So, until recently, I have been using https://github.com/rimu/no-qanon/blob/master/hosts.txt
However, as some issues that I have opened have shown, there are a bunch of left wing and progressive sites on this list ( https://github.com/rimu/no-qanon/issues ). I no longer think that it is trustworthy. Especially after reading some of the repo owners replies. Intentionally added was t.me which is a generic url for any telegram group. Discordapp.com was on it at one point.
Oy Vey. It’s clear to me that the owner of this repo is not actually spending much time actually curating this list and instead it’s just a shotgun approach. Does anyone know of a good alternative?
Doesn’t it sound at least a little bit foolish to trust someone else to intentionally censor the politics of your internet? You’re creating your own echo chamber.
How can you understand and disagree with the other side if you can’t even read their content? I’m not even talking about hate groups, I’m talking basics like WikiLeaks and the NRA.
No, it’s not ‘creating an echo chamber’ to avoid the discussions of a deranged cult.
Labeling the opposition as a deranged cult that must be censored doesn’t exactly sound anti-fascist to me. Again, not talking about hate groups here or anyone that advocates for violence.
Perhaps you are not familiar with qanon and their beliefs, but they are not ‘the opposition’. And they do advocate for violence, frequently.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with this blocklist and how it doesn’t exclusively include QAnon sources, as I indicated.
No list can exclusively contain QAnon sources. It isn’t possible. You’re relying on someone else or a group of people to make that determination. In doing so, you’re blocking non-QAnon sources that you may just happen to disagree with. They also block far-right sites as described in the Github. How far to the right does the site have to be to be blocked? You’ve now created an echo chamber by blocking the opposition, all because you trusted that a list called “no-qanon” only blocked QAnon.
Sorry, I was more responding to your point of me describing qanon a deranged cult as being somehow a bad faith partisan shutdown. Calling qanon a deranged cult is not the same as me saying “everyone to the right of my own beliefs is brainwashed and in a CULT!!”
im talking about qanon specifically… Their beliefs center on violent and hateful rhetoric against anyone outside of their group, and propose eliminating their enemies or groups they deem to be evil (using baseless accusations of cannibalistic satanism) They accuse everyone they deem to be enemies of being part of a vast imaginary plot, celebrities, lgbtq people, minorities, democrats, whatever. Only their group and its infallible, heroic leaders have the answers. This is how cults operate.
What I’m saying is, a group who believe I am somehow a cannibalistic satanist for being on the left are maybe not worth including in the political discourse. (Beyond discussing their influence as a threat to democracy). Excluding the violent nut-jobs from the conversation is not “creating an echo chamber”.
You put qanon on the same level as wikileaks?
Well both are suspected to be influenced by Russia, with the goal of undermining the west.
Name a major media outlet that hasn’t been suspected to be influenced by Russia.
Nope. The linked list does. Check the URLs. WikiLeaks is blocked.
Everyone is susceptible to misinformation, information silos, and bad arguments. Someone who claims that they are not susceptible to these things is the most susceptible.
You can view it as efficiency. Something coming from a qanon source is going to be garbage, so you’re saving yourself the time of having it be in your view.
Even if what you’re saying is true, you’re now relying on someone else (or a group of people) to censor sites you wouldn’t like and also not be susceptible to those things when creating this blocklist. You’re ignoring the risks associated with false positives. You can’t outsource your own critical thinking.
You’re kind of arguing against the foundation of human society. If we’re all required to “do our own research” about things, where does that requirement end? How can I buy food if I have to do my own research on what’s healthy or what’s dangerous? What about my tap water? How can I put gas in my car? Use electricity? A computer? A phone?
Somewhere along the way you have to trust the systems that have been built by the people before us to function, and for people who work in those fields who are experts to use their expertise.
Obviously oversight & verification is also important. It’s important that people earn trust and work to maintain that trust and get booted if they violate that trust.
But it’s foolish to just stop trusting experts out of nowhere. It’s extra foolish to stop trusting experts specifically because they say things you don’t like to hear. As far as I can tell, that’s been the accelerating project of the Republican Party since at least the talk radio explosion following the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe longer if you go back to Moon landing deniers and their ilk.
Yes, you should do your own research. How much research you need to do depends on the subject matter, how critical it is, and the potential for motivation to mislead you. I can’t tell you where that ends, but for politics and news I am of the opinion that it should end a lot later than trusting a random stranger to censor your access to content.
You probably should research this.
Yeah, you probably should also research this before drinking it because of how critical it is. Maybe get it tested or read your city’s water test results. Do they have motivation to mislead you?
I’m not sure what the struggle is here.
Yes and no. Should you see inconsistencies, you should probably verify that what you’re trusting is accurate. Inconsistencies like blocking wikileaks on a qanon blocklist. However, what you’re talking about isn’t even the case here. We’re talking about a blocklist maintained by strangers on the internet.