3 ms·
> We’re pizzagate / Qanon folks changed by that misinformation or were they looking for an excuse? They're arguably a special case, in that qanon was primarily
by rsynnott 11mo ago
> We’re pizzagate / Qanon folks changed by that misinformation or were they looking for an excuse?
They're arguably a special case, in that qanon was primarily a fantastical conspiracy theory along the lines of the blood libel or the satanic ritual abuse thing, and arguably only incidentally political. People who end up getting into that sort of thing are an edgecase. They are not simply believing disinformation; they are believing in _magic_.
But RE more _conventional_ misinformation, IIRC there was polling showing, for instance, that a substantial minority of British people believed various common 'euromyths'. Since the 70s or so, British tabloid media has pushed various bizarre claims about European legislation, and a lot of people seemed quite happy to believe, for instance, that Europe had banned jam, even though jam was still clearly available in the supermarket. Many people even believed that Europe had banned or had tried to ban sausages, apparently due to misremembering a joke in Yes Minister as actual news. Given how tight the Brexit vote was, it's fairly plausible that euromyths swung it.
- techblueberry 11mo agoThere's often a certain kind of (and if this is you well, fight me I guess lol) rationalist commenter online who will say something like "Why do you want to regulate misinformation, do you think you're better than Fox News viewers? Like you're this smart elitist on a hill who's not vulnerable to misinformation? Why should you get to decide what other people consume?" That's meant to sort of feed into I think a normal "good" persons humility, and while I don't have a great response to the accusation, I'm confident it feeds into some massive rhetorical fallacy. I do observe that there are some folks who seem more vulnerable to misinformation than myself, and I do think it's a debate worth having.