4 ms·

The problem is the two concepts are symbiotic. You start out a conspiracy with trolling and people doing it for the lulz and the reactions, and eventually you

by CPLX 7y ago

The problem is the two concepts are symbiotic. You start out a conspiracy with trolling and people doing it for the lulz and the reactions, and eventually you end up drawing in the unstable and mentally ill as true believers. Which can lead to unpleasant outcomes, like pizzagate or Qanon.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
Once the trolls realized that they could convince enough people to join or believe them to impact the real world it was over for internet freedom. The people that have held power for generations don't like losing that power. It's a shame that we'll lose most of the good parts of the internet along with it too, and all we'll be left with is a platform for entertainment of the most clicks. The internet can't route around broken culture.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > The internet can't route around broken culture. That explains quite a bit. So many of us thought that the internet was going to change society for the better. Instead, society changed the internet for the worse. Utopian visions always have the problem of dealing with the humans that we have, not the humans that we wish we had.
  - logosmonkey 7y ago
    Humanity has and will continue to be the downfall of many a grand vision.
  - enobrev 7y ago
    The internet simply became a better mirror. It becomes more human every day. This is what humanity actually looks like on a larger scale. Now that we can see ourselves at a scale we've never been able, we have an opportunity to make adjustments at scale, which is a process that takes generations.
henrikschroder 7y ago
One thing all the conspiracy nut circles have in common, is that it's always YouTube videos that they use to try to convince the non-believers of their preferred kind of crazy. So I wonder what role YouTube monetization plays in this. How much money can you make grifting the gullible off of YouTube ads? As for q-anon, there's plenty of characters straight up selling merchandise, which should clue you in to what kind of operation it actually is. It wasn't that long ago that YouTube decided to de-monetize all antivaxx videos. Has that had a noticeable outcome? If amoral grifters can't make money peddling bullshit ideas, do they do it less? Are there fewer antivaxx videos being made today, than a year ago? Are fewer people being sucked into that particular conspiracy bullshit today, than a year ago?
- chrisco255 7y ago
  How much do the major news networks make overhyping and overplaying headlines that take things completely out of context, like the oceans running out of oxygen or some other bullshit? How many decades did we hear cholesterol and fat were bad for us before that was flat out debunked? You act like there are good guys and bad guys here and not 5000 shades of grey and that it's easy or desirable for Google to be an arbiter of truth.
  - andrepd 7y ago
    >cholesterol and fat were bad for us [...] was flat out debunked That's a new one. Besides, isn't this how science is supposed to work? Improving accuracy, discarding what doesn't work?
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      The point is that consensus was one thing for decades and then it was later overturned. But if "the platform" backs the consensus then you don't get opinions that challenge status quo in the first place. I don't want to live in a society like that. Might as well be in China.
- Chris_Chambers 7y ago
basq 7y ago
Or, you know, the entire Presidency of 45.
- Chris_Chambers 7y ago
  Hello moron, you seem to have gotten lost on your way to reddit.
- pstuart 7y ago
  That's a troll trap right there, not that I'm complaining.
notacoward 7y ago
It goes the other way too, with state-sponsored groups using troll tactics and even enlisting "for the lulz" trolls to disrupt conversations that don't suit them. Also, while it's true that "troll" gets used too lightly sometimes, it's also true that a high percentage of those who like to point it out just don't want to examine their own genuinely troll-ish behavior. Examples of "telling hard truths" and "consider all sides" and "devil's advocate" abound here.

by CPLX 7y ago

cannonedhamster 7y ago

Once the trolls realized that they could convince enough people to join or believe them to impact the real world it was over for internet freedom. The people that have held power for generations don't like losing that power. It's a shame that we'll lose most of the good parts of the internet along with it too, and all we'll be left with is a platform for entertainment of the most clicks. The internet can't route around broken culture.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> The internet can't route around broken culture. That explains quite a bit. So many of us thought that the internet was going to change society for the better. Instead, society changed the internet for the worse. Utopian visions always have the problem of dealing with the humans that we have, not the humans that we wish we had.
- logosmonkey 7y ago
  Humanity has and will continue to be the downfall of many a grand vision.
- enobrev 7y ago
  The internet simply became a better mirror. It becomes more human every day. This is what humanity actually looks like on a larger scale. Now that we can see ourselves at a scale we've never been able, we have an opportunity to make adjustments at scale, which is a process that takes generations.

henrikschroder 7y ago

One thing all the conspiracy nut circles have in common, is that it's always YouTube videos that they use to try to convince the non-believers of their preferred kind of crazy. So I wonder what role YouTube monetization plays in this. How much money can you make grifting the gullible off of YouTube ads? As for q-anon, there's plenty of characters straight up selling merchandise, which should clue you in to what kind of operation it actually is. It wasn't that long ago that YouTube decided to de-monetize all antivaxx videos. Has that had a noticeable outcome? If amoral grifters can't make money peddling bullshit ideas, do they do it less? Are there fewer antivaxx videos being made today, than a year ago? Are fewer people being sucked into that particular conspiracy bullshit today, than a year ago?

chrisco255 7y ago
How much do the major news networks make overhyping and overplaying headlines that take things completely out of context, like the oceans running out of oxygen or some other bullshit? How many decades did we hear cholesterol and fat were bad for us before that was flat out debunked? You act like there are good guys and bad guys here and not 5000 shades of grey and that it's easy or desirable for Google to be an arbiter of truth.
- andrepd 7y ago
  >cholesterol and fat were bad for us [...] was flat out debunked That's a new one. Besides, isn't this how science is supposed to work? Improving accuracy, discarding what doesn't work?
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    The point is that consensus was one thing for decades and then it was later overturned. But if "the platform" backs the consensus then you don't get opinions that challenge status quo in the first place. I don't want to live in a society like that. Might as well be in China.
Chris_Chambers 7y ago

basq 7y ago

Or, you know, the entire Presidency of 45.

Chris_Chambers 7y ago
Hello moron, you seem to have gotten lost on your way to reddit.
pstuart 7y ago
That's a troll trap right there, not that I'm complaining.

notacoward 7y ago

It goes the other way too, with state-sponsored groups using troll tactics and even enlisting "for the lulz" trolls to disrupt conversations that don't suit them. Also, while it's true that "troll" gets used too lightly sometimes, it's also true that a high percentage of those who like to point it out just don't want to examine their own genuinely troll-ish behavior. Examples of "telling hard truths" and "consider all sides" and "devil's advocate" abound here.