
FBI Says QAnon, Internet Conspiracy Theorists Are National Security Threats - Elof
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kz4e8n/fbi-says-qanon-internet-conspiracy-theorists-are-national-security-threats
======
leftyted
There's a certain amount of irony here given the FBI's history (I'm thinking
of COINTELPRO).

I support conspiracy theorists. I think they are canaries in the coal mine of
free speech. Right now we seem to be wrestling with the fear that someone can
write something online, someone else can read it, buy a gun, and go do
something illegal. While I find this worrying, I think any cure would be worse
than the disease.

~~~
panicthrowaway
The problem is that conspiracy theory and moral panics are not victimless
crimes. I grew up with an ultrarightwing christian conspiracy theorist who
claimed my mother was a witch that was satanically ritual abusing me and my
brother and "sacrificing" us to Satan. He also believed she was a serial
killer running a daycare scheme that allowed her to mass slaughter children in
the name of Satan. I was basically coerced into confessing this shit by the
church when I was in kindergarten because I was caught by the playground
attendant looking up girls skirts. My mother always wore jeans so I didn't
understand the concept of a dress so I was picking up their skirts because I
didn't understand the purpose of the garment. But the play ground attendant
assumed it was sign that I was being sexually abused. My dad came to pick me
up took me to the church shrink who basically coached me to say a bunch of
really fucked up shit about my mother. She ended up loosing any custody of me
and was not allowed to even be in the same room as me without police
supervision until I was 18. She had to register as a sex offender.

Don't believe me? Read this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-
abuse_hysteria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria)

I am an adult survivor of this abuse. So when you tell me that you support
conspiracy theorists it makes me sick. Fuck them, they ruined me and my
mother's life. Do you have any idea how hard it was for me to undo the
indoctrination and brain washing I basically went through? And its not like
these are your run of the mill conspiracy theorists that believe in aliens and
JFK grassy knole shit. This ruins lives. When I see people like QAnon who
front ideas like Pizza Gate and Alex Jones claiming Sandy Hook was a false
flag and ruining the lives of people that lost their kids with death threats.
Fuck them. And if you support them, fuck you too.

If you want further reading I recommend reading Satan's Silence

~~~
iamnothere
You're making the same class of mistake made by people who support (for
instance) the death penalty against criminals in group X because their loved
one was a victim of one of those criminals.

I empathize with you and understand that your experience must have been very
difficult. That said, there are fundamental freedoms that must be defended
even when the group in question is distasteful. Freedom to speak your mind --
and possibly propagate dumb conspiracies -- is one of them.

~~~
geofft
Freedom to speak your mind, when it directly leads to the infringement of
others' rights, is not a fundamental right. I have no right to say "Hey, so-
and-so is a cheat, don't do business with them," however strongly I believe
it, when they're not. I have no right to say "You should rob a bank, and I'll
teach you how." I have no right to say "This herb will cure your disease"
merely because I believe it, if nobody has convinced the government to also
believe it. Heck, I don't even have the right to repeat your comment, except
in specific ways and circumstances.

It is true that fundamental rights must be preserved even when used
distastefully. But the fundamental right of freedom of speech is not a right
to say whatever whenever, and it is not at all clear to me that propagating
dumb conspiracies in a way that leads to violence is within the line. (Nor
propagating smart conspiracies—since it's not the conspiracy itself that makes
it questionable here.)

~~~
ColanR
Your idea of the limitations of our right to free speech seems to depend on a
referee; otherwise, it seems that you are conflating the idea of 'rights' with
'legality'.

> I have no right to say "Hey, so-and-so is a cheat, don't do business with
> them," however strongly I believe it, when they're not.

Who gets to say they are or are not a cheat? Spreading false rumours is
reprehensible, but within your right to speak freely: just like the so-called
cheat has the right to sue the rumour-maker for defamation.

> I have no right to say "You should rob a bank, and I'll teach you how."

It's illegal to encourage/enable illegal actions, but you have the right to do
illegal things - just like you have the right to bear the consequences of your
illegal actions.

> I have no right to say "This herb will cure your disease" merely because I
> believe it, if nobody has convinced the government to also believe it.

What if the herb (or cutting-edge treatment developed in some other country)
works beautifully in another country, but the FDA in the US doesn't recognize
it yet? You've set up the US government as the referee who gets to decide when
we are allowed to have our right to free speech.

> I don't even have the right to repeat your comment, except in specific ways
> and circumstances.

You have the right to repeat the comment however you like - but you also have
the right to be sued under copyright and defamation laws.

> fundamental rights must be preserved even when used distastefully

They are also, as recognized in the US declaration of independence,
unalienable: the government _has no say_ in whether we get to have them.

> not at all clear to me that propagating dumb conspiracies in a way that
> leads to violence is within the line...since it's not the conspiracy itself
> that makes it questionable here

As you point out; someone theorizes about a Bad Person, someone reads that
conspiracy stuff online, and decides to 'do something' about it, and tries to
shoot that Bad Person. In the US Code, inciting to commit a crime looks like
this: "whoever...solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to
persuade such other person to engage in such conduct".

So what exactly do you mean by "in a way that leads to violence"? Because what
the US code describes is vastly different from "theorizing about the existence
of a conspiracy", however 'out there' the conspiracy is. And in at least the
example of the pizzagate shooter, he persuaded himself of his actions - the
conspiracy just made him think that a Very Bad Thing was happening there. And
there is nothing wrong with theorizing about the existence of a conspiracy of
people doing Bad Things.

~~~
geofft
If you define "right" as "you have the ability to do X and face legal
consequences for having done it," then I an absolutely in favor of the right
of free speech of the Pizzagate folks to get themselves arrested. So, great,
we all believe in free speech for everyone.

What word would you like to use for "the ability to do X without legal
consequence from the government"? Because that seems like a more interesting
discussion.

~~~
antisemiotic
>If you define "right" as "you have the ability to do X and face legal
consequences for having done it,"

This is a completely useless definition, as it means literally everyone has a
right to everything. E.g. I have a "right" to murder you and then face the
legal consequences for doing so.

~~~
geofft
(Yes, that's my point.)

------
ColanR
The article lists specifically 5 conspiracy theories: QAnon, Pizzagate, some
kind of “Zionist Occupation Government” theory, Sandy Hook "Crisis Actor", and
New World Order theory. Some of these I've never heard of.

I'm concerned what this will do to squash legitimate criticisms and questions.
Recall, Pizzagate accused Epstein and his associates of pedophilia (and
described his airplane as well). If the FBI considers accusing epstien and his
associates of pedophilia a national security threat, we are in trouble.

~~~
api
If anything this stuff helps real crooks like Epstein by muddying the water
and making the whole subject area look silly. I sometimes wonder if some of it
is intentional. Seems like a great way to cover things up in an age where
actually keeping secrets is hard.

I know if I were running a human trafficking, prostitution, and blackmail
operation and wanted to cover it up I'd start by spreading wild theories and
false accusations about elite Satanic cartoon villain cults doing exactly what
I'm doing. That way the whole topic would get an aura of crankiness and
reputable media would stay away.

Disinformation is like radar chaff. You just blow out a lot of noise and
nobody knows where the signal is. The real secrets might leak but it doesn't
matter because they just merge and blend in with all the bullshit.

A grassroots explanation for this stuff is more likely of course, if only for
Ockham's razor reasons. My point is that no good is accomplished by spreading
nonsense.

~~~
miej
ah yes. I personally like to refer to this as a stargate theory. for example,
if the gov actually had a piece of alien technology capable of opening a
wormhole to other planets, perhaps the best way to cover it up would indeed be
to create a public tv show about it. That way, anyone who tried to argue for
its veracity would immediately be considered a borderline lunatic.

~~~
api
I know a few people who are into UFO stuff and think that's exactly what was
done to cover up evidence of alien presence. They also think a lot of the more
common conspiracy-type mythology and fringe stuff in the UFO circuit is
nonsense put out there to make the topic look silly.

It would definitely work.

~~~
danaris
Well, Stargate SG-1 specifically had the US Air Force fully on-board as
consultants and even occasional guest appearances by genuine Air Force brass.

So...maybe there really _is_ something under Cheyenne Mountain? ^_^

------
vuln
One field office in Arizona wrote a single report...

Am I missing something? How does one field off speak for the entirety of the
FBI? If this was coming from the director of the FBI it would have a bit more
grit.

------
SeanBoocock
Reply All has done good episodes on this
([https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/n8homa/122-the-
qanon...](https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/n8homa/122-the-qanon-code))
and PizzaGate ([https://gimletmedia.com/amp/shows/reply-
all/emhwl5](https://gimletmedia.com/amp/shows/reply-all/emhwl5)) for anyone
who wants a high level summary.

------
iscrewyou
These comments, or even the article at this point, need to be purged. This
article is related to HN but most of these comments aren’t. The content of
these comments belongs on Reddit or Twitter. They are snarky, one liners,
flame-baity, etc.

~~~
tptacek
I complained about this as well --- there's an anti-pattern on HN where almost
anyone can come up with something to say about the FBI, or a joke about QAnon,
but comparatively few will have anything germane to say, with the inevitable
result of trash-fire threads.

But HN is also doing a good job on this particular thread of flagging those
comments, which you should do as well.

------
ryanSrich
If you're morbidly curious about QAnon conspiracies, but can't stomach
actually digging in yourself, these guys do a pretty entertaining job of
covering whatever the current conspiracy is.

[https://twitter.com/QanonAnonymous](https://twitter.com/QanonAnonymous)

------
aspenmayer
Politics isn’t just what politicians do anymore than voting is all that
citizens do.

‘In 2013, Surkov was characterized by The Economist[1] as the engineer of "a
system of make-believe", "a land of imitation political parties, stage-managed
media and fake social movements".’[2]

[1] [https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21577421-what-
departur...](https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21577421-what-departure-
vladislav-surkov-means-government-ideologues-exit)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov)

------
Deimorz
Blogspam of [https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-documents-conspiracy-theories-
ter...](https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-documents-conspiracy-theories-
terrorism-160000507.html)

(But I expect this will disappear into flag-oblivion shortly anyway)

------
fzeroracer
The danger is, as the article mentions, conspiracy theories range from
relatively benign to actively harmful and dangerous. They've become more and
more weaponized as a way of finding villains, outlets for violence, anger etc
which then results in innocent people being murdered. Or, in the case of one
incident, someone killing a mob boss and putting his entire extended family at
risk.

Which, I mean, this is all related to the tech industry as a whole because
Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc all feed into the cycle of extremism because it
increases engagement. It's hard to ignore the profound shift as a result of
content not only being easily accessible but also targeted directly at various
groups of people and monetized. I've already had to talk with my parents
because they've fallen into the trap of following or believing Facebook posts
which perpetuate falsified information. It's only going to get a lot worse
before it gets better.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
It's not only worse, though. The internet has also made it much easier to
access and spread true information. Without the internet, there could be no
WikiLeaks. Let's not forget, as well, that the most objectively harmful "fake
news" in recent American history was not perpetrated by random Facebook posts,
but by the major news outlets themselves, and even heavily pushed by the New
York Times - the disinformation campaign surrounding Iraqi WMD.

------
jdc
Mods, could you change the url/title to that of the original source at Yahoo?

[https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-documents-conspiracy-theories-
ter...](https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-documents-conspiracy-theories-
terrorism-160000507.html)

------
lsniddy
sounds like the FBI considers them a threat...

~~~
Fjolsvith
Or maybe just the agency’s Phoenix bureau.

------
i_am_nomad
I was under the impression that QAnon was a documented fabrication - that it
was a deliberate hoax concocted on 8chan (or somewhere similar) for the
“lulz,” with the message trail to prove it.

~~~
ryanSrich
You might be thinking about this [https://news.artnet.com/opinion/q-anon-
hoax-1329983](https://news.artnet.com/opinion/q-anon-hoax-1329983)

------
AYBABTME
China was served opium by its opponents and I guess the US is being served
spiralling destructive conspiracy theories.

------
president
Seems like there isn't much the government can do about influencers spouting
off dangerous rhetoric causing ignorant followers to do harm. Could the FBI
actually arrest these people for inciting extremism or are they protected by
free speech?

------
jakeogh
not all that tangential:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szk7XXEb_sQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szk7XXEb_sQ)

------
pizza
Really makes you hope this doesn't just make them dial it up to 11 in
response..

------
inflatableDodo
The FBI announcing this now, given there is an American President obsessed
with internet conspiracy theories and theorists, to the extent that he invites
QAnon supporters to the Whitehouse, does perhaps feel a smidgen like shutting
the stable door long after the horse has bolted. And as others have noted
here, the QAnon nonsense itself is just malarkey in the first place. The only
ultimate point of QAnon is that of a collaborative joke to reel in media and
idiots. Is all quite strange really. Is an online hive acting as a farcical
Rasputin on modern US power structures, for the most part as a practical joke.

