I keep trying to point this out. There's a category error among many people who think disinfo (and other harmful content) is a supply side problem when it's most frequently a demand side problem.
People want this stuff.
If people didn't want to hear about them, insane conspiracy theories wouldn't be such ratings pullers.
A lot of people out there just want to have their prejudicial biases confirmed by someone, so they can continue to believe in them freely and without regret.
My big take on the information wars is that the biggest problem isn’t the disinformation itself. It’s the allegedly neutral arbiters of information formation treating it as just another view of reality, and giving its purveyors and their victims an assumption of good faith.
I think it’s a battle for the fringes of the “burn it all down” group. I remember reading that psychologists estimated that (I’m totally going from memory here) that something like 31% of the population is authoritarian, but that in the 2016 election it was higher because of misinformation
I think there’s a feedback loop that converts the demand into supply and back again. But it’s hard to know who’s doing an Alex Jones and who’s just deeply cynical.
It is important to hail that there is, indeed, a profound demand-side problem, but it is a category error to think that disinfo is other a mutually-escalating phenomenon wherein its supply-side aspect and its demand-side aspect are internally related and co-cathecting.
Truth is the most harmful content! Everybody knows everything is fugged, but corporate media explanations no longer works. People want something believable, especially if people like you dislike it!
I remember seeing the National Enquirer and the like on the shelves and wondering how anyone could swallow that nonsense. It didn’t take much thought to conclude that people want to consume stories that confirm their conspiratorial biases.
Recently my mother emailed me a warning about a "Cabal" trying to kill everyone. She is 93, not terribly mobile and I'm sure this gets her adrenaline flowing.
I have to walk a line with her between being kind and calling her crazy. It makes me dizzy.
Why did folks like Escobar and El Chapo rake in more than the GDP of Belize? Because Americans wanted what they were selling and were willing to pay for it.
They wanted it even though it was illegal and could KILL them.
Dis/misinformation isn't illegal, but it may, in some cases, be deadly.
Both, I think. If disinfo supports someone’s prior racism, misogyny, greed, or just plain meanness, they’ll eagerly consume it and pay good money for it. No surprise that someone will serve that market. But of course the suppliers have their own nefarious agendas to support, as well. See: GOP.
This is very true.
But the concept of induced demand also applies.
The fossil fuel industry spent hundreds of $billions over several generations to sow doubt around science and undercut experts. Their target was climate science but the side effects were … significant.
As true as this is, I think there's also a case to be made that much of the demand is the result of a culture where people feel powerless and lied to by authorities and institutions. Propaganda is comforting. And much less effective in a society where people feel heard.
'People want to be lied to'. An older guy told me this once at work, when we were both amazed at the latest decision by mngment and it's reaction. The incongruity made me dismiss this, but the statement stayed in the back of my mind for decades, and I have personally seen proof of it over and over.
I think there's the ego effect of people feeling smarter because they now know something that others haven't figured out, even if it's completely false.