Conspiracy theories

[Barney]

I argue that we actually have to look at the claims and not trust the label of "conspiracy theory".

you wrote off the Dark Horse podcast from the lefty guy at the drop of a hat as conspiracy theory because it questions the narrative.

I actually don't remember what podcast you mean and I'm not sure I wrote it off. Can you remind me the context? But even if so, it is not because it questions the narrative. I am perfectly happy to question the narrative. I just don't have time to question every narrative I come across.

Have you looked into every conspiracy theory you've ever heard? I've heard the following:

• That the Moon Landing never happened.
• That the Holocaust never happened.
• That some people are actually reptiles planning to take over the world.
• That aliens have contacted earth but the government is hiding it.
• That the earth is flat.
• That the Covid Vaccine is the mark of the Beast in the biblical book of Revelation.

There is tons of information out there on each of these - youtube videos, websites, articles, blogs. How much time should you and I spend investigating each of these claims before deciding whether or not they're conspiracy theories?

[Ondrej]

Here is the full post

Here is another example of the "cabal of powerful people".

This is a discussion about covid vaccines and the difficulty with even having a discussion about them if it goes against "the narrative".

It is quite long (3 hrs) but I thought it would be informative in its own right. I post it here as another chip on the pile of evidence of slanted/controlled media narratives.

Anyway here is the link https://youtu.be/-_NNTVJzqtY

The point wasn't that you have to look into every conspiracy theory. I've looked into none of those. It is that youtube or google or facebook IS filtering what is brought to your attention and influencing what you think. Moreover, they are aligning with "the narrative". This is actually quite a critical point.

This was posted in "paying attention" which was specifically created to post (sparingly) things I thought would be worthy of making sure we both saw. But I have to admit I'm not sure it is helpful at all.

[Barney]

If that was the point then it doesn't apply to me. I don't go to Facebook or Youtube or even Google for my sources of information. I know these things are filtered. Many people blamed Trump's election on Facebook analytics targeting people with what would make them vote for Trump. To say that the media filters things is not new, nor is it even something only those on the right are aware of. Everyone is aware of it, and everyone only seems able to see the filters when the filters point away from what they believe.

This was posted in "paying attention" which was specifically created to post (sparingly) things I thought would be worthy of making sure we both saw. But I have to admit I'm not sure it is helpful at all.

I do think it's helpful and I'm glad you created this forum. But I think you have learnt that news is always interpreted a certain way by the reader. Simply posting a news story was not good enough for you: you had to tell me how I ought to interpret it. Then we had a debate about the right interpretation. That's all fine and good. Let's carry on doing it.

[Ondrej]

If that was the point then it doesn't apply to me. I don't go to Facebook or Youtube or even Google for my sources of information.

I'm not sure I agree with this. These tech giants (among others) are shaping the culture, popular opinion, and the overall national discourse whether or not you participate at the origin. So I don't think one is able to avoid the problem.

Many people blamed Trump's election on Facebook analytics targeting people with what would make them vote for Trump. To say that the media filters things is not new, nor is it even something only those on the right are aware of. Everyone is aware of it, and everyone only seems able to see the filters when the filters point away from what they believe.

Here, you are confusing two arguments, probably because I have not carefully defined terminology. Tech companies obviously must filter content. That is their main purpose, to cut infinity down to ten or twenty things that might be of interest to you. Those who complain that pro Trump messaging is shared too freely are arguing that the filters should not be blind to what the content is. Rather that, with certain specific types of content, the filters should suppress more strongly.

On the flip side, those who are trying to share, say pro Trump content, have noticed that their reach is being curtailed. The filters are not acting impartially or in alignment with the stated terms of service.

Those in the first group are arguing for more censorship; those in the later group are claiming that they are being censored. The narrative is "there's nothing to see here". The problem is, you cannot appease the first group without the second group providing damning evidence that the narrative is wrong. So one has to be very careful to claim that the censorship is only catching conspiracy theories and bots and if too much of a fuss is made about something, it can be uncensored claiming it was an honest mistake.

But it is not simply across political lines. It is anything that does not fall in line with the narrative. The link I posted was an attempt to illustrate this. Bret Weinstein is a biologist, Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, and Steve Kirsch has been investigating adverse reactions to COVID vaccinations. In the first portion of the discussion they draw attention to how big tech and the media are censoring anything that does not comport with the "vaccines are 100% safe and effective" messaging. They also talk about many other things with regard to how the vaccines are intended to work, what things we are starting to observe, etc. The truth of their claims is not at issue. What is of relevance is that in order to get to the bottom of these things one must be able to communicate different views, share data, and generally engage with all the conspiracy theories (and reject most of them) to distill out the truth. Tech companies and media suppression is acting on the presumption that they already know the truth of the matter and can safely remove troublesome content. To draw parallels with the dihydrogen monoxide hoax, it would be like tech companies removing any discussion or information revealing that dihydrogen monoxide was just water or downplaying the severity of its impact on the basis that we already know dihydrogen monoxide is so dangerous. This approach perpetuates and entrenches errors by removing those who would correct the discussion.

Incidentally, YouTube has removed the video since I posted the link. I suppose they are making my point. The video is also available here https://rumble.com/vijpp5-how-to-save-t ... exper.html