The Latest Dangerous Conspiracy Theory: That Conspiracy Theory Research Is Part Of A Big Conspiracy

Free Speech

from the conspiracies-about-conspiracies dept

Let’s start off with this point, which some seem to ignore when I talk about this stuff: I think many of the “concerns” about disinformation are totally overblown. People act as if disinformation has a sort of bizarre mind-control over other people (never themselves) to the point that they act as if disinformation itself is some sort of toxic sludge that must be locked up in underground bunkers, lest it seep out and infect the populace, turning them into zombies.

The reality tends to be a bit more mundane. It is not that disinformation has no impact, but, generally speaking, the impact of certain kinds of alarmist information works as a form of confirmation bias, often filling in gaps where the public is not well informed, or often treated badly. US healthcare, for example, is a confusing, complex mess, and large pharmaceutical companies have a history of legitimately nefarious behavior in pursuit of greater profits. So, it’s easy to see how people immediately jump to false conclusions regarding vaccines.

But, again, it tends to be a form of confirmation bias, in which people, who are seeking answers to what legitimately seems confusing and unclear (thanks to a variety of other factors), are quick to latch onto complete nonsense over facts, because it fits with their priors about what they believe (sometimes based on good reasons) and gives them an explanation for something that was confusing.

As tempting as it often is (and yes, it’s very tempting) to simply bash those who fall for nonsense conspiracy theories as being ignorant or gullible, I’m concerned that’s often counterproductive. I have less concern about calling out the nonsense peddlers who know what they’re spewing is false, and who do it for clout or for profit.

And, also, immediately just calling things “disinformation” or a “conspiracy theory” opens things up to having that turned around on the debunkers. Just remember how in the wake of the 2016 election, people were freaked out about “fake news” that they insisted was why Trump won, and demanded regulations to block fake news. But, instead, what happened was Trump started calling any legitimate news reporting that made him look bad “fake news” and the “fake news” laws that did get passed were used for surveillance or to silence dissent?

There need to be better ways of dealing with these things. And, of course, this is why it’s important to have actual research on how false information actually flows, and how some people start believing it and pushing it on others. It’s also important that this research determine the best way to counter legitimately false information. Because otherwise, people are going to leap to the conclusion that the best way to counter such information is to immediately suppress it, when lots of evidence suggests in many cases that only makes things worse.

Unfortunately, though, in the last couple of years, it seems that the nonsense peddlers who have benefited the most from preying on those who were suckered in by misinformation have decided that those who study the flow of false information are themselves the problem. Some of this is that they can’t comprehend that there is a legitimate reason to study disinformation flows. They assume, falsely, that the only reasons why some would seek to understand how disinformation flows is to suppress information. Again, though, that’s not the intent of such research.

It’s easy, of course, to say that the reason disinfo peddlers believe that disinfo research is a problem is because it’s an attack on their own grift. And, there’s likely some of that at play. But, again, the reality may just be more confirmation bias. The people who push this nonsense believe, in a somewhat paranoid fashion, that “they” are out to get those who challenge the party line, and thus disinfo research must be a part of the attack on the truth.

Of course, these days, you have the worst of the worst nonsense peddlers, those in the government, like Rep. Jim Jordan, who was cynically handed a new subcommittee, ostensibly “against” the weaponization of the government to suppress speech. Except that Jordan has done exactly as many would expect and deliberately weaponized this powerful congressional subcommittee to stifle the speech other others.

The NY Times has an article, not unlike the Washington Post article we highlighted recently, concerning how Jim Jordan is using the committee to try to suppress disinformation research.

The House Judiciary Committee has focused much of its questioning on two collaborative projects. One was the Election Integrity Partnership, which Stanford and the University of Washington formed before the 2020 election to identify attempts “to suppress voting, reduce participation, confuse voters or delegitimize election results without evidence.” The other, also organized by Stanford, was called the Virality Project and focused on the spread of disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines.

Both subjects have become political lightning rods, exposing the researchers to partisan attacks online that have become ominously personal at times.

In the case of the Stanford Internet Observatory, the requests for information — including all emails — have even extended to students who volunteered to work as interns for the Election Integrity Partnership.

A central premise of the committee’s investigation — and the other complaints about censorship — is that the researchers or government officials had the power or ability to shut down accounts on social media. They did not, according to former employees at Twitter and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, who said the decision to punish users who violated platform rules belonged solely to the companies.

No evidence has emerged that government officials coerced the companies to take action against accounts, even when the groups flagged problematic content.

“We have not only academic freedom as researchers to conduct this research but freedom of speech to tell Twitter or any other company to look at tweets we might think violate rules,” Mr. Hancock said.

What it really comes down to is that the latest conspiracy theory, being pushed by folks like Jim Jordan, former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, and gullible folks like Elon Musk and Matt Taibbi, is that the mere studying of conspiracy theories, and how they spread, is itself a conspiracy.

And, of course, all that is a problem, because now merely studying and identifying issues around propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories gets you linked in as part of the grand conspiracy — one for which there still remains zero actual evidence — of seeking to silence or hide important “truths.”

In some ways, the misguided targeting of such research is kind of brilliant in its own ignorance. If the very researchers trying to understand how false information flows aren’t able to do their jobs, then it opens up new lanes for such bullshit to flow.

Filed Under: disinformation, jim jordan, propaganda, research