3 ms·

So let's compare two statements: "Conspiracy theories and other sorts of misinformation are stickier now because leadership and institutions are increasingly i

So let's compare two statements: "Conspiracy theories and other sorts of misinformation are stickier now because leadership and institutions are increasingly illegitimate/incompetent/whatever". "Conspiracy theories and other sorts of misinformation are more widespread now because changes in technology have allowed them to be spread far faster than ever before." What sort of research or data would one need to support one take over the other?

noduerme 5y ago
Well put. Who hasn't had both of those thoughts over the past decade? You can't measure them independently, or support one over the other, because to the degree that either of those statements is true it would be amplified by the effects of the other statement. To some extent, though, you're just giving a concise framing to the question of misinformation vs. disinformation. Use "disinformation" in the first statement, and they're no longer at odds; they're mutually reinforcing.
motohagiography 5y ago
While I hadn't considered it from a scholarly research perspective, a psychometric and demographic analysis of change in leaders over time would yield information about their legitimacy and competence. Technology change doesn't really describe it as well either, as pre-internet, 60's counterculture (hippies) was predicated on a conspiracy theory, as was the reaction to it (birch society), the entire cold war was a conspiracy theory about infiltration and subversion, and up until the 90s, conspiracy movies were some of the biggest pop culture influences, and investigative journalism that challenged the integrity of institutions was considered the highest form of the art. Using the internet as the source for "technological change," is probably the most coarse selection bias one could create. Pre 9/11, much of the world mobilized and was in more dangerous riots than anything today as part of the anti-globalization movement of the 90s when the internet wasn't as big of a thing, which was a reaction to a conspiracy by the same people (WEF) pulling this stuff today. All counter culture is a reaction and a conspiracy theory, so the author is really just writing a manual for suppressing counterculture. Viewed this way, I probably shouldn't have been as kind. I'd suggest it should be on the author to deflect assertions of malice.

noduerme 5y ago

Well put. Who hasn't had both of those thoughts over the past decade? You can't measure them independently, or support one over the other, because to the degree that either of those statements is true it would be amplified by the effects of the other statement. To some extent, though, you're just giving a concise framing to the question of misinformation vs. disinformation. Use "disinformation" in the first statement, and they're no longer at odds; they're mutually reinforcing.

motohagiography 5y ago

While I hadn't considered it from a scholarly research perspective, a psychometric and demographic analysis of change in leaders over time would yield information about their legitimacy and competence. Technology change doesn't really describe it as well either, as pre-internet, 60's counterculture (hippies) was predicated on a conspiracy theory, as was the reaction to it (birch society), the entire cold war was a conspiracy theory about infiltration and subversion, and up until the 90s, conspiracy movies were some of the biggest pop culture influences, and investigative journalism that challenged the integrity of institutions was considered the highest form of the art. Using the internet as the source for "technological change," is probably the most coarse selection bias one could create. Pre 9/11, much of the world mobilized and was in more dangerous riots than anything today as part of the anti-globalization movement of the 90s when the internet wasn't as big of a thing, which was a reaction to a conspiracy by the same people (WEF) pulling this stuff today. All counter culture is a reaction and a conspiracy theory, so the author is really just writing a manual for suppressing counterculture. Viewed this way, I probably shouldn't have been as kind. I'd suggest it should be on the author to deflect assertions of malice.