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.

  • 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.

          • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
            101·
            2 months ago

            You guys always prove to be completely incapable of rational thought. It’s why the article triggered you so much.

              • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
                51·
                2 months ago

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

                • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
                  22·
                  2 months ago

                  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·
                    2 months ago

                    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?