This article is a good reminder that most QAnon conversation really IS driven by a small number of influencers. We don't just focus on them for convenience.
On Q-focused subreddits, for instance, 80% of the content came from 5% of users (see p. 10 below).
arxiv.org/pdf/2101.08750…
On Q-focused subreddits, for instance, 80% of the content came from 5% of users (see p. 10 below).
arxiv.org/pdf/2101.08750…
https://twitter.com/lizzadwoskin/status/1371181460305047553
Of course, those 5% weren't all influencers. Many were more what you'd call superfans.
But the point is that *it's not hard to tell* who the most devoted spreaders-of-lies are on any given platform. Platforms COULD bring the banhammer down on them & leave the consumers alone.
But the point is that *it's not hard to tell* who the most devoted spreaders-of-lies are on any given platform. Platforms COULD bring the banhammer down on them & leave the consumers alone.
But they don't, in general.
And I don't understand why.
I get being reluctant to ban LOTS of folks en masse, but I don't understand their reluctance to just... go after the relatively small number of superspreaders, and keep going after 'em on their ban evasion accounts.
And I don't understand why.
I get being reluctant to ban LOTS of folks en masse, but I don't understand their reluctance to just... go after the relatively small number of superspreaders, and keep going after 'em on their ban evasion accounts.
If anyone's got got insight into why platforms *don't* take that approach, please drop into the replies! Or DM me.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
