Hacker News Reader

Comment by waterheater | Hacker News Reader

So they're admitting that QAnon is to be taken seriously? That it's not fake?

Just because something is to be taken seriously doesn't mean it's "real". For example, the US took the cult of Jim Jones seriously (and this was shown to be warranted when Congressman Ryan was assassinated). However, that's orthogonal to the accuracy of the cult's beliefs-- taking Jim Jones seriously doesn't actually mean he was a prophet or Messiah. What made him dangerous was that his adherents believed he was.

Just like how the Comet Pizza conspiracy theory should be taken seriously even though it's kinda silly- it becomes dangerous when people start shooting up restaurants looking for non-existent children in a non-existent dungeon

But that's the weird thing about calling QAnon a conspiracy theory: we label something as a "conspiracy theory" when it's presumed to be based on information which is...hmm, untrue? Hard to pin it down.

Jim Jones was not a conspiracy theory. It was a real belief system. By admitting the existence of the beliefs, we don't automatically recognize correctness. So why should QAnon be flat out labeled as a conspiracy theory when its existence as real as Jim Jones?

Acknowledging a cult’s dangers doesn’t legitimise its existence or tenets.

I agree in part. I feel acknowledging a cult's dangers legitimizes its existence but not its tenets.

It's origin can be fake, but there are real people who believe in the fakery.

I find this line from the article quite interesting: "It has no central leader and encourages its followers to do their own research."

Well, we do know that someone or a group is making those Q posts. That is factual, indisputable. Digital signatures on anonymous messaging boards work. So I'm confused as to why the article never mentions the Q posts.

They even misrepresent what it is: "QAnon can be confusing for the outside observer." Actually, it's quite clear: a person or group who identified as "Q" started posting that a bunch of stuff is going on behind the scenes.

Whether or not Q is truthful or not is not the problem. The Vice article doesn't represent the origin of the QAnon "movement" correctly.

Is there a good summary somewhere of the chain of assertion that gives Q-followers a reason to believe that whomever it is that says they're Q now, is the same person/group that said they were Q a year or more ago?

I've looked into Q a fair bit and tried to tease out what's correct and incorrect, because it's actually quite fascinating. Of course I remain highly skeptical that what Q is talking about will happen, but here's what I've put together.

Q validates their posts with what's called a trip code. Urban Dictionary actually explains it pretty well:

"A trip code is a code used in anonymous threads like 4chan to determine whether or not the anonymous poster is authentic or not. It assigns a code to the end of your name. When you add the pound (#) symbol to the end of your name followed by a word, like a password that only you know, it scrambles the word into a code. That way it's undetectable and can be used over and over again." [1]

As long as you keep your password secret, trip codes are quite reliable.

Now, Q has apparently changed tripcodes over time. A good resource for looking at Q posts is qmap.pub. I just did some searching to find out how Q does these changes.

https://qmap.pub/read/1311

https://qmap.pub/read/1312

This is just one example, but the poster claiming to be Q (1) says a change is coming and (2) announces the change. It's clearly imperfect, but the old trip code isn't used again. I would have to look at all other trip code changes to be certain. However, there's no reason to automatically assume other trip code changes would be different than this.

Here's a big weakness: Q didn't use trip codes at first. Ultimately, you have to believe that the Q today is the same as the one from 2017. However, the chain of trip codes does demonstrate at least some continuity for the last two years or so.

Sources:

[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trip%20Code

Trip idea can be broken in a few days with a proper GPU. The original q-anon trip was cracked within a month. It’s a giant larp

I know I shouldn't be this curt here, but a child could dismantle that argument with a puff from one nostril.

Addressing you and woodandsteel: What I mean by "fake" is that QAnon is substantial enough to devote resources to it. Subversive techniques are highly effective, and QAnon is apparently making an impact on the world, whether we think its tenets are complete crock or well-founded.

No disagreement there. Likewise, a "Caution: Falling Rocks" sign typically indicates that rocks have been making an impact, more so than that rocks have uncovered scandalous state secrets :)

You have a very unconventional meaning for the term "fake"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com