“Comments, clichés, commentary, controversy… talk talk talk, it’s only talk!”
King Crimson’s classic Elephant Talk depicts perhaps the most accurate representation of any and all media relating to what’s gone in this truly incredible year. Covid-19, seemingly never-ending elections, bushfires and most bemusing of all: the conspiracy theories. In my reckoning, the 2020 conspiracy theories rival the true classics of the medium; the faking of the moon landing (did Stanley Kubrick really film the whole thing?), 9/11 (something something jet fuel steel beams), and of course Area 51. A whole Wikipedia page has been created dedicated to them and in the future, I see the potential for an Oscar nominee in a film about the saga directed by Aaron Sorkin (of The Social Network fame). In one of the more pointless battles in history and spurred on by Dr Kate Hannah’s own battle against Covid-19 disinformation, I decided to venture into the NZ Herald comments section and start a good ol-fashioned debate.
The first idea that surprised me was just how positive the conspiracy theorists were. By positive, I mean they (by-and-large) were focused on helping others, whether it be by refusing to give ‘poisoned’ vaccines to their family, or not desiring to legalise cannabis as it could use to increased youth drug abuse. While this is clearly anecdotal, it does make me slightly more appreciative of the conspiracy theorists. Of course, this does not excuse the many commenters who took on a decidedly more pointed edge to their Covid conspiracies; many were utterly convinced that having to wear a mask was an attack on one’s freedom, or that there would be violent resistance to mandatory vaccination. Which is not a thing.
Another thing I realised mid-battle was how easy it was to classify the conspiracy theorists simply based upon their profile + cover pictures. Those with no photos were against #covidcinda, whatever that was, and the blurrier the profile pic, the more communist they thought Labour was. Looking back, I wonder how effective we’re going to need to make digital literacy in school; nowadays it’s not enough to be able to access all the wonders of the internet, but also learning how to discern what is and isn’t complete rubbish (most of it). Perhaps controversially, I believe that this outweighs even the need to reintroduce civics into the classroom; while elections only come up every few years, younger generations spend significant amounts of time potentially misinformation.
When looking at conspiracy theories, particularly online, its easy to get caught up in the argument itself. How could someone ever believe that vaccines cause autism, that the world is flat, or that Biden is a communist? Especially when any attempt at laying down the truth is met with ridicule and very questionable scientific sources. To get at the true root of the problem, we’ve only to look at the source: the people – and organisations – behind the veil. Just like the misinformation that muddied the bongwater of the Cannabis legalization referendum, there are often outside forces at play that would like nothing better than to see us devolve into petty arguments. The real enemy is clear – it’s gotta be the Illuminati!
This year has certainly been filled with many conspiracy theories. With the physical distancing that has been enforced, I know I consumed far more social media than is healthy over lockdowns in order to keep in contact with other people. Conspiracy theories just came with the territory. Increased digital literacy is needed in this generation to discern what is true and what isn’t, and to understand that just because posts and ideas are popular doesn’t mean that they are right. Like you mentioned, looking at the people and organisations behind the ideas is so important, and that research may start but should not end with scrolling through Facebook or Instagram.
Super interesting and entertaining post!
I totally agree that the many downfalls of the internet are not taught enough! We rely so much on the internet and social media for immediate, short-form information that we often end up invalidating so much of the actually accurate and informative sources hidden below haphazard summaries and out of context excerpts. There’s also the fact that on social media platforms we craft our own communities and algorithms; surrounding ourselves with like-minded individuals that cause our shared ideas to be amplified – whether these are correct or not.
“… the misinformation that muddied the bongwater…” I am cackling, James! You rightly point out how prevalent and wild the misinformation can get online- I think ‘The Social Dilemma’ mentioned that misinformation spreads 6 times more quickly than actual facts. This statistic is terrifying and the results, although sometimes amusing, can be deadly. I wonder what solutions there can be? Instagram and Twitter rolled out the feature that linked any posts mentioning Covid to the appropriate government page on it. But if there is such great distrust of government agencies amongst conspiracy theorists, then this isn’t even going to be much help. If we could somehow ban or censor these insane allegations (not saying I think we should or necessarily endorse this idea), then we’d just be giving them more ammunition against ‘crazy commie Jacinda’! It’s almost impossible to combat some people’s idiocy, as I am sure you will be well aware from your time battling it out in Herald comment sections.
For those conspiracy theories that dont involve some secret manipulation of the populace by those in power, here read into the vaccines cause autism argument, it doesn’t seem to me that this is a problem that can be solved by digital literacy. These arguments rely on scientific evidence, of which most of the population is not experienced enough to understand as intended. Yet I think the problem with science is more fundamental than access to it but that much of it is debatable: papers support either side with evidence and it is not often as clear-cut as we would like. To expect the populace to read the body of academic publication is unreasonable, so we must instead rely on experts opinions, which necessarily are divided. Such arguments are inaccessible in comments sections by referencing a handful of papers that support either view, so why do we bother?