3 ms·

Fyi, someone actually built a formal model to demonstrate that large conspiracies are probabilistically doomed to get exposed: https://www.csmonitor.com/Scienc

by t_mann 4y ago

Fyi, someone actually built a formal model to demonstrate that large conspiracies are probabilistically doomed to get exposed: https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0127/Can-mathematics-help-solve-conspiracy-theory-debates https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0127/Can-mathematics-... However, the model makes a few simplifying assumptions, eg a single leak is sufficient to expose the conspiracy, and I think it also doesn't cover mortality. A conspiracy that wasn't exposed up until the death of all in the know would probably be considered as succesful by the model. I think it's fair to assume that the probability of getting exposed at least significantly drops at that point.

kmeisthax 4y ago
This is specifically the mathematical model I'm referencing, I should probably save this so I remember what to cite next time. While there probably are conspiracies that would take multiple leaks to fully expose, one thing to note is that leaks tend to be correlated with one another. Newsworthy reporting on conspiracy leaks inspires copycat leaks[0] - either to get one's fifteen minutes of fame or to jump ship before the prosecutions come about. A conspiracy that is "successful" in the sense that it was taken to the grave can still get exposed, though. Sure, the members of the conspiracy can't leak it themselves, but they also can no longer destroy any physical evidence or information they left behind. So that evidence could itself be considered a conspirator that cannot die and will eventually leak. [0] This also applies to school shootings.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Doesn’t this assume the existence of a strong fourth estate and/or an executive branch, able and willing to investigate leaks? There are ways to at least partially inoculate against leaks; regulatory capture and elimination of accountability, quid pro quo journalism, “fact checking”-driven censorship, or just simply positioning yourself politically so that the responsible entities don’t want to investigate. Anything left over can be written off as a smear job, a conspiracy theory, etc.

by t_mann 4y ago

kmeisthax 4y ago

This is specifically the mathematical model I'm referencing, I should probably save this so I remember what to cite next time. While there probably are conspiracies that would take multiple leaks to fully expose, one thing to note is that leaks tend to be correlated with one another. Newsworthy reporting on conspiracy leaks inspires copycat leaks[0] - either to get one's fifteen minutes of fame or to jump ship before the prosecutions come about. A conspiracy that is "successful" in the sense that it was taken to the grave can still get exposed, though. Sure, the members of the conspiracy can't leak it themselves, but they also can no longer destroy any physical evidence or information they left behind. So that evidence could itself be considered a conspirator that cannot die and will eventually leak. [0] This also applies to school shootings.

teakettle42 4y ago
Doesn’t this assume the existence of a strong fourth estate and/or an executive branch, able and willing to investigate leaks? There are ways to at least partially inoculate against leaks; regulatory capture and elimination of accountability, quid pro quo journalism, “fact checking”-driven censorship, or just simply positioning yourself politically so that the responsible entities don’t want to investigate. Anything left over can be written off as a smear job, a conspiracy theory, etc.