Choose your reality: Trust wanes, conspiracy theories rise

[Truthseeker]

A poll conducted last year by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that just 16% of Americans say democracy is working well or extremely well. Another 38% said it’s working only somewhat well.

Other surveys reveal how many people in the United States now doubt the media, politicians, science and even each other.

The distrust has gone so deep that even groups that seem ideologically aligned are questioning each others’ motives and intentions...

For experts who study misinformation and human cognition, the fraying of trust is tied to the rise of the internet and the way it can be exploited on contentious issues of social and economic change.

Choose your reality: Trust wanes, conspiracy theories rise

Something must be done about better regulating the internet, especially social media. Facebook has been the worst offender, in my opinion, with algorithms designed to elicit the attention of people according to the tracked views of each person. I honestly don't know what the best solution is. Views?

 

[Estro Felino]

I am not understanding: if these conspiracy theories are not true, what harm do they do?

It is like I said on facebook: horses can fly.
Unicorns exist.
Is that harmful?

 

[Heyo]

Something must be done about better regulating the internet, especially social media

Censorship?
I guess that won't be very popular in the US. But as we've seen, popular rights aren't safe these days.
Reinstating the fairness doctrine?
That would be acknowledging that it was an error to dismiss it. It would also mess with the business model of very influential corporations like Fox News and OANN.

 

[Estro Felino]

Censorship?
I guess that won't be very popular in the US. But as we've seen, popular rights aren't safe these days.
Reinstating the fairness doctrine?
That would be acknowledging that it was an error to dismiss it. It would also mess with the business model of very influential corporations like Fox News and OANN.

But the Fairness Doctrine used to affect newscasters. We are dealing with social media, aren't we?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Usually untruths become apparent over the course of time.

I think its primarily the knee jerk mentality that creates the most problems because it's quick and lacking the details that makes for an informed and hopefully more detailed picture down the road.

 

[Heyo]

But the Fairness Doctrine used to affect newscasters. We are dealing with social media, aren't we?

We are dealing with "the internet". There are sources on the internet that want to appear as "news". They would be affected by a fairness doctrine. Social media would be affected indirectly. Posters get their ideas from somewhere, usually biased "news" media and they cite their sources. (It doesn't fly on RF because they are called out at once.)

 

[Estro Felino]

We are dealing with "the internet". There are sources on the internet that want to appear as "news". They would be affected by a fairness doctrine. Social media would be affected indirectly. Posters get their ideas from somewhere, usually biased "news" media and they cite their sources. (It doesn't fly on RF because they are called out at once.)

Social media cannot be affected because they do not spread information. They are not supposed to.

 

[Heyo]

Social media cannot be affected because they do not spread information. They are not supposed to.

I get all my information from RF.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I am not understanding: if these conspiracy theories are not true, what harm do they do?

It is like I said on facebook: horses can fly.
Unicorns exist.
Is that harmful?

Dear Estro Felino,

Conspiracy theories are conceptual (as in packaged) ideas about X institution/ group/ person - usually of influence or power - plotting and doing Y, with a questionable agenda towards Z groups in mind.

Widespread (believed by many, that is) conspiracy theories are dangerous because of what they make those who believe in them do.

Think of it this way: Conspiracy theories risk creating mass-paranoia and; a paranoid person is a danger to themselves and to others, regardless of whether what they are paranoid about is real or not.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Stevicus]

A poll conducted last year by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that just 16% of Americans say democracy is working well or extremely well. Another 38% said it’s working only somewhat well.

Other surveys reveal how many people in the United States now doubt the media, politicians, science and even each other.

The distrust has gone so deep that even groups that seem ideologically aligned are questioning each others’ motives and intentions...

For experts who study misinformation and human cognition, the fraying of trust is tied to the rise of the internet and the way it can be exploited on contentious issues of social and economic change.

Choose your reality: Trust wanes, conspiracy theories rise

Something must be done about better regulating the internet, especially social media. Facebook has been the worst offender, in my opinion, with algorithms designed to elicit the attention of people according to the tracked views of each person. I honestly don't know what the best solution is. Views?

I think conspiracy theories begin whenever people notice that the reality around them doesn't agree with the propaganda and slogans they hear from their government and other influential entities in society.

For example, they might hear phrases like "liberty and justice for all" and believe it to be true, until they see someone's rights being violated by the police or some other institution or organization (and is able to get away with it). That's when some people might question whether the ideals propagated by the national leadership are actually true or whether someone might be lying. (This can be even further exacerbated if the government withholds key information or video evidence in questionable situations.)

Another example is they might hear in media or from government officials that "America is better off" or that "the economy is the best it's ever been" while seeing low paychecks, high prices, homeless on the streets, boarded-up businesses, at which point they'll think "What gives? Are the media and government lying?"

The lack of transparency, the Orwellian government culture of hyper-secrecy, and a long track record of malfeasance and corruption also contribute to public perceptions which may make them more susceptible to conspiracy theories. Those who seem troubled by the spread of conspiracy theories would do far better if they focused on and addressed these issues, rather than fret about social media or what those in the peanut gallery are whispering amongst themselves.

 

[Estro Felino]

Dear Estro Felino,

Conspiracy theories are conceptual (as in packaged) ideas about X institution/ group/ person - usually of influence or power - plotting and doing Y, with a questionable agenda towards Z groups in mind.

Widespread (believed by many, that is) conspiracy theories are dangerous because of what they make those who believe in them do.

Think of it this way: Conspiracy theories risk creating mass-paranoia and; a paranoid person is a danger to themselves and to others, regardless of whether what they are paranoid about is real or not.


Humbly
Hermit

Paranoia is not negative if your job is security.
If the security officers of Nine Eleven had been more paranoiac, they would have checked on the terrorists' bags and would have found the box cutters or other weapons.

They didnt check probably because they did not want to be called "paranoids" and "conspiracy theorists".

This anecdote is for making you understand that there can be suspicious motives behind the invention of the expression "conspiracy theory".

 

[Stevicus]

Dear Estro Felino,

Conspiracy theories are conceptual (as in packaged) ideas about X institution/ group/ person - usually of influence or power - plotting and doing Y, with a questionable agenda towards Z groups in mind.

Widespread (believed by many, that is) conspiracy theories are dangerous because of what they make those who believe in them do.

Think of it this way: Conspiracy theories risk creating mass-paranoia and; a paranoid person is a danger to themselves and to others, regardless of whether what they are paranoid about is real or not.

I doubt that conspiracy theories actually "create" paranoia. I would think the paranoia was already there to begin with, caused by other sources.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I doubt that conspiracy theories actually "create" paranoia. I would think the paranoia was already there to begin with, caused by other sources.

Yes, I’d partially agree with that - in that it is less likely that one would believe a conspiracy theory that does not fit into one’s already established idea about the context in which it’s in.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Balthazzar]

I am not understanding: if these conspiracy theories are not true, what harm do they do?

It is like I said on facebook: horses can fly.
Unicorns exist.
Is that harmful?

Yes, when large groups of people believe the misinformation, accurate guidance is no longer there. It not only dumbs people down, making them ineffective, but also large groups. On even larger scales, entire populations become so misguided, the hope to compete with other groups, nations, cultures, becomes non-existent. A broken watch may be accurate twice in a day, but 22 hours of the 24 remain unaccounted for, and the entire 24 hours unknown.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, when large groups of people believe the misinformation, accurate guidance is no longer there. It not only dumbs people down, making them ineffective, but also large groups. On even larger scales, entire populations become so misguided, the hope to compete with other groups, nations, cultures, becomes non-existent. A broken watch may be accurate twice in a day, but 22 hours of the 24 remain unaccounted for, and the entire 24 hours unknown.

It is a matter of perspective.
The French aristocracy must have thought the French people was misguided during the French Revolution. Abd yet it took place.

 

[Stevicus]

Paranoia is not negative if your job is security.
If the security officers of Nine Eleven had been more paranoiac, they would have checked on the terrorists' bags and would have found the box cutters or other weapons.

They didnt check probably because they did not want to be called "paranoids" and "conspiracy theorists".

This anecdote is for making you understand that there can be suspicious motives behind the invention of the expression "conspiracy theory".

I observed and noted the existence of conspiracy theories relatively early in life (most notably involving the JFK assassination), although I didn't become aware of the actual term "conspiracy theory" until I heard it from someone who referred to himself as a "conspiracy theorist." He appeared to use the term seriously, not pejoratively, and believed it to be a legitimate, scholarly (albeit alternative) approach to history.

But back in those days, it wasn't considered a bad thing to "question authority" or to suggest that our political leaders might have had other motivations and causes other than "liberty and justice for all." Many conspiracy theories may have come from liberals or leftists, particularly those involving assassinations, the Vietnam War, the alleged activities of the military, CIA, FBI, NSA, and other government agencies.

But society was already predisposed into believing conspiracy theories anyway. One could say that the entire Cold War was based on a "conspiracy theory" that the Communist Bloc was secretly planning to conquer the entire world. When that was shown to be untrue (or at least, grossly exaggerated), then people started to wonder aloud what our government was really up to. Our government's own propensity towards believing in conspiracy theories is what set the example for the rest of the public to follow.

But it seemed that, at some point during the 80s and 90s, I noticed more and more of a concerted effort to put the kibosh on "conspiracy theories." There seemed to be more and more people coming out of the woodwork to openly challenge popular notions which appeared to go unanswered for quite a number of years.

After Oliver Stone's JFK came out, there was renewed interest in the JFK assassination and the conspiracy theories surrounding it, and it was shortly after that when books like "Case Closed" came out to quash some of the notions which were circulating. There was definitely a more noticeable, active challenging of any idea which would suggest a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. It also led to Congress passing the JFK Act, which released many previously classified documents related to the assassination (but not all of them).

I guess what struck me about it was, considering that these theories had been circulating around the public for decades - not necessarily at a mainstream or "official" level, but still noticeable and at a level where most people were aware of their existence. There may have been a small minority of true believers, a small minority of true disbelievers, while most of the population was kind of "meh" or "maybe it happened, maybe not." It didn't seem to cause any real harm, though. Or at least, few people saw conspiracy theories as any kind of huge problem that had to be dealt with.

But at some point, I began to notice more and more people making an active, almost fanatical, effort to try to challenge and quash conspiracy theories wherever they may be, almost as if they're on some kind of crusade. That's what has struck me as significant, even more so than the conspiracy theories themselves. Why do they care about it now, when nobody seemed all that concerned for decades prior?

 

[Polymath257]

I am not understanding: if these conspiracy theories are not true, what harm do they do?

It is like I said on facebook: horses can fly.
Unicorns exist.
Is that harmful?

I think the events of January 6 give a very good example of how conspiracy theories can cause a lot of harm.

 

[Estro Felino]

I observed and noted the existence of conspiracy theories relatively early in life (most notably involving the JFK assassination), although I didn't become aware of the actual term "conspiracy theory" until I heard it from someone who referred to himself as a "conspiracy theorist." He appeared to use the term seriously, not pejoratively, and believed it to be a legitimate, scholarly (albeit alternative) approach to history.

But back in those days, it wasn't considered a bad thing to "question authority" or to suggest that our political leaders might have had other motivations and causes other than "liberty and justice for all." Many conspiracy theories may have come from liberals or leftists, particularly those involving assassinations, the Vietnam War, the alleged activities of the military, CIA, FBI, NSA, and other government agencies.

But society was already predisposed into believing conspiracy theories anyway. One could say that the entire Cold War was based on a "conspiracy theory" that the Communist Bloc was secretly planning to conquer the entire world. When that was shown to be untrue (or at least, grossly exaggerated), then people started to wonder aloud what our government was really up to. Our government's own propensity towards believing in conspiracy theories is what set the example for the rest of the public to follow.

But it seemed that, at some point during the 80s and 90s, I noticed more and more of a concerted effort to put the kibosh on "conspiracy theories." There seemed to be more and more people coming out of the woodwork to openly challenge popular notions which appeared to go unanswered for quite a number of years.

After Oliver Stone's JFK came out, there was renewed interest in the JFK assassination and the conspiracy theories surrounding it, and it was shortly after that when books like "Case Closed" came out to quash some of the notions which were circulating. There was definitely a more noticeable, active challenging of any idea which would suggest a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. It also led to Congress passing the JFK Act, which released many previously classified documents related to the assassination (but not all of them).

I guess what struck me about it was, considering that these theories had been circulating around the public for decades - not necessarily at a mainstream or "official" level, but still noticeable and at a level where most people were aware of their existence. There may have been a small minority of true believers, a small minority of true disbelievers, while most of the population was kind of "meh" or "maybe it happened, maybe not." It didn't seem to cause any real harm, though. Or at least, few people saw conspiracy theories as any kind of huge problem that had to be dealt with.

But at some point, I began to notice more and more people making an active, almost fanatical, effort to try to challenge and quash conspiracy theories wherever they may be, almost as if they're on some kind of crusade. That's what has struck me as significant, even more so than the conspiracy theories themselves. Why do they care about it now, when nobody seemed all that concerned for decades prior?

It is a very recent phenomenon, because the term conspiracy is a very serious term. And is penally relevant because it is mentioned in penal codes.
Whose juridical definition is very simple: an action that aims at deceiving someone with the help of a third (that can be numerous people).
It is a very simple definition. It can be applied, basically to the great majority of crimes listed in the penal code.

In the very last decades the term has been ridiculed. Or rather, it has acquired a hilarious connotation with the purpose to ridicule the people who speak of them.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, when large groups of people believe the misinformation, accurate guidance is no longer there. It not only dumbs people down, making them ineffective, but also large groups. On even larger scales, entire populations become so misguided, the hope to compete with other groups, nations, cultures, becomes non-existent. A broken watch may be accurate twice in a day, but 22 hours of the 24 remain unaccounted for, and the entire 24 hours unknown.

I think the key thing is, as long as there is a relatively open and free exchange of ideas, then people can evaluate and make their choices in the marketplace of ideas. The accurate guidance would still be there.

I guess that's what astonishes me about all of this, since in the pre-internet days, choices in media and information were much fewer and far less accessible than they are now. Nowadays, people can find sources of information from all over the world; they don't have to rely on one source or another source or get stuck inside some echo chamber.

There is a problem, however. Sometimes, when wanting to get reliable information about news, events, or other factual data, it's not always that easy to find. I might see a questionable claim and want to verify it or at least find out where it might have come from. Oftentimes I hit paywalls. Information is a commodity in our society, and information costs money. Books cost money. A higher education costs money. Those who can't afford it will seek out news and information which is free of charge.

 

[PureX]

It all comes down to greed. People will pay money for the lies they want to hear. Not necessarily directly, though. The pay by paying attention, and once the purveyors of those lies get their attention, they can sell it to advertisers, and to professional propagandists to be exploited for their profit.

What we really need is to wise the hell up as a people. We need to recognize that we are being played by the media-makers for profit. And they don't care at all how irrational and idiotic the lies they sell us, are. Or how negatively they effect us and others. All they want is the money, or to control our thinking so they can exploit us in other ways. And we keep falling for it, over and over again.