Some just want to promote conflict, cause chaos, or even just get attention.

Some just want to promote conflict, cause chaos, or even just get attention.

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.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    404·
    2 months ago

    I love watching tankies squirm under adequate questioning of their morals.

    You all fail to be genuine and it’s genuinely amazing.

    • Soup@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      17·
      2 months ago

      Saw one yesterday that demanded proof against her argument. Someone provided it, she didn’t like it so she said it wasn’t true- then demanded true proof from a different source.

      Of course that too was provided, this time by another person, and this also was dismissed as not true.

      Several examples and fact-checked articles later she folded her arms and bailed. Never having admitted she was wrong.

      It was truly remarkable!

    • Soup@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      73·
      2 months ago

      We call them tankies. It’s less…. Offensive.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        2 months ago

        Is it power? These are delusions. They don’t affect reality.

        Mostly, they appear to be coping for anxiety and stress. Trump’s MAGA is a way to convince conservatives that “the patriots are in control” when they’re plainly powerless. The Mueller She Wrote crowd needs to believe police exist for powerful people and it’s not all just punching down.

        All these lies seem to exist and get regurgitated because the truth is too awful to contend with.

  • Match!!@pawb.socialEnglish
    83·
    2 months ago

    like me saying that Hasbro hired pinkertons to threaten the commander rules committee into handing over control of the format

  • Ogmios
    740·
    2 months ago

    Frankly, some of it is push back against busy-bodies who seem to be totally incapable of parsing the concept that the Internet isn’t some sort of bastion of absolute truth. It’s sarcasm that idiots take far too seriously. More than a little is because certain autocratic wanna-bees seem to desire to use the Internet to intrude upon people’s most private thoughts and moments.

    But yes, explain it all away as some sort of nefarious plot to justify even further intrusions into people’s lives.

    Edit: Since the page was bugging out, in reply too: “You are who you pretend to be.”

    I’m not talking about “pretending” to be anything. I’m talking about screwing with overly serious idiots who can’t comprehend that ordinary human conversations aren’t logic problems to be solved, to the point where they call everything that isn’t a dispassionate recitation of official statistics to be a conspiracy theory. If you think sarcasm is ‘pretending’ to be something else, then you fail to grasp the very basics of human communication, and frankly it feels like you’re being deliberately obtuse about it.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      17·
      2 months ago

      If I pump put baseless conspiracies nonstop then statistically I’ll get something sort of right at some point. It doesn’t mean I was right to espouse that bullshit on the first place. Showing your work matters. If you got to a right conclusion accidentally by making shit up , it doesn’t mean you were “right” or that people were we’re wrong to laugh at you. There’s a thing called Epistemology. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Learn about it .

        • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
          11·
          2 months ago

          Can you ask a coherent question? Who is my regime? You’re not being charged by the word. Be specific.

          • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
            36·
            2 months ago

            Owners of the US have fake news run propaganda that has no basis in fact. Do you hold these people as accountable the same way you are doing here with some random Neo nazis farming twattrr for cash?

            • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
              11·
              2 months ago

              Owners of the US have fake news run propaganda that has no basis in fact.

              Generalizing this far is not rational or productive. There are varying degrees of quality in US media with varying problems within. Zooming out this far isn’t productive. Might as well go further and say “people lie, therefore nothing can be trusted”. Sounds deep, but is just a futile meaningless statement. Most problems with news media stem from distortions of fact, but obviously do have some basis in fact so right off the bat your premise is faulty.

              Do you hold these people as accountable

              If you’re asking whether I hold media accountable for lying or for bad reporting (no, they are the same. If you can tell the difference that’s on you), then yes I do.

              You’re now far off topic. Spreading baseless conspiracy theories constantly and having some of them be sort of adjacent to the truth isn’t a vindication. It doesnt mean you were right to say what you said.

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        28·
        2 months ago

        All of it… Regime whores doing owners bidding and normies larp as gospel and do so as narrative shifts.

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      132·
      2 months ago

      Pretty sure that’s why the US does war stuff. They think it’s fucking hilarious.

      The fact you don’t find it funny is your problem 🤷

      (You’re a hypocrite if that burns at all)

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      5·
      2 months ago

      I’ve sometimes thought about that. Maybe in an alternate reality there’s a someone with my face who isn’t held back by any sort of morality whatsoever. Once you open that door, you can totally start spreading the stupidest ideas you can think of, and you’ll find someone who believes it and becomes your devout follower. I have a feeling that Scientology came about as a result of this sort of thinking.

    • sir_pronoun@lemmy.worldEnglish
      316·
      2 months ago

      I still find it insane how people can take almost anything on the internet at face value, apart from maybe reputable news outlets and properly reviewed research and technical stuff - and even THAT with a grain of salt.

      It’s just too much fun to post bullshit, and obviously there are too many people bullshitting for so many reasons.

      • Ogmios
        222·
        2 months ago

        We used to call it “shooting the shit” in the pre-authoritarian days, and it was just an ordinary part of socializing with like minded individuals. I’m convinced that the only reason the Internet was allowed to be good at first, was to lure everyone into holding personal conversations on social media and messaging apps, so that they could police everyone’s everyday speech.