I'm Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
I'm Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/10/hurricane-milton-conspiracies-misinformation/680221/
7 comments
We really opened Pandora’s box when Facebook and Twitter were invented. Now we have TikTok and generative AI.
I've been beating this drum for more than 10 years, we were not prepared (as humanity) for the changes social media brought upon us.
I'm completely aware that the same process happened for any other mass media invented, from the printing press, to radio and TV, etc. Still I had a little hope it would be a massively positive change with some hiccups, right now I'm not creative enough to see how we will get through the hiccups... There's a need for something else to bring a shared reality to us but I have absolutely no idea what that would be, I still eagerly wait for it because it's turning out to be extremely exhausting to live in the world post-social media.
Post-truth was already a philosophical question, liquid modernity takes on the information revolution with the dissolution of structures, chaotic societies living in an environment where individuals have to parse their own information, etc.
Bauman wrote about it in 2000, I read it in 2008 and it's been quite prescient.
I'm completely aware that the same process happened for any other mass media invented, from the printing press, to radio and TV, etc. Still I had a little hope it would be a massively positive change with some hiccups, right now I'm not creative enough to see how we will get through the hiccups... There's a need for something else to bring a shared reality to us but I have absolutely no idea what that would be, I still eagerly wait for it because it's turning out to be extremely exhausting to live in the world post-social media.
Post-truth was already a philosophical question, liquid modernity takes on the information revolution with the dissolution of structures, chaotic societies living in an environment where individuals have to parse their own information, etc.
Bauman wrote about it in 2000, I read it in 2008 and it's been quite prescient.
Don't worry, gen AI blockchain will solve the problem! Just don't be negative about the technology!
Is that right? The past centuries seemed to have "pamphlets" widely circulated with all sorts of bullshit, that were just as bat shit crazy and widely circulated. I suppose with FB the bar is even lower, but still. Not sure I would blame the printing press or FB for human attraction to conspiracies.
Pamphlets cost money to print and distribute, and distribution channels were not fast. Most crazy people didn't have the money for widespread distribution, and the slowness of distribution meant that if some insane thing did start getting traction others could get debunking material out before the crazy thing got too far.
With social media the distribution cost is zero to the person posting, so there is no speed bump there. It is distributed in a very short time to a large number of people, so there is little opportunity to debunk it before it has taken hold.
The only real speed bump with social media is the time to write the material. That's generally much lower for the insane stuff then for the correct stuff.
Try debunking sometime if you want to see this yourself. It can take hours or days of work to write a good refutation for something that a crazy person spent a few minutes on. And then when you finish, you often find the crazy person has made a dozen more arguments and their audience dismisses your debunking saying everyone occasionally makes a mistake and pointing at the 10 new arguments that have not been debunked yet.
With pamphlets the aforementioned limitations also meant that you generally didn't see the pamphlets from crazy people far away. You mostly just saw your local or regional sources. Overall the information you received was mostly sane stuff with an insane pamphlet now and then.
With social media you get the insanity from worldwide. You might find that a large majority of your feed is the crazy stuff so even if someone writes a good refutation that would have convinced you it can easily be overlooked in the deluge of world wide craziness.
With social media the distribution cost is zero to the person posting, so there is no speed bump there. It is distributed in a very short time to a large number of people, so there is little opportunity to debunk it before it has taken hold.
The only real speed bump with social media is the time to write the material. That's generally much lower for the insane stuff then for the correct stuff.
Try debunking sometime if you want to see this yourself. It can take hours or days of work to write a good refutation for something that a crazy person spent a few minutes on. And then when you finish, you often find the crazy person has made a dozen more arguments and their audience dismisses your debunking saying everyone occasionally makes a mistake and pointing at the 10 new arguments that have not been debunked yet.
With pamphlets the aforementioned limitations also meant that you generally didn't see the pamphlets from crazy people far away. You mostly just saw your local or regional sources. Overall the information you received was mostly sane stuff with an insane pamphlet now and then.
With social media you get the insanity from worldwide. You might find that a large majority of your feed is the crazy stuff so even if someone writes a good refutation that would have convinced you it can easily be overlooked in the deluge of world wide craziness.
Well, sure, there are quantitative differences. But I'm not sure they add up to qualitative ones.
Take the Great Fire of London in 1666. While the fire was still raging, huge mobs made up their minds as to who was guilty, and managed to have a go at Catholics, Jews, Dutch merchants too from memory. Some of this story is here : https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/great-fire-london-was... this was all while the city was burning around them, and you'd think they had better things to do than mob justice. This seems like a direct analogy to conspiracy theories about the hurricane.
Or the Ku Klux Klan. It wasn't a conspiracy theory as such, rather a proper conspiracy, but it relied (relies!) on people who believe this BS and are thoroughly convinced about racial supremacy etc. Again, all this came to be, and was hugely influential and widespread, well before the transistor, never mind a computer.
Mib violence based on bullshit seems to have always existed, and if anything the violence was, on average, worse in the past.
Take the Great Fire of London in 1666. While the fire was still raging, huge mobs made up their minds as to who was guilty, and managed to have a go at Catholics, Jews, Dutch merchants too from memory. Some of this story is here : https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/great-fire-london-was... this was all while the city was burning around them, and you'd think they had better things to do than mob justice. This seems like a direct analogy to conspiracy theories about the hurricane.
Or the Ku Klux Klan. It wasn't a conspiracy theory as such, rather a proper conspiracy, but it relied (relies!) on people who believe this BS and are thoroughly convinced about racial supremacy etc. Again, all this came to be, and was hugely influential and widespread, well before the transistor, never mind a computer.
Mib violence based on bullshit seems to have always existed, and if anything the violence was, on average, worse in the past.
not only is the reach nowadays wider and the means of dissemination cheaper, but lots of regular folks have more time to "research" and spread them and even make some money in the process.
It's odd how a statement like "I've done my own research, and..." has become an indication that that person is immediately going to make a claim backed by no one else's research.
How can we keep free speech and ensure that bad actors don't abuse it?
Maybe the only way is a highly educated population that can't be easily manipulated. However I'm afraid nowadays there are too many channels that facilitate misinformation spreading. At the same time trusted sources of information are not valued, people are less educated on critical thinking and they have a lack of focus capacity that makes them more vulnerable.
Maybe the only way is a highly educated population that can't be easily manipulated. However I'm afraid nowadays there are too many channels that facilitate misinformation spreading. At the same time trusted sources of information are not valued, people are less educated on critical thinking and they have a lack of focus capacity that makes them more vulnerable.
> Maybe the only way is a highly educated population that can't be easily manipulated.
Highly educated people are not harder to manipulate than others. There's good evidence that suggests they may be easier to manipulate, even, although personally I think the level of education doesn't affect ease of manipulation, only what manipulative techniques are most effective.
Highly educated people are not harder to manipulate than others. There's good evidence that suggests they may be easier to manipulate, even, although personally I think the level of education doesn't affect ease of manipulation, only what manipulative techniques are most effective.
Being educated or even intelligent isn't always an effective defense against misinformation. It can even make it worse because an educated intelligent mind is way better at rationalizing.
The real problem with misinformation is that some people just want it to be true and so it bypasses all critical thinking checks and then reinforced by post-doc rationalizing, cherry-picking, etc.
Disregarding information you want to believe requires significant effort and discipline.
So the real problem is more around why certain people want to believe certain things. If can address the why, then the misinformation will have no power.
The real problem with misinformation is that some people just want it to be true and so it bypasses all critical thinking checks and then reinforced by post-doc rationalizing, cherry-picking, etc.
Disregarding information you want to believe requires significant effort and discipline.
So the real problem is more around why certain people want to believe certain things. If can address the why, then the misinformation will have no power.
Interesting paper: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-illusion-of-moral...
Ask "Are people getting less moral/kind/respectful/honest?". Almost everybody will very confidently reply "yes".
The most correct answer is "I don't know", although there is good evidence for "no".
Ask "Are people getting less moral/kind/respectful/honest?". Almost everybody will very confidently reply "yes".
The most correct answer is "I don't know", although there is good evidence for "no".
I'm kinda skeptical about that paper, or at least the conclusion that this is an illusion (which obnoxious people are going run with to deny and disparage people's perceptions, so they get to feel like the clever boy who's better than everyone).
I wonder if what's going on is more of "progressive alienation with age," where young people basically accept things as they are in their youth, then get slowly alienated by rapid cultural change. Also maybe there's an age discrimination factor as people get older they become less valued/respected by strangers.
I wonder if what's going on is more of "progressive alienation with age," where young people basically accept things as they are in their youth, then get slowly alienated by rapid cultural change. Also maybe there's an age discrimination factor as people get older they become less valued/respected by strangers.
I bet those results could be swayed significantly if this question was asked first:
"Are YOU getting less moral/kind/respectful/honest?"
"Are YOU getting less moral/kind/respectful/honest?"
I'm tired of reductionism and 'isms.' There should be better ways to combat misinformation, and I'm confident we’ll discover them soon. The world population and individual minds adapt slowly to deep change and new tools. While governments may have a role to play, wisdom—sadly lacking in many of them—will be key (pun intended).
Somehow I suspect it is targeted disinfo for a political cause; truth be dammed. When they can't win by truth, they try to win by targeted viral lies. It's as if Cambridge Analytica were reborn for 2024, targeting individuals with custom lies that they will fall for. In the future, we can look forward to realistic fake videos to go with these lies.
This is a longer process that started before Donald's first term as president.
Now it's bearing fruit, people seriously doubt EVERYTHING official. If anyone with a degree or a generally trusted platform says something, a worrying number of people reflexively don't accept it as fact - instead they make up their own facts or get them from people they, for some reason, trust.
Now it's bearing fruit, people seriously doubt EVERYTHING official. If anyone with a degree or a generally trusted platform says something, a worrying number of people reflexively don't accept it as fact - instead they make up their own facts or get them from people they, for some reason, trust.
> people seriously doubt EVERYTHING official
Worse, they will actively promote falsehoods which do harm to themselves and to others.
Worse, they will actively promote falsehoods which do harm to themselves and to others.
Can't remember where I saw the quote: the goal of misinformation is not to get people to believe the misinformation; it's to get them to believe nothing.
It takes the scientific consensus on climate change, turns it around, and exploits climate change for its own devious benefit. I guess school doesn't teach one how to form and test hypotheses.
The censorship of the lab leak theory might have something to do with it
It's been happening way before COVID, your post exemplifies the sentiment: if trusted sources fail at any point they become absolutely distrusted, and people prefer to choose their sources which further departs from a shared reality.
There might have been issues with censoring the lab leak theory, perhaps there were reasons for that such as it not being publicly proven, there was conjecture, etc. but because someone chooses to believe in it, and someone else do not then you got a split reality between them.
Rinse and repeat for a multitude of topics and we get to where we are.
The USA is the canary in the coal mine for this, or perhaps the seed that's spreading across many other countries, hard to tell. Given the free speech absolutism I personally believe it's a bit of both, it's the canary that also seeded a whole movement of conspiracy theorists grifters. I see that happening in Brazil as well, following on the footsteps of what people like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc. created in the USA. And now in Europe I see glimpses of it everywhere.
There might have been issues with censoring the lab leak theory, perhaps there were reasons for that such as it not being publicly proven, there was conjecture, etc. but because someone chooses to believe in it, and someone else do not then you got a split reality between them.
Rinse and repeat for a multitude of topics and we get to where we are.
The USA is the canary in the coal mine for this, or perhaps the seed that's spreading across many other countries, hard to tell. Given the free speech absolutism I personally believe it's a bit of both, it's the canary that also seeded a whole movement of conspiracy theorists grifters. I see that happening in Brazil as well, following on the footsteps of what people like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc. created in the USA. And now in Europe I see glimpses of it everywhere.
> It's been happening way before COVID, your post exemplifies the sentiment: if trusted sources fail at any point they become absolutely distrusted, and people prefer to choose their sources which further departs from a shared reality.
This doesn't happen when they fail it happens when they lie to manipulate the public.
For instance: With the lab leak theory, I believe that was suppressed because the authorities didn't want some kind of backlash against China, therefore regardless of any merits the theory had, it was treated as absolutely false and unspeakable. With masks, I believe the authorities very publicly said they didn't work, because they didn't want the public to consume them.
I don't think they'd have lost trust if they hadn't done stuff like that, or spoke with a false confidence when they were just guessing.
And I say this as someone who followed all the recommendations during COVID, except for using a mask when they were telling people not to.
This doesn't happen when they fail it happens when they lie to manipulate the public.
For instance: With the lab leak theory, I believe that was suppressed because the authorities didn't want some kind of backlash against China, therefore regardless of any merits the theory had, it was treated as absolutely false and unspeakable. With masks, I believe the authorities very publicly said they didn't work, because they didn't want the public to consume them.
I don't think they'd have lost trust if they hadn't done stuff like that, or spoke with a false confidence when they were just guessing.
And I say this as someone who followed all the recommendations during COVID, except for using a mask when they were telling people not to.
Don't forget that they had to suppress the lab leak theory because of who funded the lab...
It’s been happening since the Warren Commission and it’s going to keep happening for good reason. The government isn’t trustworthy and by deliberately hiding things from the American public, the American imagination begins to wander. We talk about government censorship around COVID like it’s a drop in the bucket, well it’s a pretty big drop in a pretty deep bucket. Now we have the same corporate media who allowed themselves to be censored by the government telling us that we ought to remove free speech protections when they’re far more complicit than any social media CEO, it’s pathetic.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)
https://naacp.org/articles/spread-disinformation-and-how-we-...
https://naacp.org/articles/spread-disinformation-and-how-we-...
> "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)
That honestly sounds like it is either fake or a joke taken out of context. If that were true, America (and thus the CIA) would collapse and become uncompetitive with its adversaries. The American public is the foundation of the American economy, and people who know only false things aren't very productive.
The naive reading also dovetails too nicely with the mood in some corners to view the CIA as a cartoon villain, which just does evil things all the time for no reason.
That honestly sounds like it is either fake or a joke taken out of context. If that were true, America (and thus the CIA) would collapse and become uncompetitive with its adversaries. The American public is the foundation of the American economy, and people who know only false things aren't very productive.
The naive reading also dovetails too nicely with the mood in some corners to view the CIA as a cartoon villain, which just does evil things all the time for no reason.
Just because most books are shit doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to burn them.