6 ms·

20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Conspiracy theories were fringe and didn't have

20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Conspiracy theories were fringe and didn't have a way to spread. Today more than half the population believes in conspiracy theories because they learn the "truth" from disreputable sources on social media. This is dangerous for society. I am glad social media companies are taking action themselves, instead of the government forcing them (which would be a 1st amendment issue).

rayiner 6y ago
20 years ago, and before that, liberals complained that the media, schools, etc., were lying to the public.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Liberals? Conservatives complained too!
jahewson 6y ago
Ah yes, the truth of 20 years ago, like all those WMD in Iraq.
- shakezula 6y ago
  That wasn't the media's fault, though, that was the Bush administration manufacturing an excuse to invade the Middle East.
  - rhino369 6y ago
    Arguably, the media's role is to stress test claims made by the government. They certainly do it for the trump admin. Though I wonder if they'll do it for the Biden admin. I wouldn't say it's their fault. But still in 2020, the media breathlessly reports targeted leaks by intelligence agencies as fact. We didn't learn anything.
    - shakezula 6y ago
      I'm left leaning, and I hope that they absolutely do stress-test the Biden administration and every administration after it. If nothing else, 2020 has showed me how important the 4th Estate is in our democracy and the power it truly has. Watching the major news networks cut Trump's speech short on Election Night when he started declaring victory and insisting they'd already won before Florida was even counted was the most important thing I've seen them do in a long, long time.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      Arguably, the media's role is to manufacture consent among the general public for whatever the government wants to do.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    A lot of media actors were in on the con. There is a well-documented connection between journalists and intelligence agencies. In some cases journalists have been little more than mouthpieces for the US (and allied) intelligence community.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    If a tree falls in the woods, but no TV stations or newspapers show repeats of it falling, does it make a sound?
  - vyhd 6y ago
    I agree that the fault ultimately lies with the Bush administration for making false claims. However, it is _critically_ important to also place fault with the media outlets who simply repeated those claims, abandoning their duty as a check against the state.
  - alickz 6y ago
    IIRC an article by the New York Times was considered a turning point in convincing the population of WMDs in Iraq.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Darmody 6y ago
30 years ago back in Eastern Europe conspiracy theories didn't have a way to spread either. We had one truth. No further debates or opinions, one truth, The Truth. I don't think you realize how dangerous suppression of freedom of speech is.
- flowerlad 6y ago
  We won't have that problem here. There will still be New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. More weight should be given to these legit sources than to social media. On the internet everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart looks as legit as the BBC. That's a problem. More on that by Sacha Baron Cohen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
  - Darmody 6y ago
    Yeah, thank God you'll have a couple big companies owned by the same people to tell you what is the real truth. China has different media as well. I'd like to see one of them saying the CCP should leave or something against them.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Who do you think is the true arbiter of real truth?
      - Darmody 6y ago
        A better question, is there really an arbiter? The only thing we have is freedom of speech to challenge ideas, debate and find what is true by ourselves, if such truth exists.
        flowerlad 6y ago
        Some say if you disagree with someone else's speech you should not just ban them, you should defeat them by arguing against their ideas. But when state-sponsored actors spread fake news and divisive ads at a massive scale on social media you can’t simply defeat them by arguing against their ideas. How do you counter it? By buying opposing ads on Facebook? Even if you have pockets as deep as Putin’s, what a waste of money that would be! This is a new world and the old methods are no longer applicable. Communities and social media companies will need to engage in some censorship.
mfDjB 6y ago
Is there any data that shows the number of people believing in conspiracy theories is actually greater than it was, and that that gap was due to social media? 20 years ago I remember TV shows talking about the moon landing being a hoax, and a decent number of people I talked to at the time believing it. This is just an anecdote, but I've noticed that people make the claim that conspiracy theories are on the rise and I've yet to see hard evidence to support that claim.
- b1daly 6y ago
  The difference is the moon landing or ‘who shot JFK’ are about subjects that are low stakes, very low. Having millions people believe the Presidential election was corrupt is corrosive to the basic civic foundations of the political process.
  - mike00632 6y ago
    Exactly. Conspiracy theories are now being weaponized by the right (via YouTube) to whip up anger and violence.
nickysielicki 6y ago
> 20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Conspiracy theories were fringe and didn't have a way to spread. Are you genuinely arguing that conspiracy theories are a phenomenon that is unique to the 21st century?
3131s 6y ago
> 20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Come on, do you really believe this?
mas3god 6y ago
Like saddam having WMDs?
sethammons 6y ago
On mobile so I can’t find the source. Conspiracy theories spread in a low-trust environment. Maybe instead of trying to block ideas (which can never work), initiatives that work to restore trust should be investigated.
CivBase 6y ago
> 20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Conspiracy theories were fringe and didn't have a way to spread. Today more than half the population believes in conspiracy theories because they learn the "truth" from disreputable sources on social media. Why do you suppose that is, though? Could it be because algorithms designed to feed users content they like promote and reinforce echo chambers which, in turn, incentivize the creation and spread of convenient misinformation? Social media did not start the echo chambers, but they have played a huge role in making them more accessible and extreme than ever before. How can we trust them to safeguard us from misinformation when they are the ones profiting from it? I do not want Google deciding what is and isn't "misinformation". As far as I'm concerned, they're more guilty of the mess we're now in than any media organization or content creator.

rayiner 6y ago

20 years ago, and before that, liberals complained that the media, schools, etc., were lying to the public.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Liberals? Conservatives complained too!

jahewson 6y ago

Ah yes, the truth of 20 years ago, like all those WMD in Iraq.

shakezula 6y ago
That wasn't the media's fault, though, that was the Bush administration manufacturing an excuse to invade the Middle East.
- rhino369 6y ago
  Arguably, the media's role is to stress test claims made by the government. They certainly do it for the trump admin. Though I wonder if they'll do it for the Biden admin. I wouldn't say it's their fault. But still in 2020, the media breathlessly reports targeted leaks by intelligence agencies as fact. We didn't learn anything.
  - shakezula 6y ago
    I'm left leaning, and I hope that they absolutely do stress-test the Biden administration and every administration after it. If nothing else, 2020 has showed me how important the 4th Estate is in our democracy and the power it truly has. Watching the major news networks cut Trump's speech short on Election Night when he started declaring victory and insisting they'd already won before Florida was even counted was the most important thing I've seen them do in a long, long time.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    Arguably, the media's role is to manufacture consent among the general public for whatever the government wants to do.
- uoaei 6y ago
  A lot of media actors were in on the con. There is a well-documented connection between journalists and intelligence agencies. In some cases journalists have been little more than mouthpieces for the US (and allied) intelligence community.
- Lammy 6y ago
  If a tree falls in the woods, but no TV stations or newspapers show repeats of it falling, does it make a sound?
- vyhd 6y ago
  I agree that the fault ultimately lies with the Bush administration for making false claims. However, it is _critically_ important to also place fault with the media outlets who simply repeated those claims, abandoning their duty as a check against the state.
- alickz 6y ago
  IIRC an article by the New York Times was considered a turning point in convincing the population of WMDs in Iraq.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Darmody 6y ago

30 years ago back in Eastern Europe conspiracy theories didn't have a way to spread either. We had one truth. No further debates or opinions, one truth, The Truth. I don't think you realize how dangerous suppression of freedom of speech is.

flowerlad 6y ago
We won't have that problem here. There will still be New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. More weight should be given to these legit sources than to social media. On the internet everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart looks as legit as the BBC. That's a problem. More on that by Sacha Baron Cohen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
- Darmody 6y ago
  Yeah, thank God you'll have a couple big companies owned by the same people to tell you what is the real truth. China has different media as well. I'd like to see one of them saying the CCP should leave or something against them.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Who do you think is the true arbiter of real truth?
    - Darmody 6y ago
      A better question, is there really an arbiter? The only thing we have is freedom of speech to challenge ideas, debate and find what is true by ourselves, if such truth exists.
      - flowerlad 6y ago
        Some say if you disagree with someone else's speech you should not just ban them, you should defeat them by arguing against their ideas. But when state-sponsored actors spread fake news and divisive ads at a massive scale on social media you can’t simply defeat them by arguing against their ideas. How do you counter it? By buying opposing ads on Facebook? Even if you have pockets as deep as Putin’s, what a waste of money that would be! This is a new world and the old methods are no longer applicable. Communities and social media companies will need to engage in some censorship.

mfDjB 6y ago

Is there any data that shows the number of people believing in conspiracy theories is actually greater than it was, and that that gap was due to social media? 20 years ago I remember TV shows talking about the moon landing being a hoax, and a decent number of people I talked to at the time believing it. This is just an anecdote, but I've noticed that people make the claim that conspiracy theories are on the rise and I've yet to see hard evidence to support that claim.

b1daly 6y ago
The difference is the moon landing or ‘who shot JFK’ are about subjects that are low stakes, very low. Having millions people believe the Presidential election was corrupt is corrosive to the basic civic foundations of the political process.
- mike00632 6y ago
  Exactly. Conspiracy theories are now being weaponized by the right (via YouTube) to whip up anger and violence.

nickysielicki 6y ago

3131s 6y ago

> 20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Come on, do you really believe this?

mas3god 6y ago

Like saddam having WMDs?

sethammons 6y ago

On mobile so I can’t find the source. Conspiracy theories spread in a low-trust environment. Maybe instead of trying to block ideas (which can never work), initiatives that work to restore trust should be investigated.

CivBase 6y ago

> 20 years ago reputed organizations such as newspapers, radio stations and television informed people the truth. Conspiracy theories were fringe and didn't have a way to spread. Today more than half the population believes in conspiracy theories because they learn the "truth" from disreputable sources on social media. Why do you suppose that is, though? Could it be because algorithms designed to feed users content they like promote and reinforce echo chambers which, in turn, incentivize the creation and spread of convenient misinformation? Social media did not start the echo chambers, but they have played a huge role in making them more accessible and extreme than ever before. How can we trust them to safeguard us from misinformation when they are the ones profiting from it? I do not want Google deciding what is and isn't "misinformation". As far as I'm concerned, they're more guilty of the mess we're now in than any media organization or content creator.