The truth is, it’s getting harder to describe the extent to which a meaningful percentage of Americans have dissociated from reality. As Hurricane Milton churned across the Gulf of Mexico last night, I saw an onslaught of outright conspiracy theorizing and utter nonsense racking up millions of views across the internet. The posts would be laughable if they weren’t taken by many people as gospel. Among them: Infowars’ Alex Jones, who claimed that Hurricanes Milton and Helene were “weather weapons” unleashed on the East Coast by the U.S. government, and “truth seeker” accounts on X that posted photos of condensation trails in the sky to baselessly allege that the government was “spraying Florida ahead of Hurricane Milton” in order to ensure maximum rainfall, “just like they did over Asheville!”
As Milton made landfall, causing a series of tornados, a verified account on X reposted a TikTok video of a massive funnel cloud with the caption “WHAT IS HAPPENING TO FLORIDA?!” The clip, which was eventually removed but had been viewed 662,000 times as of yesterday evening, turned out to be from a video of a CGI tornado that was originally published months ago. Scrolling through these platforms, watching them fill with false information, harebrained theories, and doctored images—all while panicked residents boarded up their houses, struggled to evacuate, and prayed that their worldly possessions wouldn’t be obliterated overnight—offered a portrait of American discourse almost too bleak to reckon with head-on.
Even in a decade marred by online grifters, shameless politicians, and an alternative right-wing-media complex pushing anti-science fringe theories, the events of the past few weeks stand out for their depravity and nihilism. As two catastrophic storms upended American cities, a patchwork network of influencers and fake-news peddlers have done their best to sow distrust, stoke resentment, and interfere with relief efforts. But this is more than just a misinformation crisis. To watch as real information is overwhelmed by crank theories and public servants battle death threats is to confront two alarming facts: first, that a durable ecosystem exists to ensconce citizens in an alternate reality, and second, that the people consuming and amplifying those lies are not helpless dupes but willing participants…
… “The primary use of ‘misinformation’ is not to change the beliefs of other people at all. Instead, the vast majority of misinformation is offered as a service for people to maintain their beliefs in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary”…
… As one dispirited meteorologist wrote on X this week, “Murdering meteorologists won’t stop hurricanes.” She followed with: “I can’t believe I just had to type that”…
This is where truth is crazier then fiction, but perhaps we can begin to get to grips with it.
How to avoid a techno-apocalypse brought on by the internet. Talks of several books where this is a core part of the plot.
THE nuclear blast that takes out Moab, Utah, in Neal Stephenson’s 2019 novel Fall; or, Dodge in Hell is “epistemic ground zero”. That is because it doesn’t actually happen. It is an online-only 9-11, a viral conspiracy theory that becomes the fault line along which the US fractures in two.
On one side, the people who believe that Moab is a no-go zone, and that the event has been covered up by swamp-dwelling politicians. On the other, the people who can freely travel to Moab to see the town is untouched.
The know-nothing side of the US devolves into Mad Max anarchy, becoming a no-go zone in its own right, which Stephenson brands Ameristan. The rest continue unimpeded into the technological future.
The book is one of many recent ones that tackle one of the questions of our time. As comedian Ronny Chieng put it in his Netflix special: “Who knew all of human knowledge could make people dumber?”
Doppelganger by Naomi Klein.
The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby
These books really helped me to see how and why some of these people go this way.
Thanks, I’ll add them and look forward to it.
My distilled understanding is that we are not psychological well built by evolution for this much information in the forms we now have technological. When you take our cognitive biases–which makes us persuadable–and couple that with a degenerating lack of taught fundamental critical thinking skills, it leads to irrational choices and mindsets which are not accounted for in our governing systems, let alone cultures, and economic. Indeed the latter point is that the capitalist system has a fiduciary responsibly to take advantage of any niche and exploit it, which has been let loose due to deregulation in various forms. Executive have little moral incentive to not be evil and instead to manipulate people in whatever manner best suits their shareholders. All of this creates echo chambers and self-reinforcing irrational behavior.
Obviously there is much more to it, but this is the elevator pitch version… Which I look forward to comparing against the books you indicated, plus any correction you might add.
To a degree, I can’t blame people for reacting this way. It’s either disassociate (which is bad), or face the reality that we have severely damaged the biosphere (which is much worse). The latter might also include accepting that you made the wrong political choices, which, by itself, is virtually impossible for a lot of people.
that the people consuming and amplifying those lies are not helpless dupes but willing participants…
Ah yes, the willing participants who tweak the algorithms to show them the most enraging hyper personalized garbage there is.
Wait those might be different people.
Algorithms will show you what you like and what others like you like. That’s it. I got Muslim dating apps all day every day because I lived in London, but I never clicked, so it went away. It didn’t convert me to islam, just like seeing a church outside didn’t make me Christian because I’m semi-capable of at least some thought and not purely instinctual animalistic behaviour as you imply is the case for those who are led by algorithms.
As I said before, the internet is simply airing out our dirty laundry. Humans are bloodthirsty ghouls most of the time and will believe whatever it takes to justify killing each other.
In the context of WW2 for instance Hitler is the “bad guy”, but compared to some of the shit Churchill got up to for instance with the Bengali, he seemed fairly civilised, and even that would’ve seemed soft compared to Stalin’s purges and the Holodomor, but say what you will - none of them had Jim Crow laws.
Im not trying to say all are equal, but more that it’s not at all surprising so many seem downright evil
They are tweaked to improve engagement, not at all as vanilla as that.
Yeah what’s engagement? Interactions. The winning move is not to play the game. I’ve yet to hear reasons why this is more difficult than e.g. stopping littering on the street or eating junk food.
Engagement and retention are both important. If the solution to retention is to walk away then the solution to engagement is to not be engaged that doesn’t track to me. Maybe the idea is to avoid phones, the internet and TV entirely which is not an idea that is grounded in reality.
This one is less interesting to me for some reason, I think it’s an easier assumption to make or maybe it’s that the argument about harmful algorithms gained traction over a decade ago.
This is an earlier paper but is a solid primer that touches on it
The researchers positively showed that news and updates on Face-‐ book influence the tenor of the viewing Facebook-‐user’s subsequent posts
Here’s an entire book about it or an article.
Social media addiction has emerged as a problem of global concern, with researchers all over the world conducting studies to evaluate how pervasive the problem is.
I don’t question that Facebook et al optimize for retention and engagement. I don’t question they’re also successful, I know all these things.
What I don’t understand is why?
Dr.Pepper was also very successful in getting me hooked as a teenager with his much less sophisticated tactics of sugar and soapy cherry-flavoured delights, however I stopped that, it wasn’t that hard compared to other basic day to day things in life like having to get up for work or brushing my teeth, compared to finding a job there’s basically no comparison.
Flash forward to 2018, I had every corporate product a techie would have, now I have almost nothing trendy at all. So I wonder why when I say I’m leaving a platform because of its shady practices e.g. advertising or algorithms I just go ahead and do, but others cannot simply do so. I don’t use corpo/algo social media, I’ve unsubscribed from almost all the streaming services, on the internet I block all ads, on websites I don’t know I block JavaScript altogether, I bypass paywalls, I block known trackers, I don’t pay for media and torrent everything.
The question is why?
How can I take my seemingly unusual ability to just let go despite being exposed to the same algorithms etc and give it to others?
For the Internet as a whole, perhaps. For Meta platforms and equivalent - this is factually false. They do not simply show you what you like. Far from it. You should read up on it if you haven’t.
Are you implying that Facebook et al do not optimise for engagement? What do they optimise for then?
To elaborate on what others have replied already, the algorithms will show you what will keep you on the platform, not what you like. Optimising for this means keeping you angry, not happy. Angry and divided people stick around so they can tell the other side how wrong they are (or watch their favourite pundit do that for them)
So just leave the platform
Sure, and just quit heroin while you’re at it.
Facebook doesn’t cause physical dependency on a chemical like opioids or even benzos. Being “”“addicted”“” to Facebook is like being “”“addicted”“” to weed.
They are different kinds of addictions. You can very much be addicted to the lifestyle and coping mechanism of weed. Hell you can be addicted to going to the gym or shopping. People could very much be addicted to something that is so core to their identity.
Yup, but that’s not the same. Alcohol withdrawals can kill you. Nicotine/Opioid/Benzo withdrawals can seriously hurt you. With weed or tiktok? It’s just hard.
Lately when an article or comment interests me I’ve been attempting to dig into it and make sure my beliefs hold water, I like to be skeptical but informed. Here’s some stuff I found and it’s here if you’re feeling open minded or curious.
Canadian Gov on weed and addiction
Contrary to popular belief, people can become addicted to cannabis. Continued, frequent and heavy cannabis use can cause physical dependency and addiction. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/health-effects/addiction.html
Communities of people who struggle to stop using cannabis. Many first hand accounts from long term users: https://old.reddit.com/r/leaves/ https://old.reddit.com/r/addiction/ https://forum.weedless.org/
A podcast with Mathew Hill
Addiction The addictive potential of cannabis is another critical area of discussion. and explore the concept of cannabis use disorder, noting that while cannabis may not be as addictive as substances > like opioids, it can still lead to significant dependence 1. Hill explains that the criteria for cannabis use disorder are similar > to those for alcohol or opioid use disorders, including the potential for life disruption and risky behaviors 2.
There’s no question that people can develop cannabis use disorder. I mean, it’s definitely a thing.
Mathew Hill’s lab is not against cannabis. It’s focus is on understanding THC in the body.
our lab is particularly focused on how it regulates stress responses, affective behaviour, and feeding and metabolism.
You seem to be implying everyone is you and knows what you know or are as “rational”
Like you reduce other people to animals and also assume they are not being tricked or pushed into more radical beliefs because… Ehh?
Your nuanced take is not a take at all. It’s just you touting superiority.
I saw an onslaught of outright conspiracy theorizing and utter nonsense racking up millions of views across the internet.
Another problem is, this (what you are personally being presented with, view counts) is also just something your screen is presenting to you to be taken at face value as reality. Might be better to give up on social media entirely as a reliable source of information.
This isn’t so different from how it always was. Before social media existed in its modern form, Alex Jones used to broadcast from a 100kW shortwave station. The chem trail nonsense goes back almost thirty years. I suspect the spiritual origin is traceable back to 60s counterculture. Snake Oil type scams and witch doctors go back to prehistory.
The biggest difference is that people can now engage directly with these things immediately and worldwide, they don’t have to be part of an alternative magazine mailing list.
You seem to be unintentionally equivocating the existence of what used to be fringe but has now become mainstream. You’re diminishing the very core of the issue by saying “it’s nothing new.”
Crackpots used to be isolated and thought of as fools because they lacked a cohort. Their hare-brained ideas were dismissed as nonsense without repercussions or worries that it might be disenfranchising someone’s right to believe falsehoods. Now, they can find support in bolstered numbers, each falling in line behind their respective mouthpiece of absurdity.
And here we are: the rest of the world standing around mouths agape because we cannot do shit about it.
I still consider them fringe, they’re just now much more visible than they were before. I’m not trying to say that it’s not an in issue either.
These crackpots have always had an audience when they see returns.
The antidote is going outside, engaging with things and people you disagree with, and being a skeptic of your own beliefs. I was actually an Alex Jones listener way way back when Bush was president. There was this guy who superficially cared about civil rights and was railing against a government that operated in secret, and a lot of the appeals made sense - until you realized that his prophecies failed one after the next, and he was really just on the air to sell dick pills.
That Trump has rarely polled under 40-45%…after everything (and there has been so, so much)…strongly suggests there is a sizable number of Americans utterly detached from reality.
The biggest difference is that …
But that’s an enormous difference, and it seems like it may push us to a place of crisis before it gets better. None of the tactics are new, they’re not even new to the modern era. But the reach is new, and it has enabled the creation of a large and broadly distributed group, that is thoroughly detached from and increasingly hostile toward mainstream society. With every indication that they are getting more entrenched, not less.
Aside from how spread out they can be, a group like that’s not new either, and basic intuition and history both point to this being a dangerous situation brewing. We really gotta figure out how to reach one another again.
deleted by creator
Given that most of the horseshit seems to come from within the US, maybe the rest of us should isolate ourselves from them.
This is spraying everywhere that speaks English and poisoning discourse around the world.
Speaking as a Brit, I really wish we could filter out almost everything American at this point.
The coverage of their elections has been daily global news damn near every day since Trump first announced he’d be running back in 2015. Biden won the last election, and literally the day after he took office, Trump announced he’d be running again, and it’s been daily coverage ever since. Over here Rishi Sunak called an election, then six weeks later it was done.
I’m so, so tired of the bullshit and misinformation that spews from over there. From bankrupt Alex Jones still being funded to yell nonsense over the internet, to Fox News providing ‘entertainment’ masquerading as news, riling up their viewers. It’s exhausting. And there’s no way to block it beyond simply abandoning the internet.
SEEMS to come from “within the US”. Might be, might not
Edit in response: fair, there are plenty USers. I guess I was thinking of disinfo sources who might get paycheques from abroad
Alex Jones. Elon Musk. Donald Trump. The entire GOP…
Last time I checked these were all US citizens. Might be convenient to blame Russia, and for sure they’re standing there with a big stick stirring the pot and laughing at all the mayhem, but you’ve got a whole load of traitors right there. A whole bunch for whom the civil war was never really concluded or accepted. And in this brave new connected world, they’ve got the money and power to sling their waste far and wide.
completely wild garbage is not limited to the anglosphere.
you do have a point, it seems to first emerge in the states. Every single stupid shitshow non-issue or wild outlandish conspiracy thats running in america is directly translated and presented no matter if it fits locally or not.
Alas there are localised shitbrew flavours as well. So don’t you worry, it’s not you.
or do worry
worry a lot
Who’s going to do the regulating?
Sure, a liberal could impose sane regulation, but what happens next time the US elects a Trump?
You want Trump (or any other fascist wannabe dictator) to have the ability to control what people say on the Internet? He’s already calling to take down ABC for fact checking him!
So just like gun control (as in an all-out ban), regulation of free speech/communication is just so risky.
I do think platforms should be doing more to remove disinformation from the mainstream, no matter who it pisses off. Unfortunately that does end up leading to echo chambers when what Americans need is to hear (truth) from all points of view.
Very complex situation that AI is only making worse.
This argument is utterly silly. Do you really think an elected trumpian character isnt going to do that anyway? Do you not understand how they get elected in the first place??
Removed by mod
That’s why you use the courts for this, not some government censorship bureau. We need to make the social media platforms themselves liable for misinformation posted on them. If you’re seriously harmed in some way by misinformation posted on Facebook, then you should be able to sue Facebook itself.
Courts operate on high standards of proof and are deliberately separated from the political process. They are the proper venue for this. There are other things we already criminalize, like criminal harassment, that are just ad subject to that same kind of slippery slope concern as regulation of social media. “Who’s to say what harassment is?..”
Personally I think the best bet is to rule that you cannot have rules in terms of content serving. When serving up content your allowed algorithms are: New, Popular (within whatever time range you want), Subscribed, and has tags that match stuff you already watch. Thats it. Back to early 2000s social media filtering where there wasn’t an active effort to force feed people the most ‘engaging’ content possible.
Its very simple anti fraud stuff: do you know what you’re saying is false? Are you trying to present it as real, despite that? Do you gain something (clout, money, political advantage etc) for spreading a knowingly false thing as true? Then you should be barred from internet access for like 6 months and barred from discussing your fraud topic on public airways
The tempation to lie/defraud people on the internet for clicks/views is a major problem created by ad agencies and political groups.
Edit: This is the difference between Joe Rogan and Alex Jones. Joe Rogan earnestly engages batshit like its true but he’s a dummy. Alex Jones pretends he knows things and presents them as true. Like a good anti fraud law that lets the state or individuals prosecute Jones for knowingly lying but leaves Rogan alone is sort of the best possible limit on free speech, because otherwisw you’re just allowing a form of fraud to run amok.
People are so distrustful of our government and institutions of power that they are looking for information elsewhere for better or for worse. The ordinary citizen is not to blame. They are being forced fed tailored information through legacy media, social media, and everything else and can’t figure out what is true. This is the same for people from all sides of the political spectrum. Your frustrations should be focused on the powers who sow this misinformation into our reality for nefarious reasons.
Yeah. It’s not hard to see why people don’t trust the media anymore. Amongst other things, the big ones I can think about in my life: They uncritically parroted lies the government used to justify the Iraq War and they regularly gave equal air time/consideration to climate deniers as though they were equivalent to climate scientists.
The ordinary citizen is not to blame.
[The ordinary citizen] can’t figure out what is true.
Pick one. They can’t both be true at the same time unless you have an actual learning disability or otherwise impaired cognitive function.
If you are legitimately incapable of discerning the fact that Trump and his enablers are full of shit then you need full time care and I don’t mean that in a hyperbolic way. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) most of his supporters are perfectly capable of seeing it but are choosing not to, which means they are absolutely deserving of blame.
You are assuming other people share your level of intelligence. Don’t.
Literally think of someone of “average” intelligence and now remember that literally more than 50% of the population is below that on the curve. And even more than half are uninterested in issues outside their life and aren’t questioning things in a way for them to care to know if things are factual when told they are by someone they trust.
You are assuming malice where unfortunately, and especially with humans, stupidity is much more likely.
I’m painfully aware of how dumb these people are. Most of them are still smart enough to see Trump for what he is and they’re choosing not to. There’s plenty of discussion to be had about why that is but that’s not the point I’m getting at. The point is that they aren’t incapable of seeing it they just don’t want to.
And here you are saying most again cause you want that to be true. No facts on that. Just pure gut thinking.
You want them to be smart enough to see the grift cause it’s easier to think of then as evil than dumb and malinformed.
You make beliefs based on your own desire. It doesn’t make it true. We have no idea of the split but you are disregarding that stupidity is just as likely because it makes you feel better.
Fine just don’t pretend that’s the truth.
I’m talking about the people I know personally. Also, this shit doesn’t make me feel better. That’s a dumb thing to say.
You want to pretend we’re scientists? OK cool, what are you basing your opinion on other than gut feelings? I don’t see any links to studies or anything else scientific in your comments, just a vague reference to Hanlon’s razor. Am I supposed to be so impressed that you’ve heard of that concept that I immediately change my view? You’re trying to make it seem like you have the data behind you but you’re speculating just as much as I am.
Engage with the topic or don’t, I don’t care, just quit being so pretentious about it.
Then say people you know are bastards and you hate them cause you think they are evil. Wide sweeping statements are a crutch to not think about others critically and is just for you. It’s easier to reduce people even if you don’t feel good about it.
Boohoo for you for being called out that you are not on topic but just airing your issues with people you know and treating it like truths.
I am engaging your bad argument you just don’t want to hear it.
You might be the most undeservedly smug person I’ve ever interacted with and that’s quite the achievement. Congrats and fuck off.
I’m pretty sure I’ve just become desensitized to most of the outrage.
deleted by creator
But just try to tell a liberal that free speech needs to be regulated and watch what happens.
Credible threats aren’t free speech.
And yet they continue, unabated
Maybe because we keep conceding that it’s free speech in the slightest.
