I only review papers from those willing to pony up for a regular Holiday Inn room.What if someone stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Does that count?
Johns Hopkins meta analysis...
- Thread starter Deerfuel2
- Start date
- Status
Interesting Netflix documentary entitled The Social Dilemma, 2020. Somewhat eye opening, at least for me as I tend to be a bit of a luddite when it comes to this area.
Harmful effects of social media are pretty well documented. The unfortunate reality is that people feel obligated to use it. Addicted would be the better term. I take it you've never asked someone not to get on FB for a few days.
I urge you to do three things. Watch this TED Talk by Eli Pariser from a decade ago:
Watch this TED Talk by Tristan Harris:
And finally read the book Zucked by Roger McNamee. There is much more to social media than what you described, and unfortunately, many aren't aware of it.
Here's two Columbia U. social scientist discussing the issue:
Just How Harmful Is Social Media? Our Experts Weigh-In. | Columbia Public Health
A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook was aware of mental health risks linked to the use of its Instagram app but kept those findings secret. Internal research by the social media giant found that Instagram worsened body image issues for one in three teenage...
www.publichealth.columbia.edu
And from Harvard:
Just How Harmful Is Social Media? Our Experts Weigh-In. | Columbia Public Health
A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook was aware of mental health risks linked to the use of its Instagram app but kept those findings secret. Internal research by the social media giant found that Instagram worsened body image issues for one in three teenage...
www.publichealth.columbia.edu
This goes to my original point:
"In the past, teens read magazines that contained altered photos of models. Now, these images are one thumb-scroll away at any given time."
Same stuff..........different delivery system.
Again as I pointed out earlier, excessive consumption of anything is bad:
"A 2018 British study tied social media use to decreased, disrupted, and delayed sleep, which is associated with depression, memory loss, and poor academic performance."
Teenagers need their sleep, anything that disrupts it can cause real symptoms. So, take those phones away from your teens at night if they are found to be on it.
But, teens normally have a change in sleep patterns. So, it isn't unusual for older teens to stay up later than their parents.
But, I haven't seen anything that points out that it is any different than what came before. In my generation, girls would spend hours on the phone (landline) talking to each other, spreading rumors, comparing experiences, etc. So much so, that affluent households would install a second line just for the teenage girls.
Here is a meta-study:
Social Media Use and Its Connection to Mental Health: A Systematic Review
Social media are responsible for aggravating mental health problems. This systematic study summarizes the effects of social network usage on mental health. Fifty papers were shortlisted from google scholar databases, and after the application of various ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Here are some choice synopsis from the above:
"More importantly, symptoms of major depression have been found among the individuals who spent most of their time in online activities and performing image management on social networking sites [14]."
So, depressed individuals spend most of their time doing on-line activities..............no evidence which direction it goes...........spending all your time doing on-line activities lead to depression or depression leads to doing on-line activities over face to face activities?
"Passive activity in social media use such as reading posts is more strongly associated with depression than doing active use like making posts [23]. "
Again, key component of depression is lack of active activity..................so which direction does it go in?
And finally this one:
"Other important findings of this review suggest that other factors such as interpersonal trust and family functioning may have a greater influence on the symptoms of depression than the frequency of social media use [28,29]."
Family dynamics more important that use of social media.........duh.
So, yes I am circumspect about the damage of social media.
Again, this is not new. Developed in the early part of the 20th century by marketers it was simply called propaganda. The delivery of propaganda has always been challenged. "Yellow journalism" which was coined in the 1890s as the fight for newspaper dominance between Hearst and Pulitzer heated up is a great example.
First some background. For 12 years I worked as a trial consultant actively working to win high stakes litigation by creating litigation strategies that are likely to have particular types of people (who you work to get on the juries) vote your way.
Here is the big secret...................your best efforts aren't going to work very well. Mind control...........influence........getting people to do what YOU want them to do doesn't really exist. At best you can work around the edges and get a small advantage.
So, while I appreciate what these people are telling us about social media efforts............its not something I personally get up in arms about. The ability of social scientist to change peoples behavior is limited. Algorithms to tailor what you see has been around for a long time as has the use of strong emotions to get people to consume more. Google neuro-marketing or propaganda in marketing. For the most part people do what they are going to do within the environment they find themselves in. The media, critics, scientists, etc. are more alarmist than anything else. Predicting or changing human behavior is a losing proposition. Just my opinion based on having done it.
As an aside, during my last years as a trial consultant I was tracking some things that I thought might be useful for picking jurors. One of my ideas (that the owner of the company didn't really think much of) was tracking authoritarianism. I noted a clear trend up in authoritarianism among almost all demographic groups. 6 years later I was talking to a Dartmouth political scientist about it and he noted it too. One can easily argue this trend is what brought Trump to power.
So social trends can be useful to understand and somewhat predictive.............but actually changing behavior using these techniques is a whole different animal.
EDIT: An interesting side on this is how the US Military changed the percentage of soldiers willing to shoot at the enemy from 25% in WW2 to 90% by the Vietnam War. A great case study...............Our military has had more success than other folks in changing behavior.
I don’t think anyone is arguing this is the first time in recorded history people have used media to try and get people to order something or believe something. The difference is if I read People magazine I know what I’m getting. If I go on Facebook to look at baby pictures of a family member the first thing being put in my face is some Q article a high school friend commented on or an article about Trump being the best president ever bc it knows that I lean to the left and knows I’m likely to engage because it might make me angry.
Has this been done before? Sure. Has it been done on a scale of 3 billion people before? Has it even been this easy to do so? Has there been something this so culturally pervasive that a large portion of the world population interacts with daily or weekly and ties everyone together? No. The divisiveness in the country can be tied back partly to social media bc of the sheer numbers of people on it that this is happening to. Facebook knows exactly what it’s doing. Denies it and then does it more. Social Dilemma.
I have friends that I no longer speak to bc of the just completely ugly crap they would say to people and about people on social media. Just normal people that I had never seen act in that manner. One of them I’ll talk to socially sometimes and he even apologized and said he had to get off social media because of how angry it was making him at everyone who disagreed with him and he noticed that his entire feed was just Facebook putting political posts in his face as soon as he logged on bc they knew he was more likely to engage extreme political posts.
Last edited:
You do know that this country has been hugely divided most of its existence from the Revolutionary War to now. Even in war time...............that is why they have needed the draft..........not to even bring up the Civil War. It was more divided in the 1960s than it is now.
As for your friend.............its a convenient excuse for acting badly. Probably more about his wife and friends calling him out that caused him to look at his boorish behavior and change than getting off facebook. We all have our triggers. And the added stress of the pandemic has created an environment that added significant stress and is causing bad behavior.
Your argument about scale is an interesting one.........research has shown we have a relatively small and fixed amount of friends throughout our lives; thats all we can handle. Don't know if the sheer scale really has much of an effect on an individual.
First, I don't think you really know how People Magazine is designed to keep you engaged and purchasing more magazines if you believe what you post. Second, the method might be unique because of the medium, but getting you angry to get you engaged and spend more time with the medium is the exact definition of "yellow journalism" coined in 1896.
Who said Facebook invented making people mad through media? Is it somehow not bad if it’s been done previously? I don’t recall any other or previous mainstream platforms accessed by 3 billion people knowingly promoting and leading others to groups plotting the violent overthrow of the US government.
Then what is your argument? That the technology has changed the scale? You keep implying that Facebook is somehow different? Yet, I have provided many, many examples of this same thing going back 125 years. As to your hyperbole about the violent overthrow of the US government..........not sure what that is about, but there have been many groups thinking they could do that..................read the Turner Diaries which was a bible in the late 20th century for white supremacist for the overthrow of the government (via a race war). They use the media available at the time. Hell read the pamphlets that led to the Revolutionary War.
The Pamphlet: America’s First Social Media – Rare Book and Manuscript Library – U of I Library
I'm not sure what your argument is at this point other than you just don't like facebook?
I think the “media” — not social media — is one of the root causes of today’s “situation.”Here's two Columbia U. social scientist discussing the issue:
Just How Harmful Is Social Media? Our Experts Weigh-In. | Columbia Public Health
A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook was aware of mental health risks linked to the use of its Instagram app but kept those findings secret. Internal research by the social media giant found that Instagram worsened body image issues for one in three teenage...
And from Harvard:
Just How Harmful Is Social Media? Our Experts Weigh-In. | Columbia Public Health
A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook was aware of mental health risks linked to the use of its Instagram app but kept those findings secret. Internal research by the social media giant found that Instagram worsened body image issues for one in three teenage...
This goes to my original point:
"In the past, teens read magazines that contained altered photos of models. Now, these images are one thumb-scroll away at any given time."
Same stuff..........different delivery system.
Again as I pointed out earlier, excessive consumption of anything is bad:
"A 2018 British study tied social media use to decreased, disrupted, and delayed sleep, which is associated with depression, memory loss, and poor academic performance."
Teenagers need their sleep, anything that disrupts it can cause real symptoms. So, take those phones away from your teens at night if they are found to be on it.
But, teens normally have a change in sleep patterns. So, it isn't unusual for older teens to stay up later than their parents.
But, I haven't seen anything that points out that it is any different than what came before. In my generation, girls would spend hours on the phone (landline) talking to each other, spreading rumors, comparing experiences, etc. So much so, that affluent households would install a second line just for the teenage girls.
Here is a meta-study:
Social Media Use and Its Connection to Mental Health: A Systematic Review
Social media are responsible for aggravating mental health problems. This systematic study summarizes the effects of social network usage on mental health. Fifty papers were shortlisted from google scholar databases, and after the application of various ...
Here are some choice synopsis from the above:
"More importantly, symptoms of major depression have been found among the individuals who spent most of their time in online activities and performing image management on social networking sites [14]."
So, depressed individuals spend most of their time doing on-line activities..............no evidence which direction it goes...........spending all your time doing on-line activities lead to depression or depression leads to doing on-line activities over face to face activities?
"Passive activity in social media use such as reading posts is more strongly associated with depression than doing active use like making posts [23]. "
Again, key component of depression is lack of active activity..................so which direction does it go in?
And finally this one:
"Other important findings of this review suggest that other factors such as interpersonal trust and family functioning may have a greater influence on the symptoms of depression than the frequency of social media use [28,29]."
Family dynamics more important that use of social media.........duh.
So, yes I am circumspect about the damage of social media.
Why not just ignore the articles that make you angry? And who cares if someone claims Trump, Biden or Obama is the best president ever? They are are equally dumb claims and completely subjective. This is the part I don't get about social media, you have the choice not to read things. As far as peoples behavior its what I call keyboard commandos. The majority of these online bullies would never engage face to face much less say nasty things to others. The internet has just given weak people an avenue to voice their frustrations and vent about not being what ever they want. Again its a haven for the weak and the tech companies prey on them.
You don't have a choice on whether you read things. You have a choice on if you read the whole article but the article with comments pop up immediately on your feed. I can click the article if I want to read more but the article headline and the comments that are going to get you engaged pop up immediately. It's obviously an issue or we wouldn't be doing studies and filming documentaries about what they're doing.
I stopped clicking them. I even clicked the settings on those articles to indicate to facebook that I no longer wanted to see those types of articles. They did not stop. I even contacted facebook asking that the political articles no longer pop up. No response and never stopped. It was constant CNN articles about Trump. I didn't even like or ever click on CNN and they kept being the first thing on my wall when I would get on almost everyday because it's algorithm knew I don't like Trump and knew that as divisive a person as he is people will engage on articles about him. Eventually just led to me leaving facebook.
Last edited:
I deleted my post so we didn't get into a 1/6 debate but to your question could you previously? Yes. Can you now? No idea not on facebook now. I'm going to guess not.
Probably not but you could have a pro vaccine page I bet. Is that being non biased? No its not. However, there has to be a line somewhere in regards to public safety ect... But where do you draw it? What's to say one is more dangerous than the other?
I guess you just go by what the consensus medical experts say if you're going to regulate those types of groups. Regardless, this is the issue that Facebook is currently dealing with. Pursuant to my now deleted point, they originally said this is an open platform and everyone can do and discuss what they want. They took no action on anything outside of child porn, videos showing murders, stuff like that. They were then called out for letting groups like Isis openly recruit on it. They said we don't allow it and delete those groups. There were then whistleblowers who said Facebook lied about that and didn't actually do anything.
Maybe there was more at play in regards to some of those groups. Much like employers monitor Social Media on perspective employees I would wager there are government agencies that monitor sites as well for intel.
I suppose that's possible but doesn't explain facebook saying they'll remove them, having whistleblowers say they're doing the opposite for profit reasons and Congress asking them why they're allowing this to happen. Either Facebook is a greedy corporation that knowingly is profiting off human misery or is part of a CIA operation.
it's not like facebook and palantir have any common connection. oh wait... 😇
I grew up in the 60s and they were turbulent times. There was plenty of violence too. It is true the country was divided. However I feel the divisions today are more serious. There is an instability now that I never felt then. I do feel that social media is somewhat to blame. I personally have never had a FB account. My free time is valuable to me and have other interests that I prefer to use that time on. I believe that social media contributes to the truth and fact deniers. People get directed to sites that spread not only propaganda but outright lies. Todays digital media allows people to become immersed far more deeply than the print and TV media that preceded it. I suppose the yellow journalism of the turn of the century might more resemble what is going on today. The reason for this is that the papers that Hearst and Pulitzer published were so influential that there was not much contrary information. Many people blame Hearst for starting the Spanish American War. Now a days people do not have to read anything but what supports their beliefs. I have heard estimates that 15 to 20 percent of Americans believe in the conspiracies promoted by Qanon. I know some people in the 60s believed some crazy stuff like the grassy knoll and moon landing being fake but those things are not nearly as out there as some of stuff from Q and not nearly as many people believed them.
Last edited:
Speaking of which, did JFK Jr. ever show up in Dallas to install Trump as God Emperor? Haven't seen any updates on that Q conspiracy lately.
The toilet today is traditional media has proved to be untrustworthy. Fact checking websites owned by the media have been debunked. That leaves people searching social media looking for something they can trust. Unfortunately this leads them to finding something they agree with. FB is disgusting. Traditional media is a joke. I got RT, breaking points, and if I want a laugh jimmy dore
i very much agree with this although i think the similarity is less about the content of the article and more so about the attention grabbing headline. people these days don't go much beyond the headline.
So Oswald really did get off 3 shots in 7 seconds with a old Italian bolt action rifle?
There has been quite a bit of research aimed at the popularity of conspiracy theories. And some psychological profiling of those that believe in conspiracy theories.
Here is a smattering of articles and studies. I tried to keep away from the highly technical ones with the jargon that makes it highly unassessable. Pulled out a few parts for the readers convenience.
Are Conspiracy Beliefs on the Rise?
Over 29% of the American population believe there is a “Deep State” working against President Donald Trump.
www.livescience.com
"While the internet has certainly made discussion between conspiracy theorists easier, there is no evidence at this time that belief in these theories has increased..........As Uscinski and Parent pointed out, this isn't the first time Americans may have felt surrounded by conspiracies.
In 2004, the Boston Globe stated that we are in the "golden age of conspiracy theory."
In 1994, the Washington Post declared it's the "dawn of a new age of conspiracy theory."
In 1964, The New York Times said conspiracy theories had "grown weed like in this country."
The list could go on and on, but the gist is clear."
Topic: Conspiracy theories
Find the most relevant statistics and facts about conspiracy theories
www.statista.com
"Misinformation plays a determinant role in the spread of conspiracy theories. When people cannot distinguish opinions from facts, or a reliable from an untrustworthy source, they will likely take for granted that what they read or hear is truthful. Fake news spreads fast with the wide reach of social media. In fact, a study reveals that social media is used as a source of news worldwide, and in some countries by over 70 percent of internet users. However, fake news can be found, according to a recent study, in television and the print press as well."
Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? | BBC Science Focus Magazine
Tinfoil hats at the ready, conspiracy theories have become plentiful during the pandemic with many factors helping this process.
www.sciencefocus.com
"Nefes (2017) underlines that important social events, such as big-scale protests, lead to the prevalence of conspiracy talk. In Taiwan, after an assassination attempt on the Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian in 2004 one day before the general election, conspiracy theories about the event were ubiquitous (Nefes, 2014). To understand the communication pattern of these accounts, Nefes conducted an online content analysis of people’s comments on the assassination attempt. Perceptions of threat were associated with greater expressions of conspiracy theories, and people proposed conspiracy theories in line with their political arguments. Nefes (2013, 2015a, 2015b) uncovered similar findings in an analysis of the communication of anti-Semitic conspiracy rhetoric in Turkey. Further, using both quantitative and qualitative content analysis, Nefes (2017) analyzed the relationship between people’s political views and online responses to the Turkish government’s conspiracy rhetoric about the Gezi Park protests in 2013. The findings illustrated that people’s political views predicted their acceptance or rejection of the conspiracy rhetoric. Conspiracy theories therefore appear to be communicated about events that are perceived to be important and relevant to people’s political interests. In a similar vein, Raab, Ortlieb, Auer, Gunthmann, and Carbon (2013) argue that conspiracy theories could be viewed as a way of constructing and communicating a personal set of values and moral feelings, and Klein, Clutton, and Dunn (2018) show that anger is a precursor to the sharing of conspiracy theories. A distinct psychological motivation, with a more social and political flavor, was identified by Franks et al. (2013). They argued that conspiracy theories spread as devices for making sense of events that threaten existing worldviews. They draw on social representations theory (Moscovici, 1961) to argue that conspiracy theories help groups to symbolically cope with threatening events by making abstract risk more concrete and by focusing blame on a set of conspirators. Franks and 14 Douglas et al. colleagues (2013) argue that the spread of conspiracy theories therefore allows people to challenge abstract expert-dominated discourses about important events. They further propose that conspiracy theories are communicated as devices to cope with collective trauma. In a more political vein, Sapountzis and Condor (2013) argue that conspiracy narratives are used to dispute dominant political and ideological assumptions (see also Uscinski, 2018). A sample of Greek political party members were asked a series of questions in an interview. In the interviews, participants were encouraged to talk freely with occasional prompts concerning conflicts in the Balkans. Results revealed that conspiracy narratives were typically used to challenge assumptions concerning Greece’s majority status, suggesting that conspiracy theorizing may therefore be used as a way to construct causal arguments about intergroup relations and to dispute dominant ideological assumptions about political legitimacy and social hierarchy (see also Gosa, 2011).
Love the comment about headlines and I have made those comments myself on this board. The headlines are not written by the article writers and often are not supported by the content of the articles.
Kind of my point. This particular conspiracy is a lot more believable than Tom Hanks eating babies.
There has been quite a bit of research aimed at the popularity of conspiracy theories. And some psychological profiling of those that believe in conspiracy theories.
Here is a smattering of articles and studies. I tried to keep away from the highly technical ones with the jargon that makes it highly unassessable. Pulled out a few parts for the readers convenience.
Are Conspiracy Beliefs on the Rise?
Over 29% of the American population believe there is a “Deep State” working against President Donald Trump.
"While the internet has certainly made discussion between conspiracy theorists easier, there is no evidence at this time that belief in these theories has increased..........As Uscinski and Parent pointed out, this isn't the first time Americans may have felt surrounded by conspiracies.
In 2004, the Boston Globe stated that we are in the "golden age of conspiracy theory."
In 1994, the Washington Post declared it's the "dawn of a new age of conspiracy theory."
In 1964, The New York Times said conspiracy theories had "grown weed like in this country."
The list could go on and on, but the gist is clear."
Topic: Conspiracy theories
Find the most relevant statistics and facts about conspiracy theories
"Misinformation plays a determinant role in the spread of conspiracy theories. When people cannot distinguish opinions from facts, or a reliable from an untrustworthy source, they will likely take for granted that what they read or hear is truthful. Fake news spreads fast with the wide reach of social media. In fact, a study reveals that social media is used as a source of news worldwide, and in some countries by over 70 percent of internet users. However, fake news can be found, according to a recent study, in television and the print press as well."
Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? | BBC Science Focus Magazine
Tinfoil hats at the ready, conspiracy theories have become plentiful during the pandemic with many factors helping this process.www.sciencefocus.com
"Nefes (2017) underlines that important social events, such as big-scale protests, lead to the prevalence of conspiracy talk. In Taiwan, after an assassination attempt on the Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian in 2004 one day before the general election, conspiracy theories about the event were ubiquitous (Nefes, 2014). To understand the communication pattern of these accounts, Nefes conducted an online content analysis of people’s comments on the assassination attempt. Perceptions of threat were associated with greater expressions of conspiracy theories, and people proposed conspiracy theories in line with their political arguments. Nefes (2013, 2015a, 2015b) uncovered similar findings in an analysis of the communication of anti-Semitic conspiracy rhetoric in Turkey. Further, using both quantitative and qualitative content analysis, Nefes (2017) analyzed the relationship between people’s political views and online responses to the Turkish government’s conspiracy rhetoric about the Gezi Park protests in 2013. The findings illustrated that people’s political views predicted their acceptance or rejection of the conspiracy rhetoric. Conspiracy theories therefore appear to be communicated about events that are perceived to be important and relevant to people’s political interests. In a similar vein, Raab, Ortlieb, Auer, Gunthmann, and Carbon (2013) argue that conspiracy theories could be viewed as a way of constructing and communicating a personal set of values and moral feelings, and Klein, Clutton, and Dunn (2018) show that anger is a precursor to the sharing of conspiracy theories. A distinct psychological motivation, with a more social and political flavor, was identified by Franks et al. (2013). They argued that conspiracy theories spread as devices for making sense of events that threaten existing worldviews. They draw on social representations theory (Moscovici, 1961) to argue that conspiracy theories help groups to symbolically cope with threatening events by making abstract risk more concrete and by focusing blame on a set of conspirators. Franks and 14 Douglas et al. colleagues (2013) argue that the spread of conspiracy theories therefore allows people to challenge abstract expert-dominated discourses about important events. They further propose that conspiracy theories are communicated as devices to cope with collective trauma. In a more political vein, Sapountzis and Condor (2013) argue that conspiracy narratives are used to dispute dominant political and ideological assumptions (see also Uscinski, 2018). A sample of Greek political party members were asked a series of questions in an interview. In the interviews, participants were encouraged to talk freely with occasional prompts concerning conflicts in the Balkans. Results revealed that conspiracy narratives were typically used to challenge assumptions concerning Greece’s majority status, suggesting that conspiracy theorizing may therefore be used as a way to construct causal arguments about intergroup relations and to dispute dominant ideological assumptions about political legitimacy and social hierarchy (see also Gosa, 2011).
I think there has been a huge increase in both the number and amount of people that believe in conspiracy in the last couple of years. I would be interested in a more a recent study. I have a person in my office that believes all kinds of crazy things. She is a nice lady but her beliefs are out there.There has been quite a bit of research aimed at the popularity of conspiracy theories. And some psychological profiling of those that believe in conspiracy theories.
Here is a smattering of articles and studies. I tried to keep away from the highly technical ones with the jargon that makes it highly unassessable. Pulled out a few parts for the readers convenience.
Are Conspiracy Beliefs on the Rise?
Over 29% of the American population believe there is a “Deep State” working against President Donald Trump.
"While the internet has certainly made discussion between conspiracy theorists easier, there is no evidence at this time that belief in these theories has increased..........As Uscinski and Parent pointed out, this isn't the first time Americans may have felt surrounded by conspiracies.
In 2004, the Boston Globe stated that we are in the "golden age of conspiracy theory."
In 1994, the Washington Post declared it's the "dawn of a new age of conspiracy theory."
In 1964, The New York Times said conspiracy theories had "grown weed like in this country."
The list could go on and on, but the gist is clear."
Topic: Conspiracy theories
Find the most relevant statistics and facts about conspiracy theories
"Misinformation plays a determinant role in the spread of conspiracy theories. When people cannot distinguish opinions from facts, or a reliable from an untrustworthy source, they will likely take for granted that what they read or hear is truthful. Fake news spreads fast with the wide reach of social media. In fact, a study reveals that social media is used as a source of news worldwide, and in some countries by over 70 percent of internet users. However, fake news can be found, according to a recent study, in television and the print press as well."
Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? | BBC Science Focus Magazine
Tinfoil hats at the ready, conspiracy theories have become plentiful during the pandemic with many factors helping this process.www.sciencefocus.com
"Nefes (2017) underlines that important social events, such as big-scale protests, lead to the prevalence of conspiracy talk. In Taiwan, after an assassination attempt on the Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian in 2004 one day before the general election, conspiracy theories about the event were ubiquitous (Nefes, 2014). To understand the communication pattern of these accounts, Nefes conducted an online content analysis of people’s comments on the assassination attempt. Perceptions of threat were associated with greater expressions of conspiracy theories, and people proposed conspiracy theories in line with their political arguments. Nefes (2013, 2015a, 2015b) uncovered similar findings in an analysis of the communication of anti-Semitic conspiracy rhetoric in Turkey. Further, using both quantitative and qualitative content analysis, Nefes (2017) analyzed the relationship between people’s political views and online responses to the Turkish government’s conspiracy rhetoric about the Gezi Park protests in 2013. The findings illustrated that people’s political views predicted their acceptance or rejection of the conspiracy rhetoric. Conspiracy theories therefore appear to be communicated about events that are perceived to be important and relevant to people’s political interests. In a similar vein, Raab, Ortlieb, Auer, Gunthmann, and Carbon (2013) argue that conspiracy theories could be viewed as a way of constructing and communicating a personal set of values and moral feelings, and Klein, Clutton, and Dunn (2018) show that anger is a precursor to the sharing of conspiracy theories. A distinct psychological motivation, with a more social and political flavor, was identified by Franks et al. (2013). They argued that conspiracy theories spread as devices for making sense of events that threaten existing worldviews. They draw on social representations theory (Moscovici, 1961) to argue that conspiracy theories help groups to symbolically cope with threatening events by making abstract risk more concrete and by focusing blame on a set of conspirators. Franks and 14 Douglas et al. colleagues (2013) argue that the spread of conspiracy theories therefore allows people to challenge abstract expert-dominated discourses about important events. They further propose that conspiracy theories are communicated as devices to cope with collective trauma. In a more political vein, Sapountzis and Condor (2013) argue that conspiracy narratives are used to dispute dominant political and ideological assumptions (see also Uscinski, 2018). A sample of Greek political party members were asked a series of questions in an interview. In the interviews, participants were encouraged to talk freely with occasional prompts concerning conflicts in the Balkans. Results revealed that conspiracy narratives were typically used to challenge assumptions concerning Greece’s majority status, suggesting that conspiracy theorizing may therefore be used as a way to construct causal arguments about intergroup relations and to dispute dominant ideological assumptions about political legitimacy and social hierarchy (see also Gosa, 2011).
I hear vaccines are a waste of time too.... Makes me wonder how most y'all didn't have to get a vaccine for a disease that killed over five hundred million people.......
Or the flat earth thing. However, society is largely based on belief of things you have no real proof of. So that leads to this type of thing wouldn’t you think?
I'm not sure it leads to the belief that Wayfair is smuggling stolen children to be used as child prostitutes in wardrobes being purchased online or that all Democrats are a part of a cabal of cannibal child molesters who bathe in the blood of murdered children. The latter is the fundamental original belief of Qanon.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s. If you had some "out there" belief where did you go during that time to get affirmation of that belief? You had to at least go to a library or book store and even then you might not find much. Where would you find like minded people to further entrench that belief? Maybe a pen pal? Now all that is available at your fingertips.
You find your community of believers and then some of those believers throw out even more crazy theories that everyone then latches onto.
It sounds like you spend a lot of time down the rabbit hole. Is Qanon supposed to be a far right group? I am fairly far to the right (according to the MSM, social media, etc...)
on most issues. On some issues I am fairly neutral to left. I have never heard of that Qanon craziness. It seems like they are targeting you pretty heavily, and it shows
Do you follow the news? It's pretty common knowledge. Every major media outlet that covers politics has discussed Qanon. Just google Qanon beliefs it's everywhere.
"But the QAnon movement — initially based on a pro-Trump conspiracy theory, that a group of global liberal elites run a child sex ring that Mr. Trump would stop — has continued to flourish."
- Status
