5 ms·

The author is correct that in any debate, the prominent skeptics are often extremely well informed (joe Rogan on vaccines, in his example). I think what the au

The author is correct that in any debate, the prominent skeptics are often extremely well informed (joe Rogan on vaccines, in his example). I think what the author is missing is that Joe Rogan and the likes are not spreading misinformation, but spreading tools for misinformation. My mother in law is very deep in misinformation. I’m not talking simple anti vax, I’m talking “trump will raid the Vatican for stolen gold so we can be a free country for the first time since the 19th century” misinformation, like QAnon tier stuff. Once, when I was still trying to convince her to get a vaccine, I told her that after Israel’s early vaccine efforts, both cases and deaths are down heavily. Her response was to pull up a screenshot of a fox headline from a YouTube video that simply stated something like “cases up 60% after vaccination in Israel” I don’t know the context of the headline. I’m sure in whatever context, it was accurate and not misinformation. But the actual spreaders of misinformation use skeptical talking points as weapons to spread misinformation, like the vaccine being a weapon to kill off the population for the great reset. Anyways I don’t think it’s wrong to be a skeptic. But skeptic talking points being mass weaponized on social media is absolutely new and uniquely enabled by modern technology.

zozbot234 5y ago
> My mother in law is very deep in misinformation. I’m not talking simple anti vax, I’m talking “trump will raid the Vatican for stolen gold so we can be a free country for the first time since the 19th century” misinformation, like QAnon tier stuff. This is likely the big causal factor here. Your MIL is definitely not typical. The notion that conspiracy nuts are specifically being influenced by "skeptic talking points" and not by simply being generically nutty, anti-intellectual and anti-science, is kinda hard to take seriously.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  She was pretty normal until around 2018 on the contrary. I’m sure losing her job in 2008 and ending up socially isolated because she doesn’t speak fluent English didn’t help. I’m not claiming ordinary and well adjusted people easily fall prey to misinformation if that’s what you’re trying to refute here. It’s simply an observational fact that conspiracy groups wield skeptic talking points as weapons and that modern technology allows efficient dissemination of this discourse (as with any discourse). Whether or not there’s a “misinformation problem”, per the title, is actually an empirical question that neither the author nor I have the tools to answer
  - sbuttgereit 5y ago
    There is a bit of a catch 22 here. I think you're right. Most of the garbage floating about our public discourse (and I would submit most of it is garbage) is rooted in some legitimate facts. So your MIL will get some of these skeptical headlines, perhaps with some of these more conspiratorial groups capitalizing on and embellishing the these things. I think what you say is happening is.... ... but on the other side, the same thing happens. Stories such as yours get posted about and even reported on and then different organized movements build these up into narratives and use these narratives to push for the silencing of skeptical points. In the end it's really the exact same behavior: get a few facts (in context or not), build your own narrative, add a substantial amount of emotionalism so it's less about the facts anyway, and you have a ready population of true believers that for the most part won't change their views.
    - helen___keller 5y ago
      Indeed, it’s an emergent behavior in highly connected information systems. I’ve written about this in a different context here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30172467#30178198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30172467#30178198
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
It's new, but it's not obvious that it actually changes what people believe, because those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolkit. If someone came to you 20 years ago claiming that the chickenpox vaccine doesn't work because cases were up 60% after the rollout in Israel, how would you even begin to find contrary evidence? (How would you prove that jet fuel can compromise the integrity of steel beams?)
- helen___keller 5y ago
  > those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolkit. The point of the OP is that skeptics have powerful and robust toolkits and my point is that conspiracists use these toolkits Example: the question is whether Dr Fauci knowingly conspired to let hundreds of thousands die because he is colluding with the Chinese on enacting the great reset The conclusion seems obviously bogus, yet you can pick a ton of arguments in favor from any skeptic of US Covid response. These tend to be very robust. I’ve seen tons of convincing arguments on this very site about issues with US Covid response, eg that we had strong information about the risks of Covid and should have had lockdowns much earlier, that we should have advised to wear masks from the beginning, etc. In the context of the conspiracy, each argument that US response was bungled also becomes a weapon to argue that Fauci intentionally bungled US Covid response to enact an evil agenda of widespread death. At that point you can either argue with very well reasoned skeptic talking points, or you can dive down the ideological rabbit hole of “ok he bungled it but it wasn’t intentional / malicious”. This is what I mean by weaponizing skeptic talking points
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > How would you prove that jet fuel can compromise the integrity of steel beams? 1. Acquire some jet fuel, burn it, and measure its burning temperature. 2. Acquire a steel beam, hit it with a hammer, heat it up to the burning temperature of jet fuel, then hit it with a hammer again. 3. Wonder why I just wasted $1000 and a hammer on something that the conspiracy theorists will label “doctored footage”.
rhino369 5y ago
You should be careful about placing the blame on skeptics for misuse of their opinions by nutbags. Because the nutbags would have likely just latched onto something else. They didn't reason themselves into their crazy beliefs. So removing reasonable opinions isn't going to change their beliefs one bit. The conspiracy theorists often latch onto proponent's factual claims and misinterpret them as supporting the conspiracy theory. A lot of conspiracy theories re vaccines will quote CDC, WHO, research papers, etc. that aren't skeptical.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  I’m only trying to describe, not assign blame. To be clear, I’ll repeat myself: > I don’t think it’s wrong to be a skeptic

zozbot234 5y ago

> My mother in law is very deep in misinformation. I’m not talking simple anti vax, I’m talking “trump will raid the Vatican for stolen gold so we can be a free country for the first time since the 19th century” misinformation, like QAnon tier stuff. This is likely the big causal factor here. Your MIL is definitely not typical. The notion that conspiracy nuts are specifically being influenced by "skeptic talking points" and not by simply being generically nutty, anti-intellectual and anti-science, is kinda hard to take seriously.

helen___keller 5y ago
She was pretty normal until around 2018 on the contrary. I’m sure losing her job in 2008 and ending up socially isolated because she doesn’t speak fluent English didn’t help. I’m not claiming ordinary and well adjusted people easily fall prey to misinformation if that’s what you’re trying to refute here. It’s simply an observational fact that conspiracy groups wield skeptic talking points as weapons and that modern technology allows efficient dissemination of this discourse (as with any discourse). Whether or not there’s a “misinformation problem”, per the title, is actually an empirical question that neither the author nor I have the tools to answer
- sbuttgereit 5y ago
  There is a bit of a catch 22 here. I think you're right. Most of the garbage floating about our public discourse (and I would submit most of it is garbage) is rooted in some legitimate facts. So your MIL will get some of these skeptical headlines, perhaps with some of these more conspiratorial groups capitalizing on and embellishing the these things. I think what you say is happening is.... ... but on the other side, the same thing happens. Stories such as yours get posted about and even reported on and then different organized movements build these up into narratives and use these narratives to push for the silencing of skeptical points. In the end it's really the exact same behavior: get a few facts (in context or not), build your own narrative, add a substantial amount of emotionalism so it's less about the facts anyway, and you have a ready population of true believers that for the most part won't change their views.
  - helen___keller 5y ago
    Indeed, it’s an emergent behavior in highly connected information systems. I’ve written about this in a different context here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30172467#30178198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30172467#30178198

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

It's new, but it's not obvious that it actually changes what people believe, because those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolkit. If someone came to you 20 years ago claiming that the chickenpox vaccine doesn't work because cases were up 60% after the rollout in Israel, how would you even begin to find contrary evidence? (How would you prove that jet fuel can compromise the integrity of steel beams?)

helen___keller 5y ago
> those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolkit. The point of the OP is that skeptics have powerful and robust toolkits and my point is that conspiracists use these toolkits Example: the question is whether Dr Fauci knowingly conspired to let hundreds of thousands die because he is colluding with the Chinese on enacting the great reset The conclusion seems obviously bogus, yet you can pick a ton of arguments in favor from any skeptic of US Covid response. These tend to be very robust. I’ve seen tons of convincing arguments on this very site about issues with US Covid response, eg that we had strong information about the risks of Covid and should have had lockdowns much earlier, that we should have advised to wear masks from the beginning, etc. In the context of the conspiracy, each argument that US response was bungled also becomes a weapon to argue that Fauci intentionally bungled US Covid response to enact an evil agenda of widespread death. At that point you can either argue with very well reasoned skeptic talking points, or you can dive down the ideological rabbit hole of “ok he bungled it but it wasn’t intentional / malicious”. This is what I mean by weaponizing skeptic talking points
wizzwizz4 5y ago
> How would you prove that jet fuel can compromise the integrity of steel beams? 1. Acquire some jet fuel, burn it, and measure its burning temperature. 2. Acquire a steel beam, hit it with a hammer, heat it up to the burning temperature of jet fuel, then hit it with a hammer again. 3. Wonder why I just wasted $1000 and a hammer on something that the conspiracy theorists will label “doctored footage”.

rhino369 5y ago

You should be careful about placing the blame on skeptics for misuse of their opinions by nutbags. Because the nutbags would have likely just latched onto something else. They didn't reason themselves into their crazy beliefs. So removing reasonable opinions isn't going to change their beliefs one bit. The conspiracy theorists often latch onto proponent's factual claims and misinterpret them as supporting the conspiracy theory. A lot of conspiracy theories re vaccines will quote CDC, WHO, research papers, etc. that aren't skeptical.

helen___keller 5y ago
I’m only trying to describe, not assign blame. To be clear, I’ll repeat myself: > I don’t think it’s wrong to be a skeptic