There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You explained nothing. I clearly answered your one trivial question and you have no follow up lol.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are varying degrees of quality in US media with varying problems within.

If you think this, you don't understand the media and the role it plays within the regime.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you think this, you don't understand the media and the role it plays within the regime.

...? Was there any argument in there somewhere? It's barely an assertion. As expected, even on an anonymous forum without any consequences you're still unable to actually assert a rational position and back it up lol. Do you think maybe that's because you're full of shit?

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Topic brought up bad faith actor spreading bad info
I posited that entire media eco system behaves this way but we society turn a blind eye
We had an exchange on what I meant by this, with you highlighting that "media" is varying and explaining away how media behavior is not the same. Essentially creating dichotomy "media is ok" but these rando's are the enemy. You did not provide facts to turn my opinion though. My position is that you are still working within the standard politics framework... muhh team good/right, other team bad. I fundamentally disagree with this approach. I can't change your mind and that's fine. I think readers had a decent exchange to read.
you proceed to engage with a bit of charge which cool by me... but i would want he key issue addressed. Why does main stream media gets a pass for this from avg person?
I would posit that the media and idiots on twitter are prolly funded by the same bad faith actors, well a soup of them from different sides. But what they are not funded by is avg people.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

I posited that entire media eco system behaves this way but we society turn a blind eye

Ridiculous assertion. All it takes is a single person not acting in bad faith to disprove , which is the problem with absolute statements. You can be 99 percent right (you're not) and still be wrong. Can you prove that literally 100 percent of news media is acting in bad faith? If so, why all this bullshit? Just lead with the proof.
Prove it. You're asserting bad faith on the part of thousands of people (which implies knowledge of literally everyone's intent. Are you god? Lol) without evidence.

We had an exchange on what I meant by this, with you highlighting that "media" is varying and explaining away how media behavior is not the same. Essentially creating dichotomy "media is ok" but these rando's are the enemy. You did not provide facts to turn my opinion though.

Using the vocabulary of logic doesn't mean you're actually doing logic dude. My statement does not in any way create a "dichotomy". It could right, it could be wrong, or anywhere in between. Nothing said implies "media is ok". Nothing you said implied they're wrong. Using the vocabulary of logic doesn't mean you're thinking logically. Try harder.

My position is that you are still working within the standard politics framework... muhh team good/right, other team bad.

Nothing I said implied that. You literally just imagined it, like you did the "dichotomy".

I fundamentally disagree with this approach. I can't change your mind and that's fine. I think readers had a decent exchange to read.

Of course you can. You make a logical argument, backed by evidence. Why is that so hard? You haven't even tried.

you proceed to engage with a bit of charge which cool by me... but i would want he key issue addressed. Why does main stream media gets a pass for this from avg person?

This is not the question you originally asked, and assumes several assertions that you haven't backed up with anything let alone proven. It's also such a vague question that an answer is impossible. You have assumed that your read on "the media" as a whole is right (apparently 100 percent of them are acting in bad faith? Lol), that somehow people know this (proof?) and give them a pass( what does that mean? People complain about the media all the time).

I would posit that the media and idiots on twitter are prolly funded by the same bad faith actors, well a soup of them from different sides. But what they are not funded by is avg people.

I would posit that you're dazzled by the true complexity of the world and so you simplify and imagine things in order to fit it into your head and make it make sense. "The media " is not funded by one person or the same people. This is trivially probable.

But what they are not funded by is avg people.

Who are these average people? Aren't they the ones giving media a pass for all acting in bad faith?

Study epistemology dude. The questions you're asking aren't all bad. But you literally don't know how to think. You just simplify until things make sense to you. That's not how you find truth. The question of "how do I know what I think is true is actually true" is an extremely important one. Smart people have been asking it for thousands of years. Try learning from literally any of them. Epistemology is important.