Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the origin of QAnon and who started it in 2017?
Executive summary
Reporting shows QAnon originated in late 2017 as anonymous posts by someone calling themself “Q” on fringe message boards, but the precise human authorship remains contested; multiple investigations and linguistic analyses have pointed at different early actors — including Paul Furber and Ron Watkins — while others highlight platform owners and early promoters as key to its spread [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide a single, definitive, universally accepted identification of the person or people who started QAnon; instead, journalism and researchers present competing leads and emphasize the role of platform ecosystems and opportunistic actors in 2017 [4] [3].
1. How QAnon first appeared on the internet — the basic timeline
The movement began publicly in October 2017 when anonymous posts by “Q Clearance Patriot” — soon shortened to “Q” — appeared on 4chan, later moving to 8chan (now 8kun), and those cryptic “Q drops” seeded a sprawling narrative about a secret war against a supposed “deep state” pedophile cabal [1] [3]. Investigative summaries trace QAnon’s growth from those first messages in late 2017 into a broader “omnispiracy” that folded in pre-existing conspiracies and leveraged message-board culture to amplify interpretive communities around the drops [1] [3]. The emergence was thus both a discrete event — the first Q post — and a process of diffusion across platforms and networks in 2017–2018 [3].
2. Claims and leads about who authored Q’s posts
Several reporting strands have tried to move beyond anonymity. Two groups of “linguistic detectives” used computational analysis and argued that South African software developer Paul Furber and Ron Watkins, the son of 8chan owner Jim Watkins and long-time administrator of the site, were likely founders or key originators of QAnon [2] [5]. Other investigations, including documentary reporting and digital forensics, have also pointed to the Watkins family and the platform environment on 8chan/8kun as central to Q’s visibility and persistence, and some individuals involved with the site have been named as plausibly complicit in producing or sustaining Q material [6] [7] [4]. These are investigative leads, not legal findings: reporting presents linguistic and forensic indicators rather than court-established guilt [2] [6].
3. Why different investigators reach different conclusions
The divergent conclusions reflect methodological differences and the anonymous, distributed nature of the phenomenon. Linguistic pattern-matching ties stylistic features across posts and public statements to particular people, which led some teams to Furber and Ron Watkins [2]. Other reporters emphasize platform ownership, moderation practices, and access to the site as circumstantial evidence implicating Jim or Ron Watkins in enabling Q’s reach, rather than proving they typed the first posts themselves [6] [7]. Documentary accounts also surface alternative origin stories — such as participants claiming a LARP or prank genesis — underscoring that motive and authorship may involve multiple actors with overlapping agendas [4].
4. The role of the message-board ecosystem and profit motives
Researchers and commentators argue the rise of QAnon was not only about the person behind an account but about the environment that made viral conspiratorial communities possible. Investigators such as Benjamin Decker have pointed to financial incentives and platform dynamics in the early dissemination of Q content, with some early propagators financially invested in growing the audience in 2017 and beyond [3]. This framing shifts responsibility from a single “founder” to a mix of anonymous poster[8], early amplifiers, forum administrators, and entrepreneurial actors who monetized attention and community growth [3] [1].
5. Limits of current reporting and continuing disputes
Available reporting repeatedly stresses that the identity of a single, definitive “Q” remains unresolved: message-board anonymity, shifting post locations, and contested forensic signals mean that claims about a sole originator are still debated [1] [4]. Some documentaries and news outlets present stronger accusatory narratives — for example naming Ron Watkins as a leading candidate — while others stop short of attributing authorship outright and emphasize the social mechanics of spread [7] [4]. In short, no universally accepted, legally adjudicated attribution appears in the record assembled here [1] [2].
6. Why attribution matters — and what to watch for next
Attributing authorship would change both historical understanding and potential accountability, but even without a definitive name, reporting shows that platform operators, early promoters, and networked amplifiers were integral to QAnon’s rise; addressing similar movements requires attention to those ecosystems as much as to individuals [3] [1]. Future reporting to monitor includes more forensic publications, legal proceedings, and transparent methodological disclosures from teams claiming authorship identification, because competing forensic and linguistic claims so far provide plausible but not conclusive answers [2] [6].