Roku Removes Dedicated QAnon Channel That Launched Last Month (theverge.com) 100
Streaming platform Roku has removed a channel dedicated to the QAnon conspiracy theory movement after facing criticism for letting it slip through its review and moderation processes last month. The Verge reports: The show, called "Q Channel - QAnon Channel," was hosted by popular QAnon supporter Dave Hayes and advertised as a "opinion based shows for getting the truth out, as we know it, about the Qanon movement." A Roku spokesperson tells The Verge, "The channel is no longer on our platform." But the company would not elaborate on why it allowed the show to launch last month.
Roku is best known as a streaming set-top box maker that also produces interface software for smart TVs. In addition to supporting other streaming services, Roku also allows anyone to create a channel that shows up on its platform as if it were any other legitimate source -- like Hulu, Netflix, or scores of verified news channels. That's what Hayes, who goes by the online handle "Praying Medic," did after he began advertising the launch of his dedicated QAnon opinion show in late May. MediaMatters reports the channel was live for nearly two weeks, promoting prominent QAnon voices and the movement's regular slate of rampant misinformation, conspiracy theories, and other false and manipulated news reports. Hayes also said he would be bringing the channel to other streaming platforms, too. Last week, Google removed three apps related to the QAnon conspiracy theory movement from the Play Store.
Roku is best known as a streaming set-top box maker that also produces interface software for smart TVs. In addition to supporting other streaming services, Roku also allows anyone to create a channel that shows up on its platform as if it were any other legitimate source -- like Hulu, Netflix, or scores of verified news channels. That's what Hayes, who goes by the online handle "Praying Medic," did after he began advertising the launch of his dedicated QAnon opinion show in late May. MediaMatters reports the channel was live for nearly two weeks, promoting prominent QAnon voices and the movement's regular slate of rampant misinformation, conspiracy theories, and other false and manipulated news reports. Hayes also said he would be bringing the channel to other streaming platforms, too. Last week, Google removed three apps related to the QAnon conspiracy theory movement from the Play Store.
Removed? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That may have been the plan. Sign up so they can get banned, getting some publicity in the process and drawing people to the other places they can watch their channel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Would you be okay with cable operators being forced to air al-Qaeda propaganda channels?
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to force others to distribute your speech.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Nobody forced anyone to do anything.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to force others to distribute your speech.
If it doesn't, then what good is the right? This is a really key concept. Society only works if we respect each other's right to speech, even if we don't agree with that speech. There is no threshold for ideas that are so wrong that we censor them. Laugh at them, make fun of them, ignore them - but don't censor them. If we thought that way in the past, crazy radical ideas like women's suffrage, gay rights, and the civil rights movement would never have gotten press.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a stupid argument on its face. If you go out and yell at everyone that they are capitalist pig-dogs and that ISIS is the only true path forward those people bear absolutely no responsibility to repeat (or distribute) it.
The best part about the right to free speech is the right to *not speak at all.* It's unfortunate that that you feel authoritarian enough to tell people otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait.... you called me authoritarian for refusing to silence someone? Huh? Rewind a few steps here...
people bear absolutely no responsibility to repeat (or distribute) it.
Hmmmm...
Lets talk about distribution first. Note that Roku is an automated system, so they don't have to go out of their way to distribute it: that's the default. Just like Slashdot, the system automatically distributes this post. And I think Roku doesn't do the distribution - the owner of the channel has to pay a CDN to do that. Roku just provides the streaming client and the catalog of channels. So
Re: (Score:3)
They could get public access so long as
a). they didn't directly affiliate with al-Qaeda
b). they didn't directly ask anyone to kill anyone
If someone sympathetic to al-Qaeda simply argued for things like mandatory conversion to fundamentalist Islam or similar tried to get public access, it could probably happen. Public access can have some wacky stuff on it.
Re: And of course we're fine with this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Because walled gardens and censorship are only a threat to Fascists, right?
Maybe, but I'd rather be censored by Roku than Q-Anon/Fascists.
Re: And of course we're fine with this (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who has QA censored?
I never said that I or anybody else had been censored by QA so stop putting words in my mouth. I just that I wouldn't want to be censored by QA because the whole lot of them is certifiably insane since they take their orders from some incoherent troll on 4chan (or is it 8chan these days?). As for fascists, they tend to censor people by shooting them and I like being alive. Roku will just kick me off their platform. So, at the end of the day, it just boils down to the fact that Roku offers by far the best de
Re: (Score:2)
What you spout is sophistry at best. Mostly it looks like incoherant nonsense to me. I can't decide if it is intentional flamebait or frank idiocy.
I hope you enjoy stoking your ego with this condescending drivel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The first amendment just means that the government won't arrest you for your speech. It doesn't obligate anyone else to promote, condone, or amplify it. If you're worried about Roku having too much power as a gatekeeper, don't use them and switch to so
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not following the whole thread, but my stand would be, if they don't curate, edit or censor, then they get to be treated like a common carrier in that they get "safe harbor" protection and the ones posting on the platform are responsible for what they publish.
If someone like Roku (or youtube or facebook) does edit, curate or otherwise censor, then they are the publishers and are legally responsible for anything they publish. Criminally and/or civilly. If they censor one defamatory post and not ano
Re: (Score:3)
Being that it is increasingly more difficult to weed out good source information with false source information. Where opinion is stated as fact. This type of crap isn't want our founding fathers wanted.
Freedom of speech is the fact I can say "I think Donald Trump is an Idiot, who shouldn't be president." Where I can elaborate why I think that without fear of the police tracking me down calling me unamerican and locking me up, for treason.
Freedom of speech isn't stating as fact the Donald Trump is fed the
Re: And of course we're fine with this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
When you force someone to say something they don't believe in, that's worse than censorship. Forcing the owners of a company to use their privately owned equipment to broadcast speech they do not believe in is wrong.
Re: And of course we're fine with this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on what your national and local laws regarding discrimination are. Here in America, where we have a history of businesses refusing to server certain races, like blacks or Native Americans, so we have enacted laws that dictate, you can not discriminate against protected classes if you have a business open to the public.
In the case you are referring to, the initial decision saying that the bakery discriminated against the gay couple based on Colorado's anti-discrimination laws was overturned. by
Re: And of course we're fine with this (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because that goes against the constitution. But you already knew that. Next question?
Re: And of course we're fine with this (Score:1)
Same question modified to suit your mindless ocd: if people outside the US voted to not serve blacks and native Americans are you ok with that?
What if the USC was changed to eliminate protection from discrimination on a federal level and left it to the states. Are you ok with Colorado having that vote then?
You're like a high school debater. Focus on trivia and intentional miss the point to score artificial points. So boring an
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not missing points, you are failing to make them. You think you are building to some "gotcha!" type moment, but you aren't intellectually capable, so you just come across as vague and confused.
If people outside the US voted to not serve certain races, or say, did not allow women to drive, I would have no say in the matter, would I? Okay or not, I don't have the power to do anything about it.
And that is what this comes down to: power. All the justifications for rights amount to nothing if you have no pow
Re: And of course we're fine with this (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest threat to freedom here is being forced to publish and support things involuntarily. I don't care if you want to comment on my website or set up your soapbox on my front lawn, it infringes my freedoms.
By the way, QAnons aren't really fascists per-se, they are just mind bogglingly gullible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you root it? No? Then you didn't buy it. You bought a licence to submit to whatever they deem fit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's a privacy issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what the EULA and local laws say. Anyway it's one reason why I use Kodi on a Pi.
Re: And of course we're fine with this (Score:1)
But literal conspiracy channels are OK (Score:4, Insightful)
The Conspiracy Theory Channel
Zeitgeist Conspiracy Channel
Those are apparently OK because...?
There are also three channels dedicated to UFOs and their associated conspiracies.
I guess those some conspiracy theories are politically acceptable and some are not. Great job making me question my hardware purchase Roku.
Side note: How come some paragraph tags create a newline and some create two?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm prepared to think. QAnon dingleberries aren't.
Re:But literal conspiracy channels are OK (Score:4, Insightful)
You're willing to, which is good, but are you actually capable ?
That's the fundamental problem, people who are enthusiastic about deciding for themselves but are ill equipped at recognizing even the simplest logical fallacies.
I'll fight against any attempt to strip people of their right to be utterly stupid, but I'll still consider them little more than fuck wits.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess those some conspiracy theories are politically acceptable and some are not.
BINGO! This is the entire issue in a nutshell.
There is no consistent way to determine which things to block and which things not to block. That is why this road of selective censorship can never work. Do people not realize that these kinds of shows have existed since media began? Public access TV and tabloids have been around for so long. This is not a new issue. People will scream that "fake news" should be blocked, then buy a tabloid from the newsstand at the grocery store with the same content in i
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, what tabloid?
Weekly World News was meant to be a parody... there was no news there.
The National Enquirer cleaned itself up years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wow, so those things finally died then? Good to know. Did the stores stop carrying them, or did people stop buying them?
Re:But literal conspiracy channels are OK (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they're free to carry what they want ?
I kind of fail to see the problem. If the federal government said 'Nobody can carry or distribute Q-Anon material" I would be very spun up. If Joe doesn't want to then that's pretty much ok.
Cancel your subscription to Roku or don't, it's not exactly a hand wringing problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Roku is a cheap box or built into Smart TVs, there's no subscription required for some things.
They profit from the Netflix, Hulu, etc. things... but will let anybody start their own channel. QAnon was ruled unacceptable and pulled, but there's nothing for users to cancel there.
No digital freedom of speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose that you have an opinion that the owners of media platforms don't want to distribute.
Suppose that every media platform bans you from using their privately owned service.
Suppose that even if you set out to build your own media platform, no hosting provider agrees to host it using their privately owned facilities.
Suppose that if you host your own media platform, no ISP agrees to connect your platform to the internet using their privately owned infrastructure.
Come to the realization that the internet is privately owned.
Your freedom of speech has now been reduced to how far your voice carries from the top of a soap box in the town square. Are you ok with this?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, from a legal stand point, yes I am.
I might stamp my feet and whine somewhat but otherwise sure.
Because the only solution to the environment you describe is the creation of laws that force people to let me say whatever the hell I want. I think I'll take a hard pass on that.
There's no perfect world, so I will always opt for the one that requires fewer laws.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really a libertarian view point. It's an anti-fascist view point.
The second the government can tell people what they have to allow to be said they can control what can be said. Pass.
I'm pretty happy with the current system where the law only really constrains the government's ability to control speech.
So you may want to check the gain on your knee jerk reaction sensor, just because somebody is anti-new-law doesn't mean they're loony toon libertarian anarchist.
Re: No digital freedom of speech? (Score:1)
Can you imagine the shit storm if the telcos declared they will filter out conversations on topics they don't like?
This is the difference between being a platform and a publisher.
Re: No digital freedom of speech? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: No digital freedom of speech? (Score:2)
Yes, I am OK with if everyone on the Internet does not want to hear what you want to say, soap box manufacturers all blacklisted you, and the guy that invented cupping your hands to your mouth sues you for patent infringement, and the entire world has superglued their ears and eyes closed so they can't see what you've tattooed on your forehead ... I forgot where this was going but I'm OK with that. There is no first amendment right to an audience.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
They are also called Conspiracy Channels where you know that they are going to ramble on about a Conspiracy Theory. Not Telling us the Truth!
LIke Qanon and Fox News.
Travel (Score:1)
Seriously, when all cool news like data on UFO/USOs get drowned out with "ALIENS! I new it was ALIENS", and all paranormal shows show a bunch of grown ups gasping and jumping . . . they've jumped the shark.
We are also several decades into hard proof that our government can't get anything done, let alone keep a secret.
Don't get me wrong, "I Want to Believe"
Re: (Score:3)
Normally the real Conspiracies from government officials that come out are usually from an official having an affair, and they paid a few people to keep quite about it.
These get leaked all the time. Imagine what it would take to keep secrete Extraterrestrial Life, and maintain a government institution around keeping it secrete, while we know such information if true could change our view of the universe.
I have done work for various government agencies. We have a wide range of people and personality, as we
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Travel (Score:1)
We didn't even talk to people
Come on (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't heard of QAnon before, you're not a slashdot reader. We've discussed them here repeatedly.
The truth (Score:1)
The hilarious truth is that the QAnon thing was started by a couple of left-wing practical jokers who live in Seattle. Their goal was to come up with the daffiest, most ridiculously insane and unbelievable conspiracy theory ever.
It was designed to be 100% stupid, utterly impossible, and EASILY DISPROVABLE (like having this global pedophile ring run out of the 'basement' in a place that has no basement).
They never dreamed the story would actually have legs, take on a life of its own, and be eagerly believed
Re: The truth (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
1) There is no Q.
2) The pranksters are keeping a low profile (for obvious reasons). No one likes death threats.
3) Researching "Q" is like researching what color of underwear Bigfoot wears. Feel free to waste your time. Those people are batshit insane.
The irony (Score:3, Insightful)
MediaMatters reports the channel was live for nearly two weeks, promoting prominent QAnon voices and the movement's regular slate of rampant misinformation, conspiracy theories, and other false and manipulated news reports.
Amazing that their description of QAnon fits MediaMatters to a T.
"Last month" on the 3rd of the month (Score:2)
In other words, that didn't last long!
Sherman Anti-Trust Violation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They are a private company .. per supreme court ruling IT IS NOT THIER JOB TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT, PRIVATE COMPANIES CANNOT TAKE AWAY YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!! They can pick and choose who uses their facilities, servers , equipment etc.. Only governments city, county, state and feds can deny you your rights. The mom and pop sandwich shop on the corner that kicks your bum ass to curb for not wear pants is NOT taking away your first amendment rights. They are using their rights , as pro
Re: Sherman Anti-Trust Violation? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The OP has no clue what a monopoly is ... I know he was referencing their choice to drop the Channel. Which is a speech issue, NOT a monopoly issue. Not my fault the OP doesn't have two IQ digits to rub together.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Since Amazon Fire sticks and cubes, android devices and others have a sizeable chunk of the market you wouldn't be able to invoke Sherman Anti trust act. For one thing the entity must have a monopoly clearly they do not. ROKU can drop any channel they want that's the law. It's their stuff they do what they like. The only thing that they have follow are things like Civil rights act which bans descrimination based on race religion and a few other things or disabilities law. Neither of which they viola
Re: (Score:2)
I detect a definite shift in the tone of Slashdot. This is a place where rational responses used to get modded up and nonsense got modded down.
Lately I have seen too many posts like yours, that make a valid observation and draw a reasonable conclusion but get downvoted for reasons unstated.
Perhaps the Reddit hit mob has moved in? I would upmod you if I had points.
Who/What is Qanon and the movement? (Score:1, Informative)
The Q drops on 4-chan, 8-chan and now 8-kun:
* Gen Paul E Valley called it information coming out of 'The Army of Northern Virginia'.
* This is actually "United States Army Intelligence Support Activity (USAISA)".
* Notice the logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
* The drops themselves are a Psy-Op asking questions for anons to research.
* The goal is to get people thinking for themselves and no longer be sheep of the biased main stream media
The Q movement:
* Thous
Re: (Score:2)
QAnon a bunch of people with early onset dementia / Alzheimers ... Paranoia is one of the first signs. Quit posting go see a neurologist who specializes in that immediately ...
Re: (Score:1)
For 3 years they pushed Russian collusion which turned out to be all lies. We knew these were lies years beforehand because it was part of the data being gathered by the qanon movement. That is just one huge item out of the many examples.
O
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it wasn't all lies ... if you read the investigation Mueller just didn't think it rose to an impeachable offense. Yes we are, watching four years of a buffoon orange haired strong man come to fruition. The economy is tanking and the streets are erupting in violence. I spent 8 years in the corps before I got my CS degree. We were taught to respect the office even if you didn't respect the office holder. The 1000's of investigative journalists you speak of are clueless idiots too. They alread
Re: (Score:3)
What's more crazy. Believing that ALL of the major news sources in multiple countries are in on a conspiracy, or believing anonymous sources on messages boards filled with trolls.
You're in such a bubble, you didn't even notice the Russian collusion was proven years ago. Here are the facts:
1. Russia was found to have interfered with US elections
2. Russia used wikileaks as a part of their campaign to interfere with US elections
3. Members of the Trump campaign coordinated with wikileaks
Yet, someone consuming R
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't know real evidence if bit you in the ass! Real evidence like Alex Jones school shooting actors ?? Please you are like all these other tools, you think you are special because you found some little niche on internet message boards... YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL!!! As my DI used to say..
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the problem is the Qanon stuff is all made up. There isn't a deep state, Trump isn't secretly uncovering a global pedophile ring, the Mueller investigation wasn't secretly into the Clintons. Q revelations/predictions have been shown to be wrong again and again, but the supporters just ignore those, often times they're just too vague to mean anything so it's like a horoscope.
Now if it's all just made up stuff and games by trolls, why is this a problem? Because people take it too far as always an
Re: Who/What is Qanon and the movement? (Score:1)
Uh, yeah. It's never been a secret that unelected bureaucrats have taken over the government.
-Trump isn't secretly uncovering a global pedophile ring
Pedophiles are a global problem. What do you think is happening when they use the phrase, "sex tourism"?
-he Mueller investigation wasn't secretly into the Clintons.
Uh, well, it isn't a secret. We actually know Clinton paid for the Russia! report from British spy which was the core of the Mueller report charges
But ok, whateve
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, yeah. It's never been a secret that unelected bureaucrats have taken over the government.
That's not a "deep state" conspiracy, that's just the necessary bureaucracy of the government. All governments work like this, you might as well just call it the "government".
Pedophiles are a global problem. What do you think is happening when they use the phrase, "sex tourism"?
Yes it is a problem - one that Trump couldn't care less about. He knew Epstein was a pedophile and didn't do anything about any of that.
We actually know Clinton paid for the Russia! report from British spy which was the core of the Mueller report charges
While the Clinton campaign did fund some of the investigation by Steele, that's irrelevant. It's well established that Russia interfered with the election in favor of Trump by people of both parties
Re: Who/What is Qanon and the movement? (Score:1)
Russia! I keep hearing this that Russia! "Interfered" without ever seeing an explanation for exactly what they did. Honest question, wtf did they do?? If it was just the Facebook ads, that's bad but not terribly earthshaking and unworthy of a 3 year investigation and multip
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to sum up the Russian interference into a few sentences, but basically it consisted of hacking/releasing sensitive information in a way to target one party, hacking of voting infrastructure, and a massive propaganda campaign using some of that hacked information to target voters and spread misinformation. An extremely small part of that included facebook ads, but most reports don't even mention that unless they're looking to make light of it.
Re: Who/What is Qanon and the movement? (Score:1)
Deep state: there is a huge difference between nameless bureaucrats making the wheels spin in all the little ways too small for the handful of elected officials to deal with (government as you say, yes) and what we have which is unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats making up their own policies in direct conflict with elected officials and pushing their own agendas contrary to what the elected representatives of the people have decided we should be doing. That is the deep state and that'
Re: (Score:2)
If that was the "Deep State" abuse they were worried about then that'd be great, but instead they're getting rid of the people enforcing lawful regulations and oversight
National Enquirer channel anyone? (Score:2)
So if there was a national enquirer channel would they pull it?
mm (Score:1)
oo (Score:1)
amazing (Score:1)