OK, I guess that's a valid edge case. Still, I'd be wary of how that would really work out - if they were to become aware that you were filtering the internet, I would suspect that could lead to some really bad conflict.

Though, for the very elderly, yeah they probably wouldn't notice. There's some nuance there I didn't think about.

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you're not familiar with this blocklist and how it doesn't exclusively include QAnon sources, as I indicated.

No list can exclusively contain QAnon sources. It isn't possible. You're relying on someone else or a group of people to make that determination. In doing so, you're blocking non-QAnon sources that you may just happen to disagree with. They also block far-right sites as described in the Github. How far to the right does the site have to be to be blocked? You've now created an echo chamber by blocking the opposition, all because you trusted that a list called "no-qanon" only blocked QAnon.

You're kind of arguing against the foundation of human society. If we're all required to "do our own research" about things, where does that requirement end?

Yes, you should do your own research. How much research you need to do depends on the subject matter, how critical it is, and the potential for motivation to mislead you. I can't tell you where that ends, but for politics and news I am of the opinion that it should end a lot later than trusting a random stranger to censor your access to content.

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

You probably should research this.

What about my tap water?

Yeah, you probably should also research this before drinking it because of how critical it is. Maybe get it tested or read your city's water test results. Do they have motivation to mislead you?

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

I'm not sure what the struggle is here.

Somewhere along the way you have to trust the systems that have been built by the people before us to function, and for people who work in those fields who are experts to use their expertise.

Yes and no. Should you see inconsistencies, you should probably verify that what you're trusting is accurate. Inconsistencies like blocking wikileaks on a qanon blocklist. However, what you're talking about isn't even the case here. We're talking about a blocklist maintained by strangers on the internet.