
FBI says “extremists” motivated by Pizzagate, QAnon are threats - roguecoder
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/fbi-says-extremists-motivated-by-pizzagate-qanon-are-threats/
======
merricksb
Earlier discussion about same topic:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20589234](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20589234)
(108 points/95 comments)

------
roguecoder
As we consider how the tools we build are used, it is useful to be aware of
the real-world consequences of frictionless information sharing. Made-up
conspiracy theories inspiring violent action also, unfortunately, want to be
free.

~~~
onetwoforyou
.

~~~
stuaxo
Not sure why you would bring up Epstein, an actual monster, in the context of
PizzaGate which was clearly dangerous nonsense.

~~~
murph-almighty
I don't subscribe to Pizzagate, but I suppose it's because the stories around
both are _similar_ (international cabal of abusers), it's just that one was
fake and a long term play to try to scare people out of voting for Hillary
Clinton.

------
alexk307
Call it what it is: White nationalistic terrorism, don't sugar coat it and
call it "extremists".

~~~
g00s3_caLL_x2
They need to do the same with Antifa. Regardless of what side of the political
spectrum you associate with, violence...is violence.

~~~
senorjazz
Then what about the military? The police?

They are both violent. But terrorism is not just violence. Terrorism doesn't
have to be violent although most often is.

~~~
duxup
There certainly are quite a few efforts to deal with how police respond to
situations.

------
duxup
It should be noted (and it is in the article) that this is an internal memo
sent from a field office about threats surrounding some topic(s).

In other discussions I've seen a lot of folks go on about freedom of speech
and other issues, there's no proposal to limit speech in this memo, or even
launch an investigation purely based on someone(s) believing a conspiracy
theory.

------
NietTim
Are there any credible analysis who is behind qanon? It seems pretty clear
that it's a disinformation project, or something along those lines to get
power and control a subset of people, from some actor, but who is it
attributed to? I know with APT's in infosec after a while we can attribute the
various groups to regimes because of the timing of actions and interests they
protect, is there any similar analysis of Q?

~~~
belltaco
[https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-
conspiracy-...](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-
theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531)

------
b_tterc_p
Most conspiracy theorists are just mentally ill. Take flat earthers. Most of
them suffer from extreme distrust and paranoia and tend to believe only
foremost anyone who tells them they’re being lied to.

Saying that mentally ill people who believe in evil government conspiracies
could be dangerous isn’t that unreasonable. Maybe specific individuals in the
movement are passive, but what about those that they ignite?

~~~
pahool
I disagree that most conspiracy theorists are mentally ill, except maybe in
some extremely loose definition of the term, where mere illogic is equated
with mental illness.

I like this quote from Michael Shermer: "Smart people believe weird things
because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart
reasons." Smart people frequently get involved in conspiracy theories through
a combination of confirmation bias and the spinning-wheels-in-the-sand effect
where they become more entrenched in their beliefs by being forced to defend
them.

Being illogical is not necessarily mental illness. Sometimes, it's just pig-
headed stubbornness.

[https://michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-
weir...](https://michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-weird-
things/)

~~~
b_tterc_p
You seem to be asserting that believing a conspiracy theory does not make you
mentally ill. That’s true, but not what I’m saying. I’m saying conspiracy
theorists are overwhelming just mentally ill to begin with. There was a great
piece a while ago about a journalist who interviewed people at flat earther
conventions. They pretty much all cited significant emotional trauma or
betrayal of trust.

~~~
pahool
I appreciate your clarification, but the assertion that "conspiracy theorists
are overwhelming[ly] just mentally ill to begin with" is exactly what I'm
refuting.

I suppose part of it is a matter of definition, since there is a spectrum of
belief in unproven "conspiracy theories". Is a "conspiracy theorist" one who
believes in a conspiracy theory, or one who creates conspiracy theories? Is
someone who believes that there may have been a conspiracy associated with the
JFK assassination a "conspiracy theorist"? They're certainly not on the same
level as someone who willfully defies all evidence and logic to continue to
assert that the Earth is flat. There's a spectrum of the amount of deviance
from logic and evidence as well of a spectrum of the strength of one's belief
in these "theories".

I think that a large number of people subscribe to some sort of unproven
"conspiracy theory" and that it is incorrect to assert that this population is
overwhelmingly mentally ill.

If you use people who go to a flat earth convention as your basis for a
representative sample of the mental health of conspiracy theorists, I think
you're going to get a very skewed result. You're skewing very high on the
spectrum of deviance from evidence and logic, as well as very high on the
spectrum of strength of belief.

I would probably agree with your assertion if my definition of what
constituted a "conspiracy theorist" met a minimum criteria of a certain
threshold value on those two spectrums, but I think that the term "conspiracy
theorist" is very nuanced and therefore problematic and even dangerous,
especially when we start throwing around phrases like "conspiracy theorists
are overwhelming[ly] just mentally ill to begin with". Here's an interesting
article on the topic of "conspiracy theory" as a dangerous misnomer:

[http://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-conspiracy-
theories...](http://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-conspiracy-theories-and-
why-the-term-is-a-misnomer-101678)

