Cullen Hoback’s HBO-backed documentary series traces QAnon’s rise from 4chan’s Poll board—a dismissed "LARP"—to a mainstream-altering movement, fueled by Ron Watkins’ alleged orchestration, including manipulated IP claims implicating Steve Bannon. Watkins’ performative behavior, like selling assets for Telegram’s 430K-follower conspiracy hub, and his doxxing of the "Dominion whistleblower" exposed QAnon’s toxic blend of algorithmic amplification and fringe extremism. January 6th’s escalation, tied to figures like Bannon and Peter Navarro’s debunked fraud report, reveals how online tribalism and unchecked platforms weaponize misinformation, risking real-world violence unless privacy rights and data ownership are reformed. [Automatically generated summary]
And it opens up so many conversations on censorship, on, you know, like, what is the truth?
And how important is it To know what's real and what's not real.
It's such a complex and unusual conversation that we have to have today about misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and this whole Q thing, which is just like...
It, to me, embodies the perfect example of what's like worst case scenario.
And got an enormous group of people to go along with it.
And then they wind up attacking Capitol.
I mean...
When they attack the Capitol building, when they stormed the Capitol building, and you realize, like, oh my god, like, this is literally like the wings of the butterfly create the storm, and then here it is, like, a thing that looked preposterous just a couple of years ago, when people are talking about all the Q drops and all this, like, the people that I knew that are into QAnon, Jamie pointed out earlier that a lot of them were the same people that are into Flat Earth.
It's the same sort of folks, like, kind of...
Without, you know, uncharitable terms, unsophisticated, gullible, and into secrets, into finding out secrets.
But, I mean, you see in episode one, Liz Crokin, who is a big QTuber, big...
Sort of celebrity in terms of analyzing Q-drops and talking about the meaning.
I bring that up to her.
I'm like, well, what about Flat Earth?
She's like, tell me anything.
Nothing's too crazy, right?
And this is the thing about Q. It's like, Q... And I think a lot of people were attracted to this premise because it feeds correctly into this notion that we should be skeptical of things, was question everything.
Question everything.
Question whether or not the Earth is flat.
Question whether or not...
And in the beginning, that included question Q. And that faded away pretty quickly.
A few months into QAnon, you could question anything as long as you didn't question Q. You jumped right to January 6th, sort of the finish line.
When I think of Jan 6, I don't think it would have happened without QAnon.
I also don't think it happened solely because of QAnon.
I think that's fair.
There were a lot of forces that coalesced that day.
I think it's such a strange time, you know, where people are learning how to use social media, and then we're also aware that social media is heavily manipulated by foreign countries.
I'm sure you're aware of the Internet Research Agency in Russia, this whole...
Essentially a troll farm that's designed to fuck with us and very successfully and Renee DiResta has highlighted this really well and It was really interesting to talk to her and find out how deep the rabbit hole goes with this stuff and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of memes often hilarious memes that get shared on social media created by Russia I mean,
Yeah, that was one of the questions I've had when you're looking at something like 8chan, now 8kun, where Q had been posting.
And we talk about free speech on those platforms, and...
This idea that, you know, anyone can post whatever they want within, you know, sort of the limits of free speech, right?
Like, there are certain things which are illegal.
But does that protect people who are abroad as well?
You know, free speech traditionally in America would protect American citizens.
But in the case of the Internet, you know, the Internet is global.
So that means that you can have actors in South Africa or in Russia posting on these sites Protected under the same premise as what Americans are accustomed to.
And able to use speech against America in certain instances.
So what you're describing, you know, these kind of memesmiths in Russia are in some ways using free speech against us, right?
This is an odd idea, but I think what it's doing is it's forcing us to adapt and evolve our ability to detect bullshit.
And it's doing it almost like an immune system response.
Like, what we're reacting to and what we're recognizing from all this stuff is like, oh, we didn't know what this was, and this has resulted in this riot, whatever you want to call the Capitol Hill attack.
And now we're looking at more censorship on social media.
We're looking at them trying to batten down the hatches and figure out how to handle something like QAnon or the people that were allegedly promoting these ideas.
A lot of them that are banned from social media, the stuff you highlighted in your show.
We have to figure out what's true and what's not true.
And so there's been some sort of draconian measures that have been suggested, you know, like hiring some sort of a team that goes over social media and make sure that everything is according to what they deem to be correct or incorrect.
Which obviously is subject to biases, and we're very aware that that's going on today, that there's a lot of that going on today, where necessarily the truth doesn't, like the Hunter Biden laptop story is a great example of that, right?
Like the social media platforms.
They censored news from the New York Post, one of the oldest newspapers in America, on the Hunter Biden laptop story because they decided that somehow or another it was propaganda or somehow or another it was not good to get that information.
But it was news.
It was real news.
It was a real story and they decided it was too close to the election.
This could hurt Biden.
We don't want Trump to win.
So you're dealing with biases.
This is not just like simply, here's information that we know to be true or here's information that we know to be a lie.
We're going to stop that from getting through.
No, they knew it to be true, but they decided to stop it because it wasn't convenient or it didn't fit the narrative they were trying to promote.
And what these big tech companies have suggested is that, well, maybe we don't use humans.
Maybe we use algorithms, right?
You know, to moderate everything.
And, you know, the algorithms that In many ways had bolstered something like Q because they're basically sociopathic when it comes to just trying to drive attention as much as possible.
So now they can kind of invert those algorithms and punish those who talk about that kind of content.
And oftentimes, even if their goal was just to prevent conversation around QAnon because they consider it to be problematic, What else gets swept up with that?
I saw a lot of people who were reporting on QAnon maybe coming from the side of critiquing it.
Their videos were being wiped out.
People who were documenting January the 6th, their content was being wiped out.
People who were critical of QAnon, they had websites that were sort of on the other side.
That was being wiped out as well.
And that's because, of course, it's sort of this blunt force that an algorithm wields.
So people even, people that were analyzing the movement from a critical standpoint, people who are looking at how ridiculous this is, look at this, they had their channels wiped out as well?
I mean, when we, even when we, so when we first released the series, you know, there was, there was, there were some articles floating around, like, oh, maybe this is going to make it things worse.
If I typed in Q into the storm into YouTube, it wouldn't auto-populate at a certain point.
It started out auto-populating, and then that went away.
So, yeah, I wouldn't feel confident at all that, you know, if we didn't have a gorilla in our corner, that this story that revealed ultimately who was behind QAnon...
Would have been seen, would have been able to find an audience.
unidentified
Shout out to HBO. Shout out to HBO. I mean, they really had my back.
They immediately took it, brought it over, turned it into real-time, and made it even better.
You know, it's uncensored now, and it's, in my opinion, Real Time with Bill Maher is probably one of the very best social commentary shows and comedy shows that, like, really doesn't pull any punches on any network, ever.
And the reason was because, that I was told, is because, you know, there was all this conspiracy, Flat Earth stuff, and they were getting blowback, but eventually they said, we don't want to have to decide what we publish and what we don't, what's real and what's not.
Just to check it, I looked it up, and sure enough, The Cove wasn't available on Amazon.
Those who said that there wouldn't be a slow creep of censorship, starting with things that I think everybody agrees they wouldn't like to be in society, You know, things like The Daily Storm or maybe a lot of people don't want 8chan.
You know, there's a progression, you know, until you end up, it seems like something like, you know, the Cove can't find an audience on a major platform.
And I don't want to conflate government censorship with the corporate censorship too much.
However, in a lot of ways, it does feel like the government has passed the buck to these corporations to do what they legally can't.
Which I think is the same thing we saw the government do with privacy, right?
Like, they wouldn't have been able to get all of this data from us directly, but if you give it to a Facebook or a Twitter, it's very easy for the government to then go and get access to that information.
So I think what we saw happen with the Fourth Amendment, we're now seeing happen with the First Amendment, where they can say, well, look, we couldn't restrict conversation around certain topics.
We couldn't directly decide what's true or what's not.
We're going to put that in the hands of these companies.
And, of course, these companies have intimate relationships with many members of the government.
You know, there's a revolving door there.
So I... When people want to talk about limiting what we can say online or limiting disinformation and other things, I think that it's almost the wrong place to start.
I think we have to go back to the privacy issues.
And I actually think if we had not let privacy be eroded online, we wouldn't be having this debate.
Because if these gigantic companies hadn't collected thousands of data points on us, didn't know our fears, our desires, if they hadn't built these psychometric profiles, they wouldn't have been able to manipulate us, use these algorithms to drive us into echo chambers, which have really created these disparate realities.
And now these disparate realities can't agree necessarily on a set of facts.
Sometimes you're considered, you know, sometimes people will be ostracized for even talking to somebody from the quote-unquote other side, right?
And so now there's this conversation about what should be allowed to be said online.
And I think that that's simply a byproduct of, you know, our privacy having been eroded.
So, you know, if I was to do anything about these issues, I would start by restoring rights.
I would go back and say, all right, well, how do we get ownership and privacy rights online when it comes to our personal data?
Let's start there before we start, you know, going after the speech itself.
Do you think that the algorithms are designed to do this or do you think that it's just a function of human nature that we tend to gravitate towards things that outrage us and then huddle up together in echo chambers?
That this is just a natural tribal behavior and that what the algorithms do is essentially just highlight what we're really interested in.
So you're right to say that humans do have these traits.
You know, and I haven't designed the algorithms, but I've also talked to people who have, and, you know, a lot of, they don't even understand how they work at a certain point.
I mean, yeah, I made a film about eight years ago called Terms and Conditions May Apply.
You know, and that came out right before the Edward Snowden revelations.
You know, and when it came out, the initial response was like, oh, this is maybe conspiratorial.
Surely the government doesn't have this much insight into our behavior and, you know, and access to our devices and our personal information.
And then the Snowden revelations came out, and then it was like, oh, well, maybe the series didn't go far enough.
And back then we had talked about the idea of how is technology influencing us?
How is it changing us, manipulating us?
And it didn't feel like that was the biggest story at the time.
And this question of privacy and how our rights are being eroded through these agreements that nobody ever really reads.
And you could find all kinds of juicy tidbits hidden in there in terms of what the companies were actually doing and kind of revealing this unholy collusion between the government and big tech.
You know, but at the time people would often say, well, what's the cost?
What's the big deal if they're mining my personal data to serve me with ads?
And I'd say that the environment we find ourselves in now is the cost.
I mean, if there's a zero day that allows you to get access to a microphone and everything that someone's doing on their phone without them even having to click on a link, it's game over.
Yeah, it's interesting because you would think that there would be a market for a platform that becomes bulletproof.
And there have been some, you know, Linux-based cell phone operating system phones that they sell, like they buy a phone.
You get a Google phone, they de-Google it and put different software on it and stuff.
But I'm not sure if that's like...
If you're deluding yourself into believing that you're actually protected with that stuff or you actually are protected, I would think they could work around all those things, especially something that's, I mean, it's essentially like open source, right?
Like if it's a Linux-based operating system, there's some super geniuses out there.
I'm sure they're going to be able to hack into that.
Yeah, I mean, I think with stuff like Signal, you're just protecting yourself as best you can.
You use something that's end-to-end encrypted.
You're doing better than 99% of people who are out there.
You're making somebody really have to work to get access to your stuff.
And if you're using a VPN and you're using DuckDuckGo, then you're minimizing your digital footprint.
And you're not worth as much of these companies.
They're not able to...
Manipulate you, I guess, in the same way through these algos.
But let me ask you this.
What would you do about the algorithm problem?
Because on the one hand, algorithms are necessary for something like a search engine.
On the other hand, they drive the most sensational content, things like QAnon, and I think have largely facilitated the situation we find ourselves in now.
And you're going down this rabbit hole and then that becomes your fucking life.
Like, one of the things that to me was so fascinating about your documentary series was seeing into the lives of these people that were utterly obsessed with these Q drops.
And it becomes a thing that gives life meaning when, you know, for lack of better terms, a lot of those folks in that documentary are misfits.
Like, a lot of the people are a little goofy.
You know, the way they talk about things and think about things is a little goofy.
And when QAnon came along, it gave them something to latch on to that was bigger than them.
They were a part of a movement.
And you see that same sort of thinking, that same sort of mental pattern in people that get obsessed with UFOs.
You see it in people that get obsessed with political dogma.
You see it in a lot of things.
They become a part of a movement that's far bigger than them.
It's one of the reasons why people get so invested in political candidates.
And political campaigns.
It's not necessarily that they're looking at the big picture objectively and they think that this politician is going to be better for their lives.
They're going to highlight problems that we have with inequality or problems that we have with laws.
But mostly they want their team to win.
You know, there's a lot of that with a lot of people.
They connect ideologically with a team, and then they get very tribal.
And that was the thing that I saw in that documentary.
I'm like, this is a pattern of human behavior.
And the QAnon thing just locked into it because it was secretive, it was interesting, the idea that Trump had this insider, and this insider was like dropping all this information that it was all going down.
In Trump, we had this guy that was going to clean up the swamp.
He was going to find those people that were eating babies and all that.
Yeah, and it was a narrative that contradicted what people were seeing in the mainstream media as well.
And I think that a lot of those individuals who voted for Trump and also gravitated towards QAnon, They wanted to believe that there was this sort of secret story that was happening behind the scenes, you know, where all of these arrests were coming, where, you know, what they had hoped would happen would actually happen.
And I think that, I mean, you hit a lot of the big points there.
And that's why QAnon is sort of part religion, part political movement, part interactive game.
And it draws in people from the UFO crowd.
I mean, it's a big tent for all kind of...
Conspiratorial fringe thinking or, you know, sort of strong religious convictions as well.
I mean, you see a lot of people who are evangelicals who also believe in QAnon.
There's a big overlap there.
So I think it's individuals who are looking for community as well, looking for purpose.
I spent so much time with these guys, right?
And I would get phone calls in the middle of the night where they just wanted to talk A lot of times because they just found me to be a grounding force in their lives.
And so I would try to always take it when I could and just give them a more neutral perspective versus what they might be hearing, especially some of the QTubers.
So some of the Qtubers, like, they were going down these paths, or these, you know, they were in these rabbit holes, and then they would call you and go, hey man, does this make any sense?
Am I out of line?
Because they were wrapped up in it, and they saw you as an objective sort of voice of reason.
I mean, you see in Episode 5 one of the craziest things in the series, which is that these ex-Mill guys, whether it's General Flynn or, in this case, General Paul Vallely or Major General.
Is he a Lieutenant Major?
Anyway, he's using his ex-Mill guys to cede his political agenda with these QTubers.
So what happens is they suddenly have someone who is claiming to have this super secret intel reaching out to them and saying, you know, Osama bin Laden's actually still alive.
Would you like to talk about that on your Qtube station?
And they're going, well, you know, and they're useful because someone like in the case of Craig and his site JustInformedTalk, I mean, he had like half a million or more followers.
So they're a useful inflection point.
So he would be someone who might call me up and be like, what do you think about this?
Like, why are they telling me this?
You know, what's their motive?
Should I tell this to my audience?
I'd be like, it didn't really matter what I said.
He usually just ended up telling it to his audience.
But, you know, I would try to talk him through it.
The only general that I spoke to, and he didn't end up making an appearance in the series, just because I wanted to keep the series focused primarily on the investigation into who was behind it, was General Hayden.
I mean, I do think that that's a part of it, right?
You have an incredibly passionate base who are...
Most of them believe that Flynn was Q, right?
That was the predominant theory among QAnons.
Because Flynn was so central to the Q narrative...
You know, he was a good guy in that narrative who warranted their support and was kind of, you know, working against the cabal.
So you ask most QAnons and Flynn would be very high on their list of suspects for who might be behind it.
And it would not be until the last year in the approach to the election that Flynn would openly embrace it, doing what I think you were describing where he, you know, raises his hand with the statement on the Fourth of July and they all take the Q oath.
Well, that was another aspect that I thought was odd is that how people in other countries like the guy from South Africa are so into American politics.
It's hard to try to get their perspective.
I would imagine that it's just very different being there and looking at us.
Well, he was so adamant that the second Q wasn't Q. And I was like, hmm, how does he know that?
Like, why does he think that?
Why is he so convinced?
I mean, if he doesn't have access to some data points, if he doesn't have access to whatever it is, like the location or something, the ISP, the IP address, rather, what's his reasoning?
How is he so sure just based on a couple of posts, you know, style, that suddenly Q is posting from a static IP as opposed to a dynamic or changing IP?
Yeah, how could he be so sure just based on that?
I mean, there's a lot of reasons to think that Paul would have been running it up until that point.
And there's a lot of reasons to think why CodeMonkey or slash Ron Watkins would have taken it from him at that point.
I mean, he was posing a real threat to the, you know, quote-unquote operation.
He had just appeared on Alex Jones.
So this is late December 2017. Q's been actively posting for about two months at this point.
So Jerome Corsi, who had been talking about Q-drops, sort of famed conspiracy theorists, largely responsible for the old Bertha movement thing around Obama, Swift Boat with John Kerry, he's been doing this political operative stuff for years.
He brings it to Alex Jones, and Alex Jones brings these two guys on his show, late December.
It's Paul Ferber and Coleman Rogers.
You know, Coleman Rogers would go on to start a 24-hour news channel devoted to Q. Paul Ferber, you know, was running the board that Q was posting on.
Yeah, and in fact, actually, I brought a chart, but you can actually see that Q was, the amount of times that people were calling Q a LARP on 4chan was increasing almost exponentially at the very end up until Q decides, I'm out of here, you can't.
You can see.
And then right at the end there, that's when Q jumps ship and goes over to 8chan.
Now, they would also say that Q had been banned on 4chan, and that also motivated the leap.
But if you're using a VPN, which 4chan makes that very difficult, 8chan less so, If you go there and you wanted a shitpost and you don't want to have it traced back to you, you can do that.
So that's why people, you know, it gives them this true sense of anonymity without having all of their posts be logged and associated with their IP. How does that establish a community, though?
And I think that those who are heavy Chan users would...
The term is fame fagging, that's what they would say, where people use a name like Q to bring more notoriety.
In their minds, the best ideas rise to the top.
So they don't want to...
They don't want to have, they don't want to give, they don't want to have, I guess, the power that's associated with identity.
And that's part of why they were so annoyed when Coleman Rogers and Paul Ferber went on the Alex Jones show, because they were, you know, doing what Chan users would call fame fagging at that point.
And that's a term they love to throw around on the Chans heavily.
Over the course of that time like Ron's story evolves or Either he forgets what he told you initially or he forgets the way he was sort of describing Q and his idea of politics and what he feels about politics and towards the end He's saying essentially he's been educating normies on how to do politics and you're like hey What the fuck?
What is this?
But along the way, part of the thing was analyzing the difference between the original cue and then the cue once it goes to 8chan, right?
So when we get to the end, we can go into all the reasons that Ron is Q. But if we're just talking about the early days, because I get a lot of people asking me, okay, well, who was the original Q? What you were describing, that style shift, that's a huge indicator.
A, that there was only one person writing at one point and then another person writing at the next.
And B, it tells us when the shift might have happened.
So, you know, that shift that's most detectable is somewhere between the jump from 4chan to 8chan and a little bit after when Paul loses control of the board and believes that Q has become fake.
And Q starts posting really obvious doctored photos.
There's punctuation changes.
You can see that it's someone who's trying to emulate.
Well, after the series concluded, Ron messaged me.
And that was the first time he had seen it.
He was watching it alongside everybody else.
And he messaged me and he said, Cullen, you know, I identify more with villains.
He said something to the effect of, I learned a long time ago that you have to make internet personalities larger than life because it makes for a more entertaining existence.
I'm not Q, but I may as well lean into it.
So he has to continue to deny Q, being Q, I think, in his mind for whatever liability might come with that.
It's like he comes as close to admitting it without getting rid of the plausible deniability.
And I think he also assumes that all of our communications are being monitored.
I mean, that was after three years of this kind of cat and mouse thing.
And he had always denied being really involved in the boards at all.
You know, he would kind of pretend not to know certain things about Q. So this was a big shift for him.
To come out and say, yeah, actually, like, I was leading digs on the boards, which is basically finding and sort of curating the research or evolving theories or, you know,
and this is what happens on Poll, it's what happens on Q Research, is that they're going out and collecting whatever stuff they find on the internet and saying, okay, you know, Something about Huma Abdeen or something about, you know, nuclear subs.
You might just get this sort of lengthy list, and those are the digs.
And then they keep getting kind of recycled.
And so what Q would really do was just look at all of that research, you know, kind of pick the best, the most spicy stuff, ask a question about it or reference it in some way, shape or form.
And then it would make those who were on those sites feel like they were part of the game.
And, oh, we're on to something.
You know, this insider is looping us in.
So to be Q, you didn't need to be a secret government insider.
You just needed to know what the anons were already thinking.
You needed to understand that culture and you needed to spend a lot of time on the boards.
You needed to kind of be, you know, well, I was going to say a king of those boards, but just an edgelord to pull it off.
It's like you could not be a deep government agent, some person who was in the White House, who had massive responsibilities, who was side by side with the president, and have the knowledge of that community.
You know, it's like, well, it gets deleted because 8chan moderates just like every social media company has to moderate.
You know, I think they moderate sort of to the absolute limit.
You know, but...
Yeah, I mean, she also didn't want to engage with that material.
It's an uncomfortable place to be for a lot of people.
So that's part of why in the series I wanted to say, well, look, in order to understand Q, you have to understand...
The entire mentality of the world from which Q is born.
And in fact, the person who is the architect, I believe, behind all of this, and I think we proved to be the architect behind all of this, is, you know, an edgelord of that space.
It's the exact kind of person who would run that kind of campaign.
And I don't think for a second, like, no one could sit back and be like, I'm going to create this massive global movement and be successful.
It's just, this is the one that kind of stuck.
I mean, there have been other LARPs in the past, you know, other people who've kind of come out and been these secret anons.
I mean, before Q, there were a couple of other prototypes.
I didn't mention this in the series, but, you know, there was like an FBI anon, a CIA anon, a Mega anon, and...
Someone, in that case, it was supposed to be kind of like someone who had a good insight to Washington, D.C. politics and had good sources and was writing on the chans and was supposed to be female.
And, yeah, this had happened kind of in the year running up to Q and tailed off at the beginning of 2018, this other kind of heightened anon.
But you can go all the way back to the early 2000s with Art Bell and Coast to Coast.
You know, there was somebody who pretended to be a time traveler from the future who was trying to prevent World War III, John Titor.
There's what Ron would say, and then there's probably what the sort of truth is.
We did some analytics of the traffic, you know, and it certainly went way up thanks to Q. Way more, way more users until Q had become the predominant reason that people were visiting 8chan and 8kun.
So we're talking, it looked like over 2 million were actively engaging there during sort of the peak of Q. It might have been higher than that.
So there was Christchurch and there was Poe, and then there was another shooting that took place in El Paso in August.
There's so many shootings, I can't even keep track of all of them.
Which is its own story, I guess.
But, you know, in 2019. And that was the third one that became the point that there was a lot of public outcry, largely led by Fred Brennan, their opposition.
To wipe the site from the web.
And I think the assumption was that people were being radicalized on 8chan, that they were, you know, being exposed to dangerous ideas and that this is what was leading them to these shootings.
One of the things I tried to point out actually in this series was that that's kind of a misguided assumption.
You know, I think that we can look specifically at the New Zealand shooter, right?
Lots of headlines were saying that the New Zealand shooter had done so because they were radicalized on 8chan.
But I think they'd visited the Baltics, they'd donated to white supremacist organizations, and they had, even in their own testimony, said that they'd been radicalized on YouTube, that it was like the YouTube algorithms that had drawn them to a lot of this material once upon a time, years earlier.
And so I think that's yet another example where you say, okay, well, algorithms are driving people, you know, in a certain direction.
We can have a conversation about what kind of seatbelts you might want to put on algorithms, but, you know, an HN doesn't have any.
Very DIY little film, but it was back before people really knew what LARPing even was.
You know, and I saw some parallels here.
People who don't have a lot of, you know, sort of close friends in their lives and are looking for meaning and, I guess, kind of want to feel special.
Yeah.
And I think what you see actually over the course of the series, and this is why we structured it this way, I mean, Q did really kind of start as a sort of interactive game that took on a life of its own.
And it grew really rapidly until these, you can call Q a meme, until it memed itself into reality.
Until someone like Ron Watkins was advising President Trump.
Well, all of this makes you wonder if he had a relationship before he migrated from, you know, Q shuts down, right, on election day, and then Ron starts actively really posting on Twitter.
And the fact that he was able to build such a massive following and quickly start advising on election fraud issues makes you wonder if they had a connection with the administration in some way, shape, or form before that.
You know, Ron would often say while I was filming with him that it was a marketing campaign.
Some would describe it, which is kind of a glib way of putting it.
You know, he and Jim would say, Jim Watkins' father would say that often.
You know, a glib way of putting it.
But some might describe it as a psyop.
You know, and...
And so I consider it a possibility, especially since HN was directing a high amount of traffic to Donald Trump's website in the first election cycle, that a relationship had formed somewhere along the way.
Maybe there were payments.
I don't know.
I haven't been able to prove that.
But how does someone like Ron Watkins go from...
You know, obscurity to suddenly being, you know, a celebrity in those circles almost overnight.
And to being the guy who's like, yeah, I'm reading this election manual.
Let me give you some advice on how to do it.
I mean, he said he's like, I must have just been the option of last resort.
But we do know that Jason Sullivan, who was Roger Stone's head of social media, was using his algorithm hijacking tools on Twitter to amplify Ron.
And he was hoping to get a hold of Q. You know, it is possible that there was something along those lines was happening behind the scenes there.
It may just be the case that Ron was able to leverage his position and those relationships over time because he was telling them what they wanted to hear.
You know, his lawyers, everybody was saying, like, what are we going to do about this?
And Ron's like, I've got a plan.
Right?
But it blows my mind to this day.
You know, my jaw dropped.
When I saw Ron appearing on OAN with his black hat on, you know, that he bought when I was filming, a big black cowboy hat, and suddenly he was the election expert.
And mind you, when I spoke with him after he had been on the air with Chanel Rion on OAN, he's like, well, Q actually did a drop while I was on OAN, so I can't be Q. It's like, you know, the more he tried to make it seem like he wasn't Q, the more he made himself seem like he wasn't.
He had gone through that massive, massive effort to make it seem like Bannon was Q, right?
And he's saying that what he's using is IP addresses, and that he's isolating it to a very specific location that is very near where Bannon's house is, right?
Yeah, so the very first time I met Ron, we shot an interview in the Philippines.
You know, I had gone there saying, you know, primarily it's gonna...
I'm interested in looking at free speech through the lens of Q. That's what I, you know, that was sort of the pretense.
And at the end of my interview with him, he pulls me aside and he says, you know, no one's really been looking at this, but I think Bannon is Q. Very first time.
And I, you know, I've got my absurd amount of research, you know, I've got Infinity Board, thousands of assets, I've got timelines of all the possible suspects for Q at this point.
You know, and Bannon was a prime suspect, just based, just sheerly on kind of the circumstances around him, like his character, you know, he knows the chance, he knows that world.
He knows how to co-opt it for political gain.
So, You know, he makes for a possible suspect.
Well, yeah, I've been considering Bannon.
Now, why would Ron, the very first, you know, first off, like, trolling journalists, and I don't consider myself a journalist, but trolling journalists is, like, the gold standard for trolls on the trans.
Like, that's, if you can get them to publish something fake, that's their dream, right?
So, like, I'm just thinking, okay, well, why is he telling me Bannon the very first time I meet him?
Fine.
And they say, can you show me some data associated with this?
He's like, I'll get around to it.
And some time goes by, and I think six months later, he could really tell that the heat was on him.
I have Sauron.
I think that's who it is.
He's like, I've got to throw this guy off the trail.
He's like, okay, I've got the data.
I've got the data that shows that it's Steve Bannon.
You know, and you can see in the series, in episode four, you know, he's like, I've known it from the beginning.
Oh, he would say, like, while I would be with him, he would say things that, like, Q's going to start going on the offense.
As we're, like, coming down the mountain.
And then during the interview, he brought that up again.
Q's going to start going on the offense.
Two days later, Q writes, going on the offense.
This is not something that Q does often.
I think there was one more usage of the word offense in, like, the thousands of drops that had occurred up until that point.
Like, that's, okay, fine.
That's one data point, right?
But I have many, many more data points like that.
And in fact, actually, Ron, after watching the series and he saw that scene, I was going to get around to this after the whole ban a bit, but he ended up throwing his own right-hand man under the bus.
He's like, well, I had this guy with me that day.
He must have been taking notes, and maybe he's Q. That's how it must have.
That's the only way that could have happened.
All right, fine.
You've already convinced me of Bannon, but now let's throw your right-hand guy at the bus.
Interesting.
First off, he would be able to access the trip code.
It wouldn't be hard for him to easily hijack it at any point in time.
So, if what you want to do is, and that would also make it so that the trip code doesn't end up having to be the primary verification method, and those who run the boards, the admin, obviously the admin, but the moderators and the board owner who can see a bit of the IP address can go, OK, like, even though Q has been hijacked, but the moderators and the board owner who can see a bit of the IP address can go, OK, like, even though Well, it's the new IP address.
So Q could always use the static IP to fall back on as a verification method.
And this is what Paul was complaining about.
He's like, okay, well, suddenly Q is using this new IP. Now, interestingly, Ron's right-hand man during one of these other interviews is like, let me show you.
Ron was actually messaging me all the way back in early January of 2018 that he thinks it's Steve Bannon.
So, and then actually, when this takeover, I think, took place, when Paul Ferber, the previous board owner of Q, says that it's a fake Q, some of the first things that get posted are in relationship to Steve Bannon.
It's like a Steve Bannon article.
So it really looks like right from that moment, someone, most likely Ron, was laying the pipe to create a forensics data set that pointed to Steve Bannon.
And I think he was rather disappointed that nobody had picked up on it.
And he was like, let me show you.
It's so good.
We even staged a whole thing where we sent someone out with cameras in front of Avenatti's office, shared that stuff, who lives like 20 minutes or so away from where Steve Bannon's house was.
You know, staged this whole thing so that there was a forensic trail that wasn't pointing in their direction.
And that's why it confused the hell out of me.
I was like, you know, all this data would be such a pain in the ass to fake.
Well, it wasn't that the data was fake.
It was that the data was designed to look like a certain thing because, of course, Ron would know how to do that.
And I'm sure he was just like, ah, he wanted better competition.
So what I wanted to get to before is when the initial cue drops and when all this stuff starts happening, how does it leak and become a mainstream thing?
How does it get out?
Like, what is...
Is there a specific moment or is it just a slow sort of recognition by people who are conspiratorially minded that there's this gentleman or person or whatever that's posting pretending to be this Trump insider?
Like, what is it?
That makes it become this huge thing.
I don't remember when I started hearing about it, but I assume by the time stuff reaches me, it's leaked out into the mainstream.
People started talking about this anonymous insider on the chans almost immediately.
It was almost instantaneous.
And I think that for those who were trying to get an edge on YouTube, you know, having this...
Being able to say, like, oh, there's this secret government insider who's releasing drops, and all of our dreams are coming true.
So you had people like Tracy Beans, Jordan Sather.
Right from the start, kind of being like...
Is this legit?
Here's what they're saying.
And then it kind of built from there.
People are following them.
Start checking out the chans.
But it was still fairly contained.
It was fairly contained up until, like, late December of 2017, when these characters, Tracy Beans, Paul Ferber, and Coleman Rogers, and I believe it was Tracy's idea, say, let's start a board on Reddit that's devoted to QAnon.
That's gonna reach, you know, a much wider audience.
And you can see it even in Q's mentality towards Tracy.
Okay, so this is great.
I talked with all of the board owners for Q. So everybody who had ever been in charge of the craziest thing on the internet that's QAnon, right?
Or Q had been posting on their board.
I asked them all, like, okay, well, did Q ever communicate with you, right?
Did Q ever, you know, send you messages?
And they said, well, not, like, direct messages.
But Q, because of that IP address, would sometimes post anonymously, openly on the boards, so that only the board owner or the moderators would know it was Q. So it was a way of communicating with those who were running the boards without the entire public knowing it.
And so they would be able to just go, okay, same IP, bring it up.
And Q didn't do this very often, very, very rarely.
But one of the board owners was like, there's a really unbelievable moment.
My jaw just dropped that Q was saying this stuff.
And I was on this call with a couple of other folks who were big into Q at the time, I think.
Anyway, they were all like, wait, what is it?
What is it?
I think we have the...
It's like Secret Q drop.
Secret.
Oh, this is great because Q is just shit-talking Tracy Beans and some of...
2018, and people are really starting to monetize Q at this point.
Tracy Beans is kind of moving away.
She's built this huge audience off of QAnon.
She's kind of rejecting it.
And Q, if we scroll up, you can see...
R equals 18. So you can see the ID right there, the FC, whatever.
This is something that only a board owner or a moderator would be able to see.
It's right next to Anonymous.
So then you see that little F-C-F-E-3-I. So if you scroll up and you can see a Q drop, that one right there, it has the same ID next to it, the F-C-F. And that's because it's like a hash representation of the IP address.
So it's the same.
So you know that Q, even though they didn't use the trip code, was also posting these anonymous drops.
And we didn't include this in the series, but this is kind of wild that Q was actually making posts that those who were running the boards could actually see.
So you have this one here, R equals 18. Why is that interesting?
Which seems like, yeah, this is not like, why the fuck would a government insider give a shit who's becoming famous from distributing what's supposed to be real information, right?
And then you have someone like Jordan Sather who comes from the David Wilcock UFO New Age crowd.
Like the reptile people, lizard people or whatever, blue avians, that's his baby.
5G. So, yeah, so you could, and so for them, it was like, okay, well, here's a whole new audience that maybe we can tap into.
And as Q became this umbrella for all beliefs, all conspiracies, all every, you know, the big tent, it was very useful for, say, someone like Wilcock or Jordan Sather to be like, okay, well, let's inject our worldview into the broader narrative.
And I think that's one of the most interesting things about Q is that, you know, Q didn't have complete control, right?
It was kind of call and response.
Like, what does the audience want to some extent?
Because it was an evolving narrative.
And the idea that lizard people or blue avians got introduced to a subset of that, you know, subset of that ecosystem isn't something that was introduced by Q itself.
It was just something that others who glommed on to it introduced.
So, I don't know.
It's kind of fascinating to watch how it took on a life of its own.
And in some ways, Q didn't have quite as much control as you might imagine.
I mean, Q even did Q&As at one point, you know, where people would ask...
It seems like it because the shift from 8chan, when 8chan was taken down, and then they come back as 8kun, and then Q starts posting before anybody can post.
Just like, how did Q know how many users were on 8chan posting?
He's like, I don't even know that.
Okay.
Yeah, but that was a huge tell.
I mean, there were lots of little clues I wasn't able to include as well.
I went through and analyzed reflections in some of the photos that showed how Q was holding the phone when they were taking pictures, and it was left-handed.
I wrote about this on Twitter, and then Ron messaged me.
As they describe, it's a yacht that you just sink money into.
And Fred Brennan, their opposition who had created 8chan, made it difficult to keep it going.
Made it expensive legally and technically for them.
You know, they had a lot of legal costs associated with all of that.
I don't know.
You know, they had to change locations for their businesses.
They had to change server setups.
I mean, you know, he just made things more costly.
And Tom, I guess, said that Jim is somebody who, when he gets money, he kind of spends it.
So sometimes he has a lot and sometimes he doesn't have very much.
Fred would say that that's all bullshit and that Jim is actually super wealthy and it's all just a character he's playing.
Because they have Five Channel in Japan, which is an incredibly popular Chan.
That's, I think, where the majority of their income stream comes from.
And you see some of that Chan drama play out where, you know, he had this split with his old business partner, Hiroyuki, he's super famous in Japan.
Might also explain why there's the whole Q-Japan Flynn thing we were talking about earlier, because they have headquarters there, so if they're gonna get Q-ed to be popular anywhere, it's gonna probably be in Japan.
You know, and Chan culture is also much bigger in Japan, I guess, in part because if I was to guess or I've sort of heard that when you're in an environment where you feel like you're socially not as free, you need more outlets and the Chan serve as that outlet.
And it makes it really hard to really know what's going on in Japan.
If you want to have your business operations somewhere, it's difficult to do research.
We just released the series in Japan with a Japanese dub and everything.
I'm very interested to see how it's received there.
And that's where Ron is still.
I mean, we never...
That end sequence where I sort of confront him on, you know, why I think he might be Q, and he kind of comes out with it.
Initially, we were supposed to meet again to film, and I wanted to kind of confront him on sort of the list of reasons I thought he was Q. And he wanted to do it on an ice wall.
I mean, in the beginning, I had first reached out to Fred, and I didn't know that their relationship was dissolving, that the tension was growing between Fred and Jim and Ron.
You know, and I was genuinely interested in the free speech side of what HM was doing.
And I didn't think that they were behind Q when I went there.
I just went to talk to them also in part because if anybody knew who was behind Q, it would be those with the technical data.
Everything else is just, you know, can be noise.
You can sort of see what you want in the writing.
But the data itself was sort of the most valuable.
Of course, after I left, you know, I was like, God, these guys are suspicious.
I definitely know the type, though Ron just takes things to the extreme more than anyone I've ever met.
We've discovered when we were going to Reno that we had both been in the Music Man and both been in the Barbershop Quartet and both still remembered the music to it.
But Ron has this idea that we're all, you know, the old Shakespeare thing, we're all just actors on stage.
But then the question is, what part do you want to play if that's true?
And, you know, he seems to like that villain role.
He's drawn more to that.
And I think that the glasses are just a character.
I mean, the watch, he was covering up his watches, his fancy, fancy watches.
And when he stopped covering it up is when we were in Reno filming, and then he, like, kind of rolled it up to show me that he was now wearing a Casio watch.
And I went back and looked through all the footage and said, like, okay, like...
Did he have on fancy watches?
Because Q would use fancy watches to confirm he's still in fact Q and fountain pens.
That was a good red herring for a bit.
And maybe Jim was also in on it or got in on it at some point.
Part of me with all this kind of QAnon stuff is like, and many things online, and it gets into this conversation of censorship and whether or not censorship is necessary or whether it's evil, whatever.
The thing about it is, all these things, is it's not...
It doesn't work on that doesn't work on me in terms of like I like the Q drops all stuff I'm not I never got interested right so I never I never got invested in it I never I mean I got invested but in the way that I wanted to figure out who is behind you make a documentary different flavor of obsession but so it's like But I mean, Ron is fucking with misfits.
And then it gets even crazier because Lindell has this whole cyber symposium.
They're going to reveal that the whole election was a fraud.
They bring the whistleblower out.
What happened is Ron essentially doxxed her when he released the information, even though he said that he was scrubbing everything.
He released some passwords that got traced back to her, and now she's entangled in a big legal suit.
But essentially she ended up doing the thing that she had claimed the other side was doing.
You know, she revealed she somehow got access to the password that the Secretary of State, I think, you know, was supposed to be the only—the government was only supposed to be the ones who had access to this.
And then she ended up releasing it.
So it's a huge, like, legal problem for her.
You know, Ron didn't really protect her in that situation.
It's releasing a lot of ideological or conceptual viruses into people's minds and getting to believe that all these arrests were going to happen that never happened.
So it started as a messaging platform, but you can have gigantic groups.
And the guy who started it, like, you know, he...
I think he used to...
And this is a little outside of my expertise.
He was, I believe, like, uh...
He's Russian.
He had...
I think maybe he'd worked at Contactia before.
He left, started Telegram.
Russia, not his biggest fan.
Um...
They raised a bunch of money in some crypto ICO. I think it's probably helped their technology to scale.
And they are, you know, far more permissive when it comes to people using their platform.
Technically, unless you're a member of the group, you shouldn't be able to see what people are posting.
But you can forward messages now from, you know, what one person wrote to another group.
You can follow people on there.
And so Ron has actually managed to accrue I think he's over 430,000 followers at this point on Telegram, where he can post something and share it and then people can just comment in the aftermath.
And there is a kind of retweet functionality in the form of forwarding messages, but it doesn't have the same kind of amplification tools built into it.
And then I was surprised to hear, oh, wait, people were, they create, it had been sort of retooled to be, you know, to follow, but to create sort of big followings on there.
So if you have a big Telegram account, you can forward somebody else's message or say, hey, here's another handle.
Follow this person.
I'm not the foremost expert on Telegram, so I may not know exactly what its origin was, but I do remember that initially I was using it primarily as an encrypted messaging tool.
And then pretty quickly, several years ago, You know, crypto groups, other things we're using that as a, you know, means for communicating with a large audience.
It's being utilized in a similar, but I think, better way for society.
I think the fact that he doesn't have algorithms makes it a, and the fact that it's encrypted, And that the company itself isn't mining your data, and that's not the...
I don't know what their business model is, but maybe they don't know yet.
I mean, once they went public and then kind of figured out how to use the conversations that were happening, have people pay for, you know, to get stuff trending and have ads served.
So Section 230 is part of the Communication Indecency Act that many people in the digital rights space would say it sort of created the Internet.
In some ways, it is the First Amendment of the Internet in that it allows companies to...
To foster speech on their platforms in line with the First Amendment or not.
It can either be as permissive as you want it to be or you can moderate as much as you want.
In fact, there was a court case early on that is what led to this.
Where, you know, I think this prodigy was being sued for something that someone had posted on their site.
And then they started moderating, you know, moderating.
And this is when they determined that actually, you know, you can moderate but not be responsible for the content that's being published there.
This is what allows comment sections.
This is what allows for social media to exist.
It really is the thing that drives the internet.
A lot of times people will say, well, this is a handout to big tech, which isn't quite accurate either.
It's really the thing that allows small companies to survive as well.
Any kind of competition would rely on the fact that people can post stuff on their platform and that they're not going to be liable for that.
Now if they write their own things on the platform, I think roommates.com got in trouble for something that they, a kind of bias that they had built into their engine itself, you know, then they can get in trouble.
But if we got rid of Section 230, which I've heard people say, well, if I can't say whatever I want on Twitter, let's get rid of Section 230. It's like, well, do you think that these companies are going to be more or less permissive if they're liable for every single thing that's there?
And really what's going to happen, what some of these bigger companies are going to drive towards is using AI moderation that only they can afford.
And when something goes wrong, they're just going to blaze, you know, say bad AI, right?
And then meanwhile, you know, competitions, smaller companies that can't afford that moderation will simply be edged out.
So, if Twitter was somehow liable for everything that was on the site, they would probably integrate a lot of this AI moderation tools.
And we've seen how well that works.
You know, it's not particularly good at determining what should or should not be allowed online, and it ends up casting a far wider net.
Yeah.
So, yeah, I don't...
That doesn't seem to be the solution here.
But I do think that we have a challenge given the scale of these companies.
You know, how many people use Twitter?
How many people use Facebook?
When they become the arbiters of truth and are the primary place that many people are getting their information from, where news is being created, I think we do have to ask the question, well, what...
Should there be rules in place that require them to treat content more neutrally, or do we want them to operate as autonomous businesses, even at that scale, that can dictate what people see and what they don't?
We've just never seen anything in our lives where, you know, hundreds of millions of people were using the same thing, and there was an entity that could determine what should be allowed.
And you could make the public square argument around that as well and say, like, so many people are using it that this has become a kind of digital public square.
But as the law currently stands, you know, it's a private company.
Especially because you're so deeply invested in this Q phenomenon, and we see how that went.
I mean, if you ever really wanted to suppress free speech, what you would do is engineer something like Q, and then have it reach this boiling point, which is January 6th, where you have an arguable point If you wanted to say, this is what we want to avoid, and this is why we need at least some form of censorship.
I mean, I think that, and this is what drew me to the story in the beginning, Q is testing the limits of free speech.
And that's kind of how you know whether or not you have a right, whether or not you can have dangerous ideas, whether or not you can say unpopular things.
And that's why I was drawn to Q in the first place, because Reddit had banned it, and that seemed novel at the time.
And it seemed like maybe, well, is this where the internet is headed?
I mean, it's almost like you have to predict where things are headed in order to tell a story like this.
I mean, we had put together that whole opening sequence that takes place in D.C. before January 6th.
I mean, the ideation for that had started in November.
It gave it a whole new meaning, of course, when you see these kind of...
All of these beliefs and conspiracy theories, or whatever you want to say, kind of overtaking DC. And you see the kind of characters memeing themselves into existence in that opening.
But would this series have been substantially different if that hadn't happened?
Of course.
And it wasn't even that obvious to most who were working on it in the lead-up to The Six that I needed to go.
You know, I was...
Because we were in the throes of post, and it was an incredibly aggressive post schedule.
Really aggressive.
I mean, we were turning...
I was turning out 16-18 hour days.
Everybody was working around the clock for five months straight on this thing.
So for me to step away to go shoot at that point, a lot of people thought I was out of my mind.
What could possibly be so important that you would drop editing on this incredibly aggressive post schedule to go and document Jim?
Actually, on January 7th, I think everybody was in a little bit of a state of shock.
And didn't really...
I hadn't even seen all of the news reports.
I hadn't seen what everybody else had been seeing because we were on the ground.
So it wasn't until I started looking at all of the footage and all of the archival from other sources that you're like, holy shit, this is what was going on inside?
I thought it was going to be way worse than it was.
I actually thought it could have broken out into a civil war that day.
That's how bad I thought it might be.
Meanwhile, most other folks who, if you weren't tracking all of these movements, I think that they were absolutely, their minds were blown that this could even happen.
I mean, all of these instigators around Trump, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, General Flynn, they were all stoking the flames to the max.
If you looked at the chatter on the chans, if you looked at the chatter on social media in general around, you know, that this this, you know, Trump asked for a wild protest.
I mean, I think as soon as I saw that, knowing what the community thought and knowing what some of these other organizations thought, I mean, I knew more about sort of the Q perspective going into it.
But it's like, OK, well, if he's asking for a wild protest, shit's going to get real.
So this is the Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, Peter Navarro.
Yeah.
So he thought at the end, I mean, he thought essentially that getting these people to protest and that this 36-page report, that there would be enough data and that eventually someone somewhere would reverse the decision and prove that there that there would be enough data and that eventually someone somewhere would reverse the decision and prove that there was enough election fraud to reinstate him or Right?
So they tried to release these documents that You see it in the end of the series where, you know, you're saying the mother of all bombs is coming when it comes to, you know, an information drop.
And that information drop was specifically targeting Pence.
This guy was just running some fringe website out of, you know, Southeast Asia and Japan.
And suddenly he's advising, you know...
The president.
Like, he's gotten to the seat of power somehow using that website and Q and his sort of fame that was developed through Q. I mean, remember, Q mentions Ron, Code Monkey, very early on in the narrative.
So Q, right at that hijacking point early in January, he's like, Ron, Code Monkey.
So, yeah, I mean, very fascinating character studies, to be sure.
I mean, so much of human history, though, is written by people with, I think, not identical tendencies, but people who are driven for power and are willing to do things that others aren't.
I mean, I think that the fact that the first 127 drops were anonymous in the first place, that, you know, there's all these shakeups, there's a style change.
Like, I think that, I think there's lots of, the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of things that Q prophesized or that people believed didn't come true, all the central tenets, you know, the arrests and all that, you would think that that would be enough.
If you could get Paul to come out and say, yeah, I was it.
I mean, people would only even believe that if he came with the data.
And even then, many still would be like, man, it's the deep state.
It's this, it's that.
Like, they'll come up with some explanation to write it off.
And Paul, he released a whole book after this took place, you know, explaining, you know, his – telling his story from that time period.
So he was incentivized to keep the narrative alive.
And I think that he told me – he's like – I asked him this.
I was like, well, if Q was this great military operation, why would they just let a fake Q take it over?
And why wouldn't they try to reach out to you and reclaim it?
And his answer, which I just think is how he was thinking about it, is, well, maybe they just wanted it to continue, you know?
And he thought of it almost like a child, like a baby that had gone out into the world and it was becoming this big movement.
And you can ban an IP, but if they're using a VPN, which someone who's doing something illegal like that probably would be using a VPN, unless they're real dumb.
You know, it makes it very hard to track.
Now 8chan does respond to government requests for illegal activity like that.
I mean, all the websites do.
I mean, Facebook has tons of issues with that kind of material getting posted.
I mean, Fred would, I think, say that he started to depart philosophically, that maybe they made him kind of uncomfortable in certain situations, like that they weren't taking that maybe they made him kind of uncomfortable in certain situations, like that they weren't taking But he also found a wife in the Philippines.
And his wife was, her dad was like a priest and he has since described it as a, and people who I was shooting with there would describe that religion kind of as a cult.
So he was newly religious and 8chan also doesn't jive super well with that philosophy.
You know, maybe, probably he believed in a lot of that stuff.
I think Fred is impressionable and he's also going through life faster than the average person because he doesn't think he's going to live that long.
So that could have factored into it.
You know, the big rift, though, that happens between them is Fred just doesn't really want to work on HN anymore.
They're giving him too much responsibility in his mind.
He doesn't show up to work one day.
Doesn't show up for a couple of days.
Maybe he's going to stop working on it.
And that's when Jim, who had given him a place to stay in the Philippines free of rent, but that Jim owned, just barged into his apartment and was like, why aren't you at work?
And Fred's account is that it was very traumatizing for him.
And he knew he needed to get out of that situation immediately.
So I'm sure that there was a confluence of factors that led to them kind of pulling apart.
And also Fred was young when he created 8chan.
You know, he was like 18. So we're talking about somebody who's still growing up.
You know, and Fred is a very eccentric character and he likes to lean into that eccentricity as much as possible.
And who Fred is online is very different than who Fred is in real life.
And I mean, both he and Tom, like Tom, who you see, who's Jim Watkins, kind of right hand man, artist in college.
I think that Jim was hoping that Fred was going to have a similar relationship to him, that he would take him under his wing while he was like, you know, 19 or 20 or whatever, and that he would just continue to be a part of their organization going into later years.
And, you know, and Tom, I didn't mention this in the series, but he's a psychonaut.
Psychonaut.
So he loves to experiment with psychedelics.
That's like his, that's his jam.
So he and Fred would do psychedelics, like, on occasion.
And they had a good relationship for a long time.
And that's why I think Tom is the one that you see when they're trying to smooth things out in the Philippines.
And Fred's really going after them, trying to get the side offline.
That's why Tom is the sort of most suitable peacemaker in that situation.
He's, as Fred would say, sort of the ice to Jim's fire.
That's also why Tom's pupils, I think, are like this in that one scene.
He said it was just the lighting, but I think he really is into that stuff.
No, they can't extradite him for a cyber libel charge.
And that was one of the craziest things to me in all of this.
It's like, here you're running an absolutist free speech website, taking it right to the edge, but you're going to go after somebody for something they said on Twitter.
Right, because the way it works in the Philippines is that it becomes like a criminal suit, so the state takes it over if they determine that there's a case.
So when Fred was leaving the Philippines, he got advance notice that an indictment was going to drop.
Out of all this, all the time that you spent working on this, When you're alone with your thoughts, I think that this subject highlights some very important questions and important conversations about free speech and about what roles,
if any, these platforms, whether it's 8chan or Twitter or what have you, have in protecting free speech or censoring Questionable behavior and I mean obviously this did not end well,
you know, I mean in Whether or not 8chan is responsible for some of it or whether the Q Movement is responsible for some of it or what percentage of it is it's clear that this becomes It becomes a vector For a lot of very questionable ideas and questionable behavior.
Because on one hand, my perspective is, that wouldn't work on me.
Flat Earth doesn't work on me.
This doesn't work on me.
These movements, chemtrails don't work on me.
All these movements don't work on me.
But would they work on me when I was 15?
I think the answer is yes.
You know, therein lies the problem.
Would it work on me when I was 20?
Maybe.
25?
Likely.
30?
Maybe not anymore.
Like, then I'm online.
And then I'm starting to...
Piece things together in a broader perspective.
I'm not looking at things at face value and saying, oh, this is true.
I'm going, hold on.
And now I'm operating out of a lot of experience and I'm operating out of, you know, an understanding of how all this shit works in terms of like propaganda and nonsense and shitposting and a lot of these things.
So, should we protect people from things that wouldn't work on you?
Like, I'm sure QAnon's not working on you, right?
You have a much more sophisticated understanding of how the internet works.
You know, all these things.
Like, what are we supposed to do?
The rational argument is you counter bad speech with better speech.
Like, you explain things in a much more educated or a much more precise...
And at the end of it, it looks preposterous, and it's not gonna like, if a cue drops tomorrow, people are gonna be like, bitch, I saw that series, right?
So this is the argument for free speech.
Because imagine if in a world where you are, like what you were saying earlier, that if it wasn't for HBO and their balls, and their, you know, their bravery.
I mean, HBO's like, they can do whatever the fuck they want.
And again, I go back to Bill Maher, but I think he's got a very important show.
And it's one of the few networks that did support him and that kind of program where you are allowed to talk about controversial ideas.
If they're taking out people that are criticizing Q as well as supporting Q, then you've got a really weird, slippery thing.
You're trying to erase reality.
So what happens to the people that were invested in this?
They don't get closure.
They don't get an understanding.
I would hope that a lot of the people, like that one family, the guy with the big neck and his little kid, I would hope they would watch this series and go, Jesus, we got duped.
But the point is, it's like, through free speech, and through your ability to accurately disseminate information, you've Produced a really amazing and entertaining thing that gives people an insight into the psychology Behind the folks that believed in this the psychology behind the folks who are likely perpetrating it It's an argument for free speech,
but it's it's also shows how fucking difficult it is to really parse this out Yeah, yeah, I mean I Look, conspiracy theories or painting your enemies in a black and white heaven or hell all in other terms, that's something that humans have done forever.
I mean, even during the Revolutionary War, there were a lot of theories going around.
About King George, you know?
We wanted to turn everybody into slaves.
There is...
So this is...
And I'm sure that 15-year-olds and 20-somethings were impressionable, and it motivated them in those situations.
And I do think that the international component does add another element to this that's a little bit different.
But that's why I always bring it back to the privacy side.
I'd say before we worry about deciding what should or should not be said online, let's restore privacy rights.
Let's give people ownership over their data.
Let's make it so that these companies can't know more about us than we know about ourselves and see what impact that has first.
It does seem like that is where everything got really crazy because your data became a commodity that you didn't know you had.
Like, you didn't know it was valuable.
So when you signed off on the terms and conditions and you just started posting things and you allowed these companies to track all of your information and all your stuff that you do online, you didn't realize that you were creating these enormous companies With massive amounts of resource that just collect data.
The surveillance industrial complex.
Right.
They have products, essentially.
Gmail is a product.
Google's a product.
But really, you're the product.
You're the product.
Because you're what they sell.
These things, they just offer you that, so you give them the data.
And then once you give them the data, then they sell it.
And so you're essentially a customer, but you're also what they're selling.
Of data harvesting, to psychometric profiles, to those psychometric profiles being used to target us with information that, you know, that is tailored to our insecurities and desires.
It drives us into more extreme groups.
And then when we move in those more extreme directions, we're less willing to entertain an imposing reality.
And then when we're less willing to entertain an opposing reality, we become less willing to hear things from another side because we only believe in our one truth.
And then we become more interested in silencing whatever that one truth is.
We become more angry.
As they say, the hostility of suppression speeds up the treadmill of extremism.
The more you shut someone up, the angrier they become.
The more it validates the very thing that they were trying to stop in the first place.
And then you end up with a cultural climate or a social climate where something like January 6th is possible.
So, you know, I don't think it's the only reason, but I think that the data mining was a huge factor and the data mining in concert with the algorithms because those algorithms, of course, use what was reaped from that data mining.
In order to drive people towards the crazy shit on the internet.
You know, Q wouldn't have been possible without the algorithms.
So algorithms essentially are There's a problem in the inherent manipulation of people's viewing habits and they're doing it to accentuate their profits and they're doing it to accentuate the amount of time that you spend online.
You know, this is the flagship Supreme Court case that actually Barr, who is Jim Watkins' attorney in DC, he was a part of that case, bringing it to the Supreme Court, which basically said that you could We're good to
to run what you could call disinformation campaigns against a candidate.
And this idea of disinformation also isn't new either.
I mean, in my lifetime, the biggest lie that was told was the one that brought us into Iraq ultimately.
Weapons of mass destruction, right?
Like, that got broadcast and cost how many lives?
So these things aren't new.
The idea that, like, a lie can have huge consequences in the world aren't new.
But the algorithms are.
And I do think that there is a bigger question to be had around should there be some restrictions placed on them?
What limitations might we put in place so that we at least know what the rules are?
It's a black box of amplification.
And it gives incredible power to those who run that black box.
Do you think it's at all possible that algorithms could be exposed in a way where people, where the narrative shifts and we realize that algorithms are actually problematic?
And that it has done irrevocable damage.
And it's moved our society in this way, as highlighted in The Social Dilemma, as highlighted in that where you're realizing that the ultimate path for this sort of separation is And this reinforcement of tribalism, it really leads to conflict, almost undeniable.
That we could do something where we could recognize that first of all, these corporations only exist because we didn't realize that data is a commodity.
Once we do realize that data is a commodity, people are giving up that data Almost against their understanding.
They don't really understand what they're doing until it's too late.
They're being duped, right?
There's like this gigantic three card money game going on with your data.
And then you have the algorithm problem and we're recognizing that this is essentially being manipulated.
It's being manipulated by foreign entities like the IRA. It's being manipulated by who knows how many other countries that have similar programs installed.
And the more hostile, the more, you know, the more it satisfies the audience, the more it, the person who's posting is trained by that.
They're trained to go, okay, this is the thing that people want.
So it does drive that tribalism and then it also makes people very sure of whatever that worldview might be because they can feel that there's a lot of people who like the same thing that they do.
I mean, I know with absolute certainty that the QTubers were reinforced in the same way because they told me that they were.
I had Craig who was in it.
We talked afterwards.
He would discuss how he knew what the audience wanted, what he could and could not say.
And he wanted to keep that audience.
And he was trained over time to say things around QAnon that would drive more eyeballs.
But at the same time, that became his livelihood.
And in the end, after this series came out, he had said at one point, I still have all these people who follow me who want to believe that it's all going to come true.
But he's like, look around, man.
It's a fairy tale.
It's like our team, it's like a basketball game.
Our team lost and you guys are still just dribbling around shooting hoops and the score is over.
And the real problem with banning people, it's like, Oh, one of the craziest things, though, that Craig told me, you know, it was in that hot tub scene in the end after he'd just been banned on YouTube.
You know, and you could see that that was coming right up towards the election, that things were going to crescendo in that direction.
And he's like...
He admitted something to me, which is just that he knew all along that it was the idea that this is a military operation or that Trump was behind him.
He's like, that was a bunch of, you know, that was a bunch of bullshit.
I never believed that.
You know, in the beginning, he's like, we're just kidding ourselves.
It's just a bunch of a-holes LARPing on 8chan and then suddenly, or 4chan, and then suddenly, you know, in his mind, the military got him.
Because he had these guys, these ex-military guys reaching out to him and sort of using him as a conduit for their agenda.
And so there's that crazy aspect of this too.
But it is fascinating to me that he openly admits that it started as a LARP. But it memed itself into reality.
And that's what you see come January 6th as this thing that was casting this imaginary view of the world was trying to make itself real.
And in many ways, it didn't actualize all of the beliefs, but some of the central ideas of it If we assume that Ron is Q, well, Ron eventually managed to get access to the seat of the Capitol.
If you want to say that the storm is coming, well, a storm eventually came.
This is meme magic at work.
This is like a collective imagination that willed something into existence.
And I know that's a little bit of a derail from what you were saying before about the banning.
Do I think that these patchwork solutions of censorship on these platforms is going to solve the problem that they think it is?
No, I think it's going to make it worse.
Do I think that it's driving more of a wedge in society?
Yes, I do.
So, if it is in fact the goal to de-escalate things or to make the polarization in society go away, this strategy historically and at present, I mean, there's lots of historical examples of how this doesn't work.
And why censorship ends up having the opposite of its intended effect.
And I think we're watching that in real time.
But all of these people who are being banned, censored, they disappear.
Just because you don't see them on Twitter, they're mad.
And they'll find other platforms, but I think you have to let it work itself out.
And if you're going to tinker with something, tinker with the business model.
But these companies are never going to offer that as a solution.