4 ms·

They will feel validated regardless. That is the nature of conspiracy theorists. It's still advantageous to discourage the spread of misinformation. Nobody i

They will feel validated regardless. That is the nature of conspiracy theorists. It's still advantageous to discourage the spread of misinformation. Nobody is obligated to host that content, and certainly not make it readily accessible on their platforms.

tjansen 7y ago
I think demonetizing them is a better solution. It discourages their production, but creates less attention.
loudtieblahblah 7y ago
>They will feel validated regardless. That is the nature of conspiracy theorists. What are you going to define as a conspiracy theory? Should we not talk about the JFK assassination possibilities? The Gulf of Tolkien incident? MK Ultra? The Business Plot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot) Where are you going to draw the line between conspiracy theories that are probably false and ones worth exploring? Who's the arbiter of that? is the fact that Trump may have raped a 13 year old sex slave a conspiracy theory? Or do we only use that term with Alex Jones rants about false flags?
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  There is no need for an arbiter. However, statistically, the majority of conspiracy theories are going to be invalid. As they grow in scale the likelihood of being real also goes down. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684 If there is strong evidence for such a conspiracy, then it's gone beyond theory (colloquially) at that point. By that definition the term is like "alternative medicine". If it worked, it'd be called medicine. Additionally, it's worth pointing out that the existence of a previous conspiracy being true is not actually evidence that later conspiracies are also true. MK Ultra and co are the exception rather than the norm.
  - loudtieblahblah 7y ago
    the problem is once you give platforms the ok to silence dissent, you silence the spread of truth right along with lies and falsehoods. And i'd rather live with a 1000 lies if that means the truth can still come out.
- masonic 7y ago
  Gulf of Tolkien incident? I think you inadvertently proved a point.

tjansen 7y ago

I think demonetizing them is a better solution. It discourages their production, but creates less attention.

loudtieblahblah 7y ago

>They will feel validated regardless. That is the nature of conspiracy theorists. What are you going to define as a conspiracy theory? Should we not talk about the JFK assassination possibilities? The Gulf of Tolkien incident? MK Ultra? The Business Plot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot) Where are you going to draw the line between conspiracy theories that are probably false and ones worth exploring? Who's the arbiter of that? is the fact that Trump may have raped a 13 year old sex slave a conspiracy theory? Or do we only use that term with Alex Jones rants about false flags?

SquareWheel 7y ago
There is no need for an arbiter. However, statistically, the majority of conspiracy theories are going to be invalid. As they grow in scale the likelihood of being real also goes down. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684 If there is strong evidence for such a conspiracy, then it's gone beyond theory (colloquially) at that point. By that definition the term is like "alternative medicine". If it worked, it'd be called medicine. Additionally, it's worth pointing out that the existence of a previous conspiracy being true is not actually evidence that later conspiracies are also true. MK Ultra and co are the exception rather than the norm.
- loudtieblahblah 7y ago
  the problem is once you give platforms the ok to silence dissent, you silence the spread of truth right along with lies and falsehoods. And i'd rather live with a 1000 lies if that means the truth can still come out.
masonic 7y ago
Gulf of Tolkien incident? I think you inadvertently proved a point.