

Hmm. But that's exactly why there's no room for left-economic thought in the US. You're liberal - supportive of individual rights and free markets, amd for laws that enforce these things or you're conservative - supportive of religious rights and maintenance of the family unit and social positions and hierarchies and for laws that enforce these things. In this dualism, there's no room for redistribution, collectivism or protection of the right to collective action.

[Retinend]

Yeah, it's a fact that the mainstream of politics dislikes those things.

My pet theory is that conservatives should use "liberal" in economic conversations and "conservative" in social policy matters, and centre left people should use "socialist" in economic conversations and "progressive" in social policy matters. The far left would then be freed up to call themselves "anti liberal" without confusing anyone. Also, people wouldn't mix up right wing economic positions with right wing social positions. Unfortunately the history of the word "socialism" has been semantically mixed up with the global communist project and "liberal" mixed up with social progressivism.  Yet the words in themselves suggest more specific, moderate positions (socializing the funding of institutions, and liberalizing markets, respectively) .

[dissolute ocelot]

A right-wing Australian politician and her husband have just been awarded £500,000 in a libel case win after being accused by conspiracy nuts of running a paedophile ring. QAnon can flourish in the USA where libel laws mean you can say basically anything about a public figure, but elsewhere a lot of QAnoners are going to be losing very large amounts of money. (And then probably shooting people.)

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

A right-wing Australian politician and her husband have just been awarded £500,000 in a libel case win after being accused by conspiracy nuts of running a paedophile ring. QAnon can flourish in the USA where libel laws mean you can say basically anything about a public figure, but elsewhere a lot of QAnoners are going to be losing very large amounts of money. (And then probably shooting people.)

You might be able to sue some of the most flagrant grifters, but it's a bizarre decentralized movement with millions of supporters. Good luck using libel laws to contain it.

Though somehow making Facebook, YouTube, etc liable would put an end to things quite quickly.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

It never ceases to amaze me how your conspiraloon types are always so distrustful of everyone and everything, and yet they become naive as anything when someone comes along claiming to tell them The Truth^TM.

"These doctors want us to wear masks. They must have some evil agenda!

This anonymous person on Twitter wants us to go out and shoot Democrats. Better get my gun, then."

[JesusAndYourBush]

It never ceases to amaze me how your conspiraloon types are always so distrustful of everyone and everything, and yet they become naive as anything when someone comes along claiming to tell them The Truth^TM.

"These doctors want us to wear masks. They must have some evil agenda!

This anonymous person on Twitter wants us to go out and shoot Democrats. Better get my gun, then."

Yeah it's weird.  They'll talk about distrusting "the MSM"[nb]The use of this phrase already sets off a red flag that the person might be a loon.[/nb] and yet they'll lap up without question the ravings of something like donttrustthenewworldorder.blogspot.com written by some spod sitting in his room in his underpants.

[C_Larence]

If one source tells you that you are the problem, and the other tells you that "others" are the problem, which would you rather believe?

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Well yes, it's a basic confidence trick. No great mystery. I just wonder if any of them ever question, even briefly, whether Q, Jones, Icke etc. might have some less altruistic motive to say what they say.

[kngen]

Well yes, it's a basic confidence trick. No great mystery. I just wonder if any of them ever question, even briefly, whether Q, Jones, Icke etc. might have some less altruistic motive to say what they say.

Some of them believed a quite outrageous chancer who said he was Baby Q, came from the future, and had travelled back in time to warn them (infuriating some of the other Q grifters with his brazen chicanery). He basically had set up his own cult/commune, but I think they finally tumbled him and then grassed him up to the feds for smoking weed and owning a plastic penis designed to get around drug testing, so there's a glimmer of hope for them, I suppose.