this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023

49 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37735 readers

51 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

Does anyone know of a trustworthy and curated list of qanon sites that I can use for my pihole(s)? (self.technology)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Scary_le_Poo to c/technology

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

top 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] lonewalk@lemm.ee 60 points 1 year ago (2 children)

sorry for the potentially dumb remark but… couldn’t you just avoid navigating to QAnon websites? I’ve never had an issue unintentionally navigating to one. It also seems like this repo owner is quite opinionated and trying to create a “no bad sites” filter list, which… honestly, you can control your own destiny with web browsing.

if this is to protect kids on your network, I think it’s probably a good idea to have a broader conversation with them about evaluating sources, tell them about media bias checking sites, and just generally educating them on red flags to distrust. This will probably serve them much better than trying to block right wing sites, especially since plenty of normal websites have harmful right wing content. YouTube in particular disseminates extremely misleading and harmful material via ads (lots of anti-trans hate speech).

In any case, I can’t find another repo - if you need the filter still, maybe you could fork the list yourself, and remove anything that you don’t find objectionable? (again, I feel like this is an example of why to not rely on a third party to block websites based off opinion/politics)

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 82 points 1 year ago (2 children)

if this is to protect kids on your network

Sadly, I suspect this is to protect adults on the network...

[–] lonewalk@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

I mean, that would be kinda crazy, and I also don't think it would do any good to try and filter them. Like, you've got conspiracy-driven right wingers under your domain - no matter what way you spin it, you're dealing with shitty people. You're either going to bring them to a fever pitch in an argument over you blocking their internet access, or you're going to give them access and have to deal with them perpetuating their harmful views to you and all around them.

If you're at that point, better to consider whether or not you really want those people in your lives.

If you're in a situation where you can't cut those people off, what do you expect to achieve other than a different form of conflict by inhibiting their internet access? If you're going to be quiet about doing it and hope they don't understand, is it really healthy to be pulling those strings and manipulating like that? Hell, I'm not even sure it would be ethical, I feel like that kind of manipulation would be really shitty to do, even to shitty people and their shitty views.

EDIT: I'm of course assuming the adults need "protection" because there's no path to just, like, discussing things healthily. If there's a healthy way to discuss... that should really be the preference.

[–] boogetyboo@aussie.zone 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mm dunno if you ever read the qanon casualties posts on Reddit. There's no discussing or reasoning with the people who have fallen prey to believing this shit. And if often leads to financial ruin. Blocking access to those sites is, for many, like taking the car keys away from an elderly parent who will only hurt themselves and others if you don't intervene.

[–] lonewalk@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's fair - but I suspect if it is anyone not super elderly, or just anyone not bumbling their way into it unintentionally, they may be more likely to be aware of your actions - and that's bound to create some very nasty conflict that you might be no better off if you get into.

As the other commenters pointed out though - for certain classes like the elderly, and maybe anyone else not-at-all technically savvy, it might make sense. I'm sorta responding assuming intent of the person to get to QAnon, and assuming they might know enough to find they can access it on other networks but not home.

[–] david@feddit.uk 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think I have an iron in this fire, but I do think that filtering some crap out of a gullible person's Internet feed is way kinder and way healthier than cutting them out of your life completely.

[–] lonewalk@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah, another commenter made the point of very elderly people, which admittedly I might not have the best perspective on needing to handle. They would probably not notice, and it would probably not create any real issues.

My reaction was more if you tried to do this to a normal, younger to middle aged person - where I would suspect if the filtering were to come to light, it could create some very nasty conflict. But also in that case I'd suspect anyone trying to reach QAnon material is more likely intentionally trying to get to it, versus some 80-something who might have one Q moron in their Facebook feed that sends them somewhere no one ought to go.

[–] silentdon 16 points 1 year ago

Regarding your third paragraph, it's been shown (anecdotally at least) that blocking access to these kinds of sites and fox news does a lot in bringing older, easily manipulated people out of the q anon rabbit hole. It's difficult at first, but with nothing feeding the conspiracy, they go back to normal eventually.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] confusedwiseman 2 points 1 year ago

If that’s the case foxnews would like cut out most of the challenge. I’m not old enough to have adult children yet but I still have a hard time grasping news channels are entertainment venues.

News used to be actual news done by reporters. It had credibility and a degree of respect. This shift has been near impossible for my parents generation

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] kglitch@kglitch.social 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The issues you raised about those sites were fixed within two hours.

https://github.com/rimu/no-qanon/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed

[–] Scary_le_Poo 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Those were just the ones I found. There are likely many, many more. The sites I found are not even small publications either. Commondreams, rawstory, dailykos? Those are some very recognizable sites. if big ones like that slipped through, then that tells me that there is zero effort going into vetting the list.

[–] kglitch@kglitch.social 15 points 1 year ago

By all means, put some effort in. Please.

[–] MasterBuilder@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Perhaps the curator is running a red herring with the intention or blocking liberal media?

[–] Scary_le_Poo 2 points 1 year ago

I highly doubt it tbh, but the thought did cross my mind.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 14 points 1 year ago

If you're doing this in a business environment, I wouldn't fool around with a home rolled option and would just go straight with a Websense subscription:

https://www.websense.com/content/support/library/deployctr/v76/dic_wcg.aspx

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] storksforlegs 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, it's not 'creating an echo chamber' to avoid the discussions of a deranged cult.

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] storksforlegs 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Perhaps you are not familiar with qanon and their beliefs, but they are not 'the opposition'. And they do advocate for violence, frequently.

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] khalic 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You put qanon on the same level as wikileaks?

[–] shaolin_shrimp@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well both are suspected to be influenced by Russia, with the goal of undermining the west.

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Name a major media outlet that hasn't been suspected to be influenced by Russia.

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nope. The linked list does. Check the URLs. WikiLeaks is blocked.

[–] Scary_le_Poo 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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?

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.

How can I buy food if I have to do my own research on what's healthy or what's dangerous?

You probably should research this.

What about my tap water?

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?

How can I put gas in my car? Use electricity? A computer? A phone?

I'm not sure what the struggle is here.

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.

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.

[–] Stillhart@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

To be fair, last I checked, commondreams was so far to the left, they fell right off the flat earth. I consider myself pretty progressive and a lot of the stuff I saw from that site made me roll my eyes and go "this is where people get those crazy ideas about progressives having crazy ideas!"

Anyways, it's been a few years since I paid any attention to them so maybe they're not so cringe anymore.

[–] Areldyb 7 points 1 year ago

I use that list as well as the ones at https://github.com/antifa-n/pihole/ (though they haven't been updated in years). I also use OpenDNS upstream to block their "Hate/Discrimination" category (among others).

I've been pretty happy with this setup, but I would welcome alternatives/additional blocklists.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I’d rather be able to filter these topics from sites like Lemmy, I’ll never actually go to them. I’m curious what you’re really trying to accomplish.