1y ago

Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine

www.vice.com Scientists Explain Why ‘Doing Your Own Research’ Leads to Believing Conspiracies

Researchers found that people searching misinformation online risk falling into “data voids” that increase belief in conspiracies.

Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine::Researchers found that people searching misinformation online risk falling into “data voids” that increase belief in conspiracies.

You're viewing a single thread.

101 comments

As mod of conspiracy_theories, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's bullshit
If you listened to the mainstream media, the last few years you'd think the economy was booming. If you did your own research and listen to experts like Adam Taggart or Wealthion, fractures in the housing market were apparent for almost a year before the mainstream media started reporting that
We grew up being told we fight for freedom when really we fight for a fascist apartheid ethnostate in the middle east
We grew up being told Weed was worse than alcohol
We grew up being told if you didn't go to college, you couldn't get a job, while cost of tuition and textbooks outpaced inflation
The media doesn't exist to inform people. Whether your left or right wing I think that's something everyone can agree on. From a political science standpoint, the media exists to create an agenda. Often times, that includes misinforming people.
Can doing your own research get you into some conspiracy theories? Sure. The problem with that is everyone's conspiring, even the mainstream media
- I agree (and I think the article agrees in part too) with much of what you're saying. But the issue with your comment is this;
  If you did your own research and listen to experts like Adam Taggart or Wealthion
  You're assuming doing your own research will lead to the correct and educated experts (Adam Taggart or Wealthion in this example). The study this article is based on really is just saying "do your own research" is leaving it up to your search engine. And everyone uses Google. Google isn't designed to show you research, it's designed to show you what you want to know.
  
  Google didn't lead me to those channels, but still the point stands, trust is eventually delegated to individuals and that is always a security flaw.
  All I meant was, the same is still true with the mainstream media
- As mod of conspiracy_theories, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that’s bullshit
  Ok, so it's bullshit.
  Can doing your own research get you into some conspiracy theories? Sure.
  So, I guess it's not bullshit? Alright then.
  LOL
  
  It's not a contradiction if I elaborate on what's bullshit. The framing of that article associates people who do their own research as conspiracy theorists. I was pointing out (and gave plenty of evidence) that listening to the mainstream media to form your decisions would be just as deluding as accepting any other conspiracy theory as true.
  This is not to say the article itself is necessarily wrong , but if the alternative to doing your own research is trusting the mainstream media, then either way you're digesting a false narrative.
  Actually, if all you did was trust CNN or Fox news, I would probably think that person was less credible than a conspiracy theorist, but of course they would depend on which conspiracies
  
  You reacted to "the framing" of the article seemingly without reading it, but even with that you reacted to that framing differently at the start and end of your post which made it superficially incoherent.
  I largely agree that the media plays a large role in setting a narrative and coloring stories to fit that narrative, but that isn't what the article is discussing at all.
  I think your dispute (because it's largely with "the framing" and not the content) is largely semantic in nature (as are most of the rabbles that got roused by the title of this article in this thread), but the reality is that the article's content contains the specific steps they took and found to be reproducible, and the findings of those studies are largely consistent with the framing everyone here has such a problem with.
  
  The OC gave solid points regarding their stance, and you "debunked" him in the most childish way possible by name-calling like a 3yr old.
  Stay loyal to the foil
  
  What name did I call this poster?

101 comments