Yet it’s 2024 and the internet seems to be making many of us stupider. Or at least, more susceptible to serious disinformation.
- Young women have given up on birth control after a viral influencer video claimed the age-old “rhythm method” was safer.
- The tragic collapse of a Baltimore bridge sparked countless viral conspiracy theory accusations after a ship lost power Diversified education, capitalism, migrant and (inevitably) Jewish.
- ISIS virtually has to beg for its massacre of civilians in a Russian concert hall because so many conspiracy theorists blame other culprits. (“I had never considered before that we could solve terrorism by becoming so collectively stupid that no one could agree on who carried out the attack,” observes the tech policy researcher Eli Dorado. “There’s no point in intimidating if you don’t get the credit!”)
These are examples reported last week. The broader spectrum of viral conspiracy theories weaves a richer picture, spanning the brutal (9/11 truthers, the October 7 Hamas massacre) and the mundane (the price of a hamburger or the shape of the Earth).
So how did the internet create so many of us? less notify?
It’s easy to understand how misinformation spreads. Lies optimize virality. The truth cannot, because it is limited by reality, and reality is boring sometimes. So it’s no surprise that lies perform better online.they can Designed Catering to the prejudices and desires of the audience. The basic principles are not new. As the saying goes, a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has its boots on.
The Internet has also made it easier to find communities that reinforce and embellish any given conspiracy theory, no matter how improbable. Of course, “old wives’ tales” and hoaxes are not new, but it’s hard to imagine that QAnon lore would have spread so widely, so quickly, and with such meticulous detail in the pre-Internet era. Those wishing to spread misinformation—perhaps for political or financial gain—can now effectively share their information at scale.
The puzzle is why consumer We haven’t gotten any smarter about spotting misinformation. During the 2016 election cycle, many Americans proved easily manipulated by Russian trolls and disinformation agents on Facebook. But Facebook’s victims are mostly older users who didn’t grow up in the digital age and may rarely vet online sources for their trustworthiness.
As a new generation of digital natives emerges, I (naively) thought Americans would be better at distinguishing viral social media anecdotes from censored news stories or reliable statistical sources. Somehow, the opposite happened. Gen Z seems to have the same struggles with news literacy as baby boomers, at least judging by the fact that a large portion of young people trust and retweet hard news from random TikTok influencers.
(If Americans are so bad at finding sources of information now, what hope is there as AI and deepfakes become more convincing?)
One possible explanation for this problem, at least in the United States, is our long-recorded style of paranoid politics. Americans’ anti-establishment, anti-authority skeptical tendencies have created a lucrative media business model: Claim that the “mainstream” media is lazy or corrupt, and that your own brave upstart news organizations are the only honorable truth-tellers. Although Fox has been the most-watched cable news network for decades, this has been the Fox News brand since its inception. Now it is also falling victim to a similar “anti-establishment” campaign by fringe right-wing news organizations.
A similar trend exists on the left smaller media organizations Readers are asked to press the “Subscribe” button to find out “corporate media“It is said that won’t tell you.
This marketing approach capitalizes on and reinforces declining trust in traditional news media. To be clear: We in traditional media do do some things that deserve to lose some public trust. We sometimes make mistakes, including in public health and foreign wars, which may lend credence to viral conspiracy theories about birth control and terrorist attacks.
Now, I think traditional news organizations work harder to get things done and are more likely to correct mistakes than your average Instagram unicorn. But in a way, that doesn’t matter. Too many media companies have validated the “one true prophet” marketing model. Too many news consumers of all ages are passionate about news reporting.
So makeup influencers are certainly considered as authoritative, if not more so, than traditional news services. Of course, they are more likely to appeal to consumers’ tastes for “truth.”