By far the most serious and imminent threat to society today. Not climate change, nor any ageing Cold War dictator. The rise and rise of disinformation and conspiracy beliefs - the first casualty is always the true.
We are fond on this site of the term ‘follow the money’. For anyone that does have an enquiring mind just take some time out and do a little research on who benefits from this content/narrative. Research its sources and motivations - it’s not difficult to find.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, we disagree on a deep level again here.
In my opinion, one of the scariest things we face is not conspiracy theorists, it’s the pursuit of them and the ensuing death of free speech, and along with it, freedom and truth.
I know you reject it, but to me it’s huge.
When we look at what the governments of the world have done in recent years (especially in covid times) we have seen irrefutable proof of their willingness to totally own the narrative, to silence any decent, etc.
When evident in other countries this is called propaganda at best, or tyranny at worst.
Whilst I understand why people use the label ‘miss information‘ I dislike it. It’s almost an oxymoron really, it’s calling something a lie without having the balls or ability to call it a lie. And until we can prove something is a lie it is nothing more than an alternative point of view.
When faced with an alternative point of view, it is our responsibility as a society to counter it, with logic, research and debate. If it transpires to be crazy / a lie / or just plain wrong, people will see this. When people see the same person discredited repeatedly, they stop listening. This is what debate does and why the ability to debate is so important. This is precisely why universities established debating chambers years / centuries ago.
When there is a debate, ie a discussion in which opposing arguments are put forward, who is to decide which side is information and which side is misinformation ? The answer is that this can only be decided by hearing both sides.
To close down one side without debate is the definition of limiting free speech.
If we start to impose limits on free speech we will slide into an unpleasant world in which authorities will decide who is right and who is not, and who can speak and who can not, kinda like it is today in R*ssia, North K*rea, Ch*na, etc.
I am not defending any particular conspiracy theorist here, and I do agree that some can indeed be dangerous. But I take the viewpoint that ‘putting up with’ the odd dangerous conspiracy theorist, which is inevitable within a system of free speech, is a MUCH better option than the alternative…
! Thanks.
