I’d like to know how people interact with posts, sometimes.

I wonder about this a lot and I suppose I have formulated some ideas (and biases) that may or may not be on target.

My process here was:

I was intrigued by the Subject Line (FYI!!!) and the fact that it was stickied, so I opened the post in a separate tab. I glanced through the meme, recognized a few factoids from previous info (the middle ones: the connections between MSM execs and political spouses) and then looked at the comments. I noticed top comm by Penisse, aka the Q drop, then read on and glanced through the comments (which are mostly reactions, as far as I can see).

I didn't get down to the comments calling out the disinfo/false facts (they are invariably lower on the comment rankings, something I often observe, and I put that up to the notion that most readers are simply reacting to the post, not filtering it. These comments are higher on the rank now, but when I approached the post, they were not).

I got as far as the comment by u/ditzee58/ and read with wry agreement the comment by u/Buttery (you should have checked first before posting). From there I searched up the Qdrop, and thought about the question: Is Melissa Schiff related to Adam Schiff? and then went to the web start to dig. Quickly found a) "fact-checking" sites (which I loathe) debunking these claims (i.e. politifact), and then b) articles, information, genealogy websites that showed the absence of any blood relationship.

I made my comment under Penisse's Qdrop comment about Melissa Schiff, clicked save and then went back to check up on the Newsome thing. Dug a bit, found that this was inaccurate at best and sort of bogus, edited my comment to include that info, and save.

By now my narrative antenna was up, and I dug on Kerry's daughter, then Chelsea Clinton, and recognizing that in only the first four factoids, it was 90% BS, and recognizing that it has the hallmarks of a disinfo meme, I decided to rewrite my whole comment, eventually including commentary and then a remark on the Qdrop itself.

Talking about how people interact with the posts, I note here, such as is frequently the case, there is a HIGH number of upvotes, but relatively FEW comments actually vetting the content, offering counter-arguments, and a majority of the comments are reactions that appear to be completely grounded on a blanket acceptance of what the meme says.

Contrasting the high number of upvotes and the low number of actual content discussion, I conclude that the large majority of people are just reading, accepting, and upvoting because although the meme itself is false disinformation (at least in part) it speaks to a larger truth, that there are very often rather evil and cliquish family connections between members of the swamp.

Sadly, this is how the disinfo works so well, because awake anons recognize that there are very often marital or familial connections between members of the swamp and deep state cabal, so they accept the disinfo in the meme without a second thought. In other words, it conforms very neatly to our biases, especially when those biases are actually grounded in truth.

I loathe the 'fact-checker' network (I did a cursory dig on the 'fact-checker' thing back in 2018), and it frustrates me a bit when disinfo and clickbait is shared in our community (meaning wider Q community, not just GAW) making easy targets for them and essentially aiding their mission objectives, which is to discredit lines of truth and discourage investigation into truth outside of their narratives.

pure affirmational surface level acceptance is not what this movement should ever be about.

Fully agree. And, it used to aggravate more a lot more than it does now. Mostly because I've become acclimatized, and also because I have found good responses when I or someone else takes the effort to dig deeper, vet the info. Without those good responses, it can feel like one is alone and shouting into the wind, but now I recognize that (for me) it is more a situation of working the problem and investing regular effort.

Step by step.