Moderating Conspiracy Theories January 8, 2025 8:48 PM Subscribe
The words we write on the internet have an effect, most especially, irresponsible ones like those in "Some nerdy Redditors have doubts about 2024 election integrity."
There is a whole body of literature demonstrating the social, political, psychological, and behavioral harm conspiracies can cause.
In the thread, the mods explained their decision this way:
I would respectfully ask the mods to remove the thread, and to make a policy not to spread conspiracy theory in the future.
There is a whole body of literature demonstrating the social, political, psychological, and behavioral harm conspiracies can cause.
False news travels faster than truth online. Incubated in online communities, mis- and disinformation often coalesce into conspiratorial narratives that receive higher, more sustained engagement on social media. Viral conspiracies can motivate individuals to engage in targeted harassment and violence that—while often aimed at elites—disproportionately affects marginalized populations.
Who is more likely to interpret events conspiratorially? Conspiracy theories are stickiest when they satisfy an individual’s underlying needs.Since we have already seen the negative impact of Q-anon, pizzagate, not to mention MAGA's current attempt to whitewash the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, incubating a democratic conspiracy theory in 2024, even if it is on our side, is equally irresponsible, maybe even more so. Who here didn't see the clips? Who doesn't realize that people died as a result of lies? We should not be spreading lies of our own.
In the thread, the mods explained their decision this way:
Hi all. This is mod note to acknowledge that this post did get a lot of flags with notes that essentially said "this is conspiracy theory type and doesn't belong here". We're letting it stay, but have added the tags 'uspolitics' and 'politicalspeculation'. Members can choose to use My MeFi to block out posts with those tags.I don't question the good intent behind it, but I do question its analysis. The accuracy of the results of the 2024 election are not in doubt, so this is not a both sides issue. At this moment in history, it's frankly dangerous to pretend it is.
I would respectfully ask the mods to remove the thread, and to make a policy not to spread conspiracy theory in the future.
I think MetaFilter should not allow unconfirmed supportive talk about conspiracies. You don't get to make up stuff to help your cause. It's very unlikely MetaFilter will be the locus of a future "pizzagate" or whatever. I think it's just common sense to push out wackos.
posted by netowl at 9:34 PM on January 8 [4 favorites]
posted by netowl at 9:34 PM on January 8 [4 favorites]
I also think this post is harmful. I don't know what metafilter moderation policy should be but I hate seeing this kind of garbage here.
posted by Nelson at 9:48 PM on January 8 [5 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 9:48 PM on January 8 [5 favorites]
Some 'conspiracies' are real though - some of my reading on a 'left field' political topic has taken me to some very weird corners of the internet, but they are real dots, joining up and and proving a real problem; if we have verified info on something it shuld be allowed here for discussion, coz' American you ain't seen nithin yet to what Mr Vance is gonna give you - it will be a matter of life itself to discuss some very whackadoodle ideas.
Dangerous letting mods here decide what is allowed or not when members have a paper trail, or asking others here if they know how the dots might join up.
posted by unearthed at 10:46 PM on January 8 [10 favorites]
Dangerous letting mods here decide what is allowed or not when members have a paper trail, or asking others here if they know how the dots might join up.
posted by unearthed at 10:46 PM on January 8 [10 favorites]
Is it more beneficial to scrub a post like this, or to have it present and full of comments saying “Dude, no.”? I presume there’s research that would bear on which is a more effective way to combat mis/disinformation. Maybe some MeFite knows?
posted by eirias at 12:33 AM on January 9 [11 favorites]
posted by eirias at 12:33 AM on January 9 [11 favorites]
I like to connect my dots with red yarn.
The thing that bothered me about the post was how weak the links were. If you want to advocate for crazy conspiracy theories, a couple of election conspiracy reddits and some associated youtube videos and livestreams aren't cutting it. If it is going to be full internet crazy, that's fine, but I want Time Cube. On the other hand, if you are saying "no, really, this is hard to believe, but real," then it needs to be something more like r/math losing its mind than two posts in conspiracy reddit. It needs to be using words like "undervote" instead of "bullet ballot". It needs non-conspiracy bloggers and essayists are talking about it. Better still if reputable news outlets are starting to pick the story up.
I've seen moderation here where breaking news is happening, and a post goes up with one or two links to news reports with not much information, and the post gets deleted. And then the next day a much better post goes up, and it gets to stay. This strikes me as a bit like that, and the policy that allows those posts to be moderated could maybe apply to conspiracy posts.
posted by surlyben at 12:39 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
The thing that bothered me about the post was how weak the links were. If you want to advocate for crazy conspiracy theories, a couple of election conspiracy reddits and some associated youtube videos and livestreams aren't cutting it. If it is going to be full internet crazy, that's fine, but I want Time Cube. On the other hand, if you are saying "no, really, this is hard to believe, but real," then it needs to be something more like r/math losing its mind than two posts in conspiracy reddit. It needs to be using words like "undervote" instead of "bullet ballot". It needs non-conspiracy bloggers and essayists are talking about it. Better still if reputable news outlets are starting to pick the story up.
I've seen moderation here where breaking news is happening, and a post goes up with one or two links to news reports with not much information, and the post gets deleted. And then the next day a much better post goes up, and it gets to stay. This strikes me as a bit like that, and the policy that allows those posts to be moderated could maybe apply to conspiracy posts.
posted by surlyben at 12:39 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
If the site is hosted in the United States, it may prove wiser to allow discussion about this topic, while still allowed.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:45 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:45 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
This post has also been discussed on MeFi Reddit. It has been pointed out that it would definitely not have passed muster back in the days when there were enough quality posts. The pushback in the thread is good (though less universal than I would have hoped). Maybe there can be a defined bar for discussing conspiracy theories, like they need to be established enough that there are actual links with outside/rational commentary about the theory and that the post itself has to acknowledge that the theory itself is unsubstantiated nonsense. This post would have failed on both counts, I believe. Having clear rules would also make it less an issue of having mods make a judgment call that people might not trust.
posted by snofoam at 2:25 AM on January 9 [12 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 2:25 AM on January 9 [12 favorites]
It should have been deleted.
It still should be deleted.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:11 AM on January 9 [5 favorites]
It still should be deleted.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:11 AM on January 9 [5 favorites]
I think this is a reasonable sort of goal. I don't know if it's viable, because MetaFilter is regularly rife with unconfirmed speculation. It's a discussion website, of course, but I've seen endless wacko stuff here about any scientific, cultural, political or other hot-button issue you care to name, from Trump to Covid to The Capitalists. This has accelerated because the community has committed to elevate and acknowledge users' feelings and experiences, even when comments are factually untrue (or, worse, a blend of truth & bullshit).
Someone here trots out a kooky thing about X, Y, or Z topic, and when pushed on it, time and again, it's "well, it's true somewhere," "I think it will probably be proven true," etc. There was a time (see snofoam's comment) when there was a large enough userbase that commenters often had deep knowledge of a topic. That still happens, but I feel like we see more commonly see confident statements from people who have no relevant personal experience of or training/serious study in what they're talking about. It is a real problem.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:29 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Someone here trots out a kooky thing about X, Y, or Z topic, and when pushed on it, time and again, it's "well, it's true somewhere," "I think it will probably be proven true," etc. There was a time (see snofoam's comment) when there was a large enough userbase that commenters often had deep knowledge of a topic. That still happens, but I feel like we see more commonly see confident statements from people who have no relevant personal experience of or training/serious study in what they're talking about. It is a real problem.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:29 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
I think there are ways to discuss conspiracy theories that don't take them at face value or give them credence, but this post isn't framed that way. It has a neutral, "I'm not editorializing" tone, but when it comes to conspiracy theories, that is also editorializing.
'Ha, ha look at what these crazy fuckers on Reddit are writing about now' is not a great approach either, though.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:37 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
'Ha, ha look at what these crazy fuckers on Reddit are writing about now' is not a great approach either, though.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:37 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Even if I were convinced the OP was presenting these conspiracy theories in a credulous way--and while they definitely could have done better, I'm not--the unanimity in shooting them down in the comments makes it a workable post for me.
How we discuss things is as good as or maybe better a way of establishing who we are a community than choking out all discussions for things we do not ourselves endorse.
I do agree it might have been deleted back in the old days, but these aren't the old days. I will refer you to TheophileEscargot 's excellent comment on another MeTa.
So put me down as "ehhh, we could probably worry about something else."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:52 AM on January 9 [16 favorites]
How we discuss things is as good as or maybe better a way of establishing who we are a community than choking out all discussions for things we do not ourselves endorse.
I do agree it might have been deleted back in the old days, but these aren't the old days. I will refer you to TheophileEscargot 's excellent comment on another MeTa.
So put me down as "ehhh, we could probably worry about something else."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:52 AM on January 9 [16 favorites]
My understanding of the research on disinformation is that making or repeating false claims, and then debunking them, makes people remember the false claim, not the debunking. I would agree that having conspiracy theories stated on the front page, even if there's pushback in the comments, is elevating and reinforcing the conspiracy theory.
posted by lapis at 7:07 AM on January 9 [21 favorites]
posted by lapis at 7:07 AM on January 9 [21 favorites]
It's weird in 2025 to see people say "well sure but the bad speech was countered with good speech so the system is working!". That is not how misinformation works.
posted by Nelson at 7:41 AM on January 9 [19 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 7:41 AM on January 9 [19 favorites]
For example: https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/media-mythbusting-can-make-false-beliefs-stronger/
Cognitive science research shows people are biased to believe a claim if they have seen it before. Even seeing it once or twice may be enough to make the claim more credible.posted by lapis at 7:44 AM on January 9 [18 favorites]
This bias happens even when people originally think a claim is false, when the claim is not aligned with their own beliefs, and when it seems relatively implausible. What’s more, research shows thinking deeply or being smart does not make you immune to this cognitive bias.
The bias comes from the fact humans are very sensitive to familiarity but we are not very good at tracking where the familiarity comes from, especially over time.
Fair point, well-stated, lapis. Fair point, kind of smarmily-stated, Nelson. But then that is also par for 2025.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:56 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:56 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
The conspiracy element of election interference is an admitted fact already. What is uncertain is if ballot stuffing played any role in it, with high bullet-voting (for president only) being the main concern. Deciding beforehand that such a thing could not happen, and removing any inquiry about it, is suggesting there is no suspicion at all. Is it because we would would sound like them? If so, that would be an emotionally subjective reason. Ballot stuffing is an old tactic, as old as democratic elections, still shocking to some perhaps. Did they actually get that desperate? History may not preserve their desperation, but we all lived through the constant tantrum. That's why any discussion is important, because it leaves a trace. For example, rejections of their competence to pull it off, while also assuming their criminality and desire to pull it off, is an important social trace left behind. Same with their pageant-level coordination of being dramatic victims of failed voting integrity, putting nearly everyone in the least-vigilant mindset to suspect a major heist.
posted by Brian B. at 7:56 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 7:56 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I'm torn. I think there is value in seeing a speculation roundly disproved. I know we've all become experts in misinformation and we all know exactly what works and what doesn't, but I believe the heuristic that deals with recognizing conspiracy theories needs to be demonstrated and reinforced, so it doesn't get rusty.
What I mean is--you know Alex Jones? You know how he typifies the style of "I'm going to tell you something earth-shattering," and then he goes on for hours and you wait for the earth-shattering thing and it doesn't come? The same pattern took place in the reddit threads about election meddling. "This guy is an EXPERT and here are 500,000 words about what happened" except you never really get to the actual proof. (Jim Stewartson is another I've noticed lately, he keeps coming up on my radar with the same style of argument.)
I think it's useful to say, look at these guys and how they're talking, and how it looks like but is actually very different from the way we would normally make a point. Stringing you along, making you invest a lot of your time, so you're hesitant to let go because if you keep reading or listening for five more minutes, you'll get to the shocking revelation. I think it's good practice.
So I guess what I'd really like to know is, are people objecting to an FPP like that based on principle--that we should just not be repeating conspiracy theories, perhaps because it raises the noise level--or based on concerns over the harm it would do--that a particular mefite might encounter the conspiracy and go over to the dark side and believe a wrong thing? And do those objections counterbalance the usefulness of seeing a conspiracy dealt with in a rational way?
posted by mittens at 7:57 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
What I mean is--you know Alex Jones? You know how he typifies the style of "I'm going to tell you something earth-shattering," and then he goes on for hours and you wait for the earth-shattering thing and it doesn't come? The same pattern took place in the reddit threads about election meddling. "This guy is an EXPERT and here are 500,000 words about what happened" except you never really get to the actual proof. (Jim Stewartson is another I've noticed lately, he keeps coming up on my radar with the same style of argument.)
I think it's useful to say, look at these guys and how they're talking, and how it looks like but is actually very different from the way we would normally make a point. Stringing you along, making you invest a lot of your time, so you're hesitant to let go because if you keep reading or listening for five more minutes, you'll get to the shocking revelation. I think it's good practice.
So I guess what I'd really like to know is, are people objecting to an FPP like that based on principle--that we should just not be repeating conspiracy theories, perhaps because it raises the noise level--or based on concerns over the harm it would do--that a particular mefite might encounter the conspiracy and go over to the dark side and believe a wrong thing? And do those objections counterbalance the usefulness of seeing a conspiracy dealt with in a rational way?
posted by mittens at 7:57 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
To me the best argument for deleting this it is that it seems like all of the links are pro-conspiracy? And like, in most posts only linking to a single "side" (if there even are sides) is fine because it's sharing interesting stuff on the web. But conspiracy theories are different so in general I think posts about conspiracies should lean heavily on people discussing the people promoting the theory and not directly to the theories themselves. Like I think both keeping and deleting it is consistent with MeFi, so no easy answer. I hope people making posts in the future keep in mind that linking to stuff like this isn't really "haha this is good to know about" but something to be careful about so you're not accidentally encouraging the growth of.
posted by skynxnex at 8:05 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
posted by skynxnex at 8:05 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
The problem with making a rule about this is that it requires the moderation team to become arbiters of the truth.
At the end of the day, the only thing that distinguishes a crackpot conspiracy theory from a genuine developing scandal, is how credible the story is.
And in an age when we can't rely on governments, intelligence agencies and the press to reliably make those calls, we can hardly expect the moderators of a web forum to do it.
I have my issues with the moderation here, but there has also been a tendency for the userbase to set really ridiculous expectations about what the job should entail. Let's try not to do that.
posted by automatronic at 9:02 AM on January 9 [13 favorites]
At the end of the day, the only thing that distinguishes a crackpot conspiracy theory from a genuine developing scandal, is how credible the story is.
And in an age when we can't rely on governments, intelligence agencies and the press to reliably make those calls, we can hardly expect the moderators of a web forum to do it.
I have my issues with the moderation here, but there has also been a tendency for the userbase to set really ridiculous expectations about what the job should entail. Let's try not to do that.
posted by automatronic at 9:02 AM on January 9 [13 favorites]
[cancels planned evening FPP on inflation traced to Lizard People]
posted by Lemkin at 9:18 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 9:18 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Even if there was a hard line of what is true or false, it's not even a moderation policy that could be applied evenly. You could take down one post about misinformation, but what about comments in another post that stridently defends a social media network company that monetizes misinformation, arguing that misinformation is okay because the social media network company makes various products? It gets messy quickly.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:21 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:21 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
requires the moderation team to become arbiters of the truth.
No. It requires the mods to make a judgment call, as they do for all the decisions they make.
the only thing that distinguishes a crackpot conspiracy theory from a genuine developing scandal, is how credible the story is.
And that credibility depends on fact-checking, and it's not too much to ask a mod to use a fact-checking site or two if they're unsure. Here's a list, courtesy of the College of the City of New York (CUNY):
No. It requires the mods to make a judgment call, as they do for all the decisions they make.
the only thing that distinguishes a crackpot conspiracy theory from a genuine developing scandal, is how credible the story is.
And that credibility depends on fact-checking, and it's not too much to ask a mod to use a fact-checking site or two if they're unsure. Here's a list, courtesy of the College of the City of New York (CUNY):
- Politifact
- Factcheck.org
- Washington Post Fact Checker
- Snopes
- Fact Check from Duke Reporters' Lab
- SciCheck
- FlackCheck
- Media Bias / Fact Check
- NPR Factcheck
I clicked most of the links directly above and couldn't find any relevance to this topic yet, but thanks for providing those by the way.
posted by Brian B. at 9:53 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 9:53 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
Oh no the Lizard Monarchs have won again, Lemkin !
posted by B_Ghost_User at 9:58 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by B_Ghost_User at 9:58 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
No. It requires the mods to make a judgment call, as they do for all the decisions they make.
The job should require making judgement calls about how users are participating in the discussion.
It should not require making judgement calls about whether a country's election systems were tampered with.
posted by automatronic at 10:14 AM on January 9 [9 favorites]
The job should require making judgement calls about how users are participating in the discussion.
It should not require making judgement calls about whether a country's election systems were tampered with.
posted by automatronic at 10:14 AM on January 9 [9 favorites]
So I guess what I'd really like to know is, are people objecting to an FPP like that based on principle--that we should just not be repeating conspiracy theories, perhaps because it raises the noise level--or based on concerns over the harm it would do--
Th real issue is that this conspiracy is simply not best of the web. If it was some kind of time-cube level shit then maybe it would deserve a pass. But this one was just sort of dumb and wrong and boring.
posted by snofoam at 10:22 AM on January 9 [9 favorites]
Th real issue is that this conspiracy is simply not best of the web. If it was some kind of time-cube level shit then maybe it would deserve a pass. But this one was just sort of dumb and wrong and boring.
posted by snofoam at 10:22 AM on January 9 [9 favorites]
It should not require making judgement calls about whether a country's election systems were tampered with.
No, but it should be about making judgement calls about whether sources are worthy of discussion or unhinged and/or pernicious.
I mean, I just looked a couple of the sources that posted linked to, and it didn't take me much time to determine they are....questionable, to put it mildly.
So first off, there are two direct links to the subreddits r/somethingiswrong2024 and r/Verify2024. If you go to the main pages of these subs, you will quickly find them full of various BlueAnon conspiracy theories - especially the former - stuff about Trump faking the assassination attempt, Merrick Garland is compromised, etc. The people on these subs appear to be not well. It's like linking to a QAnon sub, which I don't think would be allowed here (I hope!).
It also links to a post in one of those subs, and while I'll confess I didn't want to waste too much time looking at it (especially since like all conspiracy theories, the explanations provided on it are overcomplicated), one of the key arguments seems to be more or less that because split votes for Trump are much more frequent in light red precincts, it must be fraud. Mmm, ok.
Worse those is this link provided as "journalism." Particularly alarming is this bit:
So yeah, this post is linking to garbage sources, and that should be obvious to the moderation team, and it should be deleted. It's not just that it isn't "best of the web" it's the dregs of the web. And it's pernicious. Yes, Metafilter has a conspiracy problem, and that post was particularly bad.
posted by coffeecat at 10:35 AM on January 9 [19 favorites]
No, but it should be about making judgement calls about whether sources are worthy of discussion or unhinged and/or pernicious.
I mean, I just looked a couple of the sources that posted linked to, and it didn't take me much time to determine they are....questionable, to put it mildly.
So first off, there are two direct links to the subreddits r/somethingiswrong2024 and r/Verify2024. If you go to the main pages of these subs, you will quickly find them full of various BlueAnon conspiracy theories - especially the former - stuff about Trump faking the assassination attempt, Merrick Garland is compromised, etc. The people on these subs appear to be not well. It's like linking to a QAnon sub, which I don't think would be allowed here (I hope!).
It also links to a post in one of those subs, and while I'll confess I didn't want to waste too much time looking at it (especially since like all conspiracy theories, the explanations provided on it are overcomplicated), one of the key arguments seems to be more or less that because split votes for Trump are much more frequent in light red precincts, it must be fraud. Mmm, ok.
Worse those is this link provided as "journalism." Particularly alarming is this bit:
Media Reactions: From Skepticism to AlarmYou will all be shocked to learn that none of those sources are linked to in the article, because they don't exist.
The irregularities in the 2024 election have not gone unnoticed by major media outlets. While some have dismissed the claims as conspiracy theories, others have called for further investigation.
-The New York Times: In a recent article, the Times acknowledged the anomalies but cautioned against jumping to conclusions. “While the data is concerning, it’s important to consider all possible explanations before alleging fraud,” the article stated.
-Fox News: Conservative outlets like Fox News have seized on the irregularities, with commentators like Tucker Carlson calling for a full forensic audit. “The American people deserve to know the truth,” Carlson said in a segment that has been viewed over 5 million times on YouTube.
-The Guardian: The Guardian published an op-ed titled “The Russian Tail in America: Is Our Democracy at Risk?” The piece called for transparency and accountability, urging lawmakers to address the anomalies before they undermine public trust.
So yeah, this post is linking to garbage sources, and that should be obvious to the moderation team, and it should be deleted. It's not just that it isn't "best of the web" it's the dregs of the web. And it's pernicious. Yes, Metafilter has a conspiracy problem, and that post was particularly bad.
posted by coffeecat at 10:35 AM on January 9 [19 favorites]
I have found the thread in question to be pretty solid in terms of folks responding rationally to the dubious premise of the links in question. In other words, yeah, I'm glad it exists. Successful conversation.
My understanding of the research on disinformation is that making or repeating false claims, and then debunking them, makes people remember the false claim,
but who are these "people" and in what context did they encounter the disinformation? I'd argue that Metafilter is as good a place as any to come across the sort of dubious bullshit that the interwebs are increasingly full of -- a community where people are generally pretty good at firmly (yet considerately) saying, nah, that's pretty sloppy.
posted by philip-random at 10:39 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
My understanding of the research on disinformation is that making or repeating false claims, and then debunking them, makes people remember the false claim,
but who are these "people" and in what context did they encounter the disinformation? I'd argue that Metafilter is as good a place as any to come across the sort of dubious bullshit that the interwebs are increasingly full of -- a community where people are generally pretty good at firmly (yet considerately) saying, nah, that's pretty sloppy.
posted by philip-random at 10:39 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
It should not require making judgement calls about whether a country's election systems were tampered with.
You're overthinking it. This thread, and the FPP, is full of members finding it perfectly straightforward to identify the links as conspiracy theory content. If the community wants the mods to take a harder line on deleting conspiracist content, the mods should be able to straightforwardly deliver that. No one is expecting loup to personally visit Area 51 or finally resolve Roswell before they hit delete.
posted by Klipspringer at 11:04 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
You're overthinking it. This thread, and the FPP, is full of members finding it perfectly straightforward to identify the links as conspiracy theory content. If the community wants the mods to take a harder line on deleting conspiracist content, the mods should be able to straightforwardly deliver that. No one is expecting loup to personally visit Area 51 or finally resolve Roswell before they hit delete.
posted by Klipspringer at 11:04 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
I was originally in the camp that it was basically okay because most of the users chimed in with rational comments. However, there is a difference between posting about a conspiracy theory’s existence and posting something to promote a conspiracy theory and this post clearly is promoting nonsense garbage talk.
If we wanted to spend time debunking dumb conspiracy theories, we could just go to Facebook right now and do that, or call up that weird idiot uncle. Part of the point of Metafilter is that it is not a space where we should have to do that.
I do think the conversation on the site has become less open as the fan base has become more selective, but I think the site could be both open to a wider range of reasonable ideas and closed to promoting conspiracy theories.
posted by snofoam at 11:13 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
If we wanted to spend time debunking dumb conspiracy theories, we could just go to Facebook right now and do that, or call up that weird idiot uncle. Part of the point of Metafilter is that it is not a space where we should have to do that.
I do think the conversation on the site has become less open as the fan base has become more selective, but I think the site could be both open to a wider range of reasonable ideas and closed to promoting conspiracy theories.
posted by snofoam at 11:13 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
>but who are these "people" and in what context did they encounter the disinformation? I'd argue that Metafilter is as good a place as any to come across the sort of dubious bullshit that the interwebs are increasingly full of -- a community where people are generally pretty good at firmly (yet considerately) saying, nah, that's pretty sloppy.
No, the research shows that even when the false claims are explicitly labeled as false, and people read that they're false, the simple act of repeating the misinformation (as in labeling it "Myth: XYZ happens. Fact: XYZ is extremely rare") makes people later remember the misinformation and think of it as more true than they did before they read the fact-checking debunking it.
From the article link I posted above:
posted by lapis at 11:24 AM on January 9 [15 favorites]
No, the research shows that even when the false claims are explicitly labeled as false, and people read that they're false, the simple act of repeating the misinformation (as in labeling it "Myth: XYZ happens. Fact: XYZ is extremely rare") makes people later remember the misinformation and think of it as more true than they did before they read the fact-checking debunking it.
From the article link I posted above:
One series of studies illustrates the point. People were shown a series of health and well-being claims one might typically encounter on social media or health blogs. The claims were explicitly tagged as true or false, just like in a “myth vs fact” article.It's not about "who are these people" or "this community is pushing back" or "yeah but we're really smart." It's about cognitive effects of seeing or hearing things, and how our brains interpret that information when we see it again.
When participants were asked which claims were true and which were false immediately after seeing them, they usually got it right. But when they were were tested a few days later, they relied more on feelings of familiarity and tended to accept previously seen false claims as true.
Older adults were especially susceptible to this repetition. The more often they were initially told a claim was false, the more they believed it to be true a few days later.
For example, they may have learned that the claim “shark cartilage is good for your arthritis” is false. But by the time they saw it again a few days later, they had forgotten the details.
All that was left was the feeling they had heard something about shark cartilage and arthritis before, so there might be something to it. The warnings turned false claims into “facts”.
The lesson here is that bringing myths or misinformation into focus can make them more familiar and seem more valid. And worse: “myth vs fact” may end up spreading myths by showing them to new audiences.
posted by lapis at 11:24 AM on January 9 [15 favorites]
I guess my question for the mods (mostly Brandon) is whether I'm correct in assuming (based on reading the mod note on the original thread and this one) that the only mod action was to check on the quality of the discussion in-thread, and seeing that it was basically fine (which I agree - it's mostly people pushing back), it wasn't seen as a problem.
That doesn't seem adequate. I mean, I imagine that if someone made a post linking to Nazi-influenced race science, most users would also push back and the in-thread content would be "fine" but that post would get deleted. Clearly the bar for acceptable posts is not "as long as the conversation in-thread is reasonable, it's OK."
Given the mods have the ability to edit user comments and posts, I'd suggest that if enough users flag a post as conspiracy, the mods should take a bit of time to determine whether the sources indeed lack credibility. In the case that they do lack credibility, rather than just adding the euphemistic tag 'politicalspeculation' (which was what happened) you could replace the FFP with a mod note "Content removed because it violates our conspiracy theory policy" but you could let the comments remain.
posted by coffeecat at 11:26 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
That doesn't seem adequate. I mean, I imagine that if someone made a post linking to Nazi-influenced race science, most users would also push back and the in-thread content would be "fine" but that post would get deleted. Clearly the bar for acceptable posts is not "as long as the conversation in-thread is reasonable, it's OK."
Given the mods have the ability to edit user comments and posts, I'd suggest that if enough users flag a post as conspiracy, the mods should take a bit of time to determine whether the sources indeed lack credibility. In the case that they do lack credibility, rather than just adding the euphemistic tag 'politicalspeculation' (which was what happened) you could replace the FFP with a mod note "Content removed because it violates our conspiracy theory policy" but you could let the comments remain.
posted by coffeecat at 11:26 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
you could replace the FFP with a mod note "Content removed because it violates our conspiracy theory policy" but you could let the comments remain.
Or just “Content removed. But by who? What is it that they don’t want you to see? Why?”
posted by snofoam at 11:30 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Or just “Content removed. But by who? What is it that they don’t want you to see? Why?”
posted by snofoam at 11:30 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
As a rule of thumb, if a post is only okay because it was debunked in the comments, then it is not an acceptable post.
posted by snofoam at 11:35 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 11:35 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
whether I'm correct in assuming (based on reading the mod note on the original thread and this one) that the only mod action was to check on the quality of the discussion in-thread, and seeing that it was basically fine (which I agree - it's mostly people pushing back), it wasn't seen as a problem.
Around when the original thread was first posted (and flagged), I took a look, glanced at the first two links, thought it wasn’t great, but left it alone ‘cause I wasn’t on duty and wanted to see where it went.
When this MeTa showed up in the queue, I checked the comments in the original. This ngs seemed fine, so saw no reason to remove it because no fighting was happening and the responses were good at debunking the links.
Larger picture I’m not worried about the overall web, just this site. So the mostly solid reputing of the links is an ok MeFi as an occasional one off. Multiple variations of this would get removed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 11:43 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
Around when the original thread was first posted (and flagged), I took a look, glanced at the first two links, thought it wasn’t great, but left it alone ‘cause I wasn’t on duty and wanted to see where it went.
When this MeTa showed up in the queue, I checked the comments in the original. This ngs seemed fine, so saw no reason to remove it because no fighting was happening and the responses were good at debunking the links.
Larger picture I’m not worried about the overall web, just this site. So the mostly solid reputing of the links is an ok MeFi as an occasional one off. Multiple variations of this would get removed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 11:43 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
the only thing that distinguishes a crackpot conspiracy theory from a genuine developing scandal, is how credible the story is.
Also how unpalatable the realisation that the story may be true. Even on here there are a number of people who seek to disrupt discussions when the truth gets too close to the reality they want to deny for whatever reason.
posted by unearthed at 11:47 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Also how unpalatable the realisation that the story may be true. Even on here there are a number of people who seek to disrupt discussions when the truth gets too close to the reality they want to deny for whatever reason.
posted by unearthed at 11:47 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
As a rule of thumb, if a post is only okay because it was debunked in the comments, then it is not an acceptable post.
I agree, and I'd be fine if they just deleted the whole thread, but at least deleting the conspiratorial content would be an OK compromise.
Thanks for your reply Brandon. To your point, "Larger picture I’m not worried about the overall web, just this site." - but FFP posts do get deleted sometimes based to what they link to (maybe not by you personally, but it's happened). So is what you're saying is that conspiracies are not on the Metafilter list of "wrongs" that warrant deletion? I'm genuinely curious because I have noticed more conspiracy thinking on Metafilter in recent years - and I'm not talking about people joking around in the Trump assassination thread, that didn't bother me - I'm talking about people earnestly spreading conspiracies that are palatable for liberals, like the post that prompted this Metatalk. This was certainly the most egregious example I've seen, but it's by no means the first time such content has showed up on this site - I wouldn't call it a "one-off."
posted by coffeecat at 11:53 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
I agree, and I'd be fine if they just deleted the whole thread, but at least deleting the conspiratorial content would be an OK compromise.
Thanks for your reply Brandon. To your point, "Larger picture I’m not worried about the overall web, just this site." - but FFP posts do get deleted sometimes based to what they link to (maybe not by you personally, but it's happened). So is what you're saying is that conspiracies are not on the Metafilter list of "wrongs" that warrant deletion? I'm genuinely curious because I have noticed more conspiracy thinking on Metafilter in recent years - and I'm not talking about people joking around in the Trump assassination thread, that didn't bother me - I'm talking about people earnestly spreading conspiracies that are palatable for liberals, like the post that prompted this Metatalk. This was certainly the most egregious example I've seen, but it's by no means the first time such content has showed up on this site - I wouldn't call it a "one-off."
posted by coffeecat at 11:53 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
So is what you're saying is that conspiracies are not on the Metafilter list of "wrongs" that warrant deletion?
No, I’m saying this particular post wasn’t removed because, in my judgment, it fell in a gray area in terms of being just an ok post and there were no similar posts made recently, then the comments section made the post worthwhile to let stick around.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:10 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
No, I’m saying this particular post wasn’t removed because, in my judgment, it fell in a gray area in terms of being just an ok post and there were no similar posts made recently, then the comments section made the post worthwhile to let stick around.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:10 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I don't think "I wanted to see where it went" is enough of a reason to keep it.
Count me in as strongly on the side of moderating out posts that are not supported by credible facts and sources. I am not interested in hearing "all sides! people are saying", and I will click away from sites that support that kind of bullshit rationalization for conspiracy theories and disinformation. I get well enough of that from the mass media.
posted by Dashy at 12:16 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
Count me in as strongly on the side of moderating out posts that are not supported by credible facts and sources. I am not interested in hearing "all sides! people are saying", and I will click away from sites that support that kind of bullshit rationalization for conspiracy theories and disinformation. I get well enough of that from the mass media.
posted by Dashy at 12:16 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
cancels planned evening FPP on inflation traced to Lizard People
I'm confident I've had at least one comment about David Icke deleted before.
posted by phunniemee at 12:21 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I'm confident I've had at least one comment about David Icke deleted before.
posted by phunniemee at 12:21 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I'm not sure how earnestly linking to a "news" article that fabricates sources in the NYTimes so that it seems legitimate is an OK post. I'm all for jokes about lizard people though.
posted by coffeecat at 12:24 PM on January 9
posted by coffeecat at 12:24 PM on January 9
I will say it’s not trivial to get these things right, because a.) it should be just fine to discuss, e.g., vulnerabilities in voting systems from a computer security perspective and b.) there’s plenty of lower-level misinformation and half-baked narrativizing around elections that happens here that doesn’t get treated the same way because it’s playing to the crowd or not blatant enough to make people look around and say wait a second this is some Mike Lindell shit.
But this post is just a handful of random links from halfway down the rabbit hole. It does not express a complete thought and I don’t feel like it passes any of the tests for a good post.
posted by atoxyl at 12:47 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
But this post is just a handful of random links from halfway down the rabbit hole. It does not express a complete thought and I don’t feel like it passes any of the tests for a good post.
posted by atoxyl at 12:47 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
It's about cognitive effects of seeing or hearing things, and how our brains interpret that information when we see it again.
I also feel like this is not a viable premise for running a discussion forum, though. Somebody, somewhere actually does have to think about and talk about things!
posted by atoxyl at 12:51 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I also feel like this is not a viable premise for running a discussion forum, though. Somebody, somewhere actually does have to think about and talk about things!
posted by atoxyl at 12:51 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
But again on the other side regarding this particular post, “MetaFilter can you debunk these election theories?” would be a bit of a tall order to begin with and I don’t think the post was even that, I think it was “MetaFilter can you give me permission to believe in these election theories?”
posted by atoxyl at 12:54 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 12:54 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
I think it was “MetaFilter can you give me permission to believe in these election theories?”
MetaFilter can now be identified as a source of these election theories.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:57 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
MetaFilter can now be identified as a source of these election theories.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:57 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
I'm confident I've had at least one comment about David Icke deleted before.
Mr Icke was mentioned in the popular 2013 FPP Brief Overview of our Reptilian Overlords.
posted by Wordshore at 12:57 PM on January 9
Mr Icke was mentioned in the popular 2013 FPP Brief Overview of our Reptilian Overlords.
posted by Wordshore at 12:57 PM on January 9
According to someone in the Trump assassination thread, lizard people/reptilian jokes are antisemitic. And jessamyn deleted comments for that reason.
posted by Klipspringer at 1:16 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
posted by Klipspringer at 1:16 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
As a rule of thumb, if a post is only okay because it was debunked in the comments, then it is not an acceptable post.
There are many examples in the past of posts being debunked in the comments and as a result, being deleted. This post should have joined them.
posted by gwint at 1:28 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
There are many examples in the past of posts being debunked in the comments and as a result, being deleted. This post should have joined them.
posted by gwint at 1:28 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
We’re going to get more of this kind of thing, as fact checkers go the way of the dodo and people get fed more bullshit by the GIANT BULLSHIT MACHINES that are ramping up for full production. I think we should have a clearly defined reason to delete posts besides “this gave me a squick feeling” or “I don’t think this is true”
posted by Vatnesine at 1:29 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by Vatnesine at 1:29 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
According to someone in the Trump assassination thread, lizard people/reptilian jokes are antisemitic. And jessamyn deleted comments for that reason.
I think deleting jokes pointing out how derisible the reptilian conspiracy is on the basis of antisemitism only gives credence to the conspiracy, as if there's any world in which a normal person could ever think that Jews and lizards could be equated so we have to be careful. The more voices saying "literally only the world's dumbest idiots would think this," the better imo. But I'm neither Jewish nor a lizard (as far as you know) so that's all I'll contribute to that conversation.
(So I guess, broadly, I'm more in favor of open forums to talk shit about stupid conspiracy theories than I am of deleting all trace of them and never speaking their name.)
David Icke if you're reading this: you look so dumb right now.
posted by phunniemee at 1:50 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
I think deleting jokes pointing out how derisible the reptilian conspiracy is on the basis of antisemitism only gives credence to the conspiracy, as if there's any world in which a normal person could ever think that Jews and lizards could be equated so we have to be careful. The more voices saying "literally only the world's dumbest idiots would think this," the better imo. But I'm neither Jewish nor a lizard (as far as you know) so that's all I'll contribute to that conversation.
(So I guess, broadly, I'm more in favor of open forums to talk shit about stupid conspiracy theories than I am of deleting all trace of them and never speaking their name.)
David Icke if you're reading this: you look so dumb right now.
posted by phunniemee at 1:50 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
I think deleting jokes pointing out how derisible the reptilian conspiracy is on the basis of antisemitism only gives credence to the conspiracy
I think this is overstating the case a little bit, but I’m also not personally a fan of treating really obvious jokes about this kind of thing as beyond the pale. I suppose the other side is just that the people who believe in this stuff for real don’t care how stupid it sounds, which mean mockery is only ever worth so much.
(I am complicatedly semi-Jewish and not a lizard, I promise)
posted by atoxyl at 1:59 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I think this is overstating the case a little bit, but I’m also not personally a fan of treating really obvious jokes about this kind of thing as beyond the pale. I suppose the other side is just that the people who believe in this stuff for real don’t care how stupid it sounds, which mean mockery is only ever worth so much.
(I am complicatedly semi-Jewish and not a lizard, I promise)
posted by atoxyl at 1:59 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I may be a lizard or I may not be a lizard. I’m not saying anything either way.
posted by Lemkin at 2:52 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by Lemkin at 2:52 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
> I also feel like this is not a viable premise for running a discussion forum, though. Somebody, somewhere actually does have to think about and talk about things!
I'm not making that argument. Obviously people can post things and have differing views on them, or say something and then realize they were mistaken, etc. I'm pointing out the cognitive effect of stating conspiracy theories as facts because there seemed to be multiple people (including Brandon) arguing that since the comments debunked the theory, then leaving the theory on the front page wasn't harmful.
I'm ambivalent about whether the amount of harm that causes is worth deleting something over, but objectively there is harm being caused by leaving the post standing, regardless of what the comments inside the thread are. And I might also argue that leaving conspiracy theories stated as potential facts on the front page (as opposed to "more inside") increases the harm, since plenty of people will read or skim the post without clicking through to the comments.
posted by lapis at 3:44 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I'm not making that argument. Obviously people can post things and have differing views on them, or say something and then realize they were mistaken, etc. I'm pointing out the cognitive effect of stating conspiracy theories as facts because there seemed to be multiple people (including Brandon) arguing that since the comments debunked the theory, then leaving the theory on the front page wasn't harmful.
I'm ambivalent about whether the amount of harm that causes is worth deleting something over, but objectively there is harm being caused by leaving the post standing, regardless of what the comments inside the thread are. And I might also argue that leaving conspiracy theories stated as potential facts on the front page (as opposed to "more inside") increases the harm, since plenty of people will read or skim the post without clicking through to the comments.
posted by lapis at 3:44 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I would prefer not to see conspiracy theories presented as news, basically, as this post does. I think it's better to err on the side of deleting FPPs spreading misinformation.
posted by EvaDestruction at 5:51 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
posted by EvaDestruction at 5:51 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
deleting jokes pointing out how derisible the reptilian conspiracy is on the basis of antisemitism only gives credence to the conspiracy,
I've never heard the lizard-antisemitism link before either. Eight years ago, I'd also never heard of the Pepe the Frog Nazi link. But various neonazi groups had, and Trump happily tipped his hat to them by including Pepe the Frog in one of his posts. Honestly, I think it's better not to second guess how other people understand things that have come to signal antisemitism among the hateful cognoscenti.
posted by Violet Blue at 6:00 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
I've never heard the lizard-antisemitism link before either. Eight years ago, I'd also never heard of the Pepe the Frog Nazi link. But various neonazi groups had, and Trump happily tipped his hat to them by including Pepe the Frog in one of his posts. Honestly, I think it's better not to second guess how other people understand things that have come to signal antisemitism among the hateful cognoscenti.
posted by Violet Blue at 6:00 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
I'm pointing out the cognitive effect of stating conspiracy theories as facts because there seemed to be multiple people (including Brandon) arguing that since the comments debunked the theory, then leaving the theory on the front page wasn't harmful.
My point is that if you’re going to make a judgement call about what’s a debunked conspiracy theory you do ultimately have to have some kind of analysis to point to establishing this, and I would like this site to be a place where that original analysis can happen. If you’re just saying there’s a cost to having the post there, sure, I just think (in the general case, not necessarily this specific case) it’s underrating the potential value of the comments. I think the point about cognitive biases is more convincing as an argument against letting people post the same hoary conspiracy theories repeatedly than it is against discussing a fresh one once.
posted by atoxyl at 6:51 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
My point is that if you’re going to make a judgement call about what’s a debunked conspiracy theory you do ultimately have to have some kind of analysis to point to establishing this, and I would like this site to be a place where that original analysis can happen. If you’re just saying there’s a cost to having the post there, sure, I just think (in the general case, not necessarily this specific case) it’s underrating the potential value of the comments. I think the point about cognitive biases is more convincing as an argument against letting people post the same hoary conspiracy theories repeatedly than it is against discussing a fresh one once.
posted by atoxyl at 6:51 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
jokes aren't really necessary as this post falls under the category of:
"meat is back on the menu."
posted by clavdivs at 6:58 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
"meat is back on the menu."
posted by clavdivs at 6:58 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
For me that specific post was less “this has been debunked a million times” and more “what’s actually being articulated here such that we should even bother?” But I suppose those aren’t totally different things. There’s just a lot of silly pseudo-analysis of elections out there so the bar for taking any random claim along these lines seriously enough even to talk about what’s wrong with it is high, especially when it’s not even a close election.
I would have deleted the post, personally, I just want to acknowledge that I think the decision to delete conspiracish posts is not always so easy.
posted by atoxyl at 7:06 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I would have deleted the post, personally, I just want to acknowledge that I think the decision to delete conspiracish posts is not always so easy.
posted by atoxyl at 7:06 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
For those of you uncertain how journalistic fact-checking works, or even what folks mean by "fact-checking," Canada's Carleton University has developed a best practice Truth in Journalism Project that explains the standards and practices of aggregating and evaluating reliable facts and sources in its Fact-Checking Guide.
If that sounds like so much gobbledygook, take a look at the Fact-Checking Guide. It's not a quick or flippant process.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:25 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
If that sounds like so much gobbledygook, take a look at the Fact-Checking Guide. It's not a quick or flippant process.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:25 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
There's a major distinction between having an occasional AskMe question like "I found this conspiracy content, could it be true?", next to "Should I eat this week old chicken?", versus having content on the Blue saying "I found this conspiracy content, could it be true?".
If you have to ask for a fact check in the post itself, that seems like a neon sign indicating that it's not an appropriate post for the Blue yet, any more than "I found a single unsubstantive link about breaking news" or "I found breathless gossip about celebrities". Especially since if you want people to help fact check something wacky, AskMe is right there.
posted by quacks like a duck at 1:04 AM on January 10 [16 favorites]
If you have to ask for a fact check in the post itself, that seems like a neon sign indicating that it's not an appropriate post for the Blue yet, any more than "I found a single unsubstantive link about breaking news" or "I found breathless gossip about celebrities". Especially since if you want people to help fact check something wacky, AskMe is right there.
posted by quacks like a duck at 1:04 AM on January 10 [16 favorites]
If the moderators are basing "delete / don't delete" the post based on the comments, how does that work?
"yes this post shares a baseless and harmful conspiracy theory. We won't delete it yet because the comments might debunk it... OK there's a comment that boosts the conspiracy, but others that argue... Ok now there are more against than for..."
Seems simpler to delete it upfront.
posted by Zumbador at 4:30 AM on January 10 [8 favorites]
"yes this post shares a baseless and harmful conspiracy theory. We won't delete it yet because the comments might debunk it... OK there's a comment that boosts the conspiracy, but others that argue... Ok now there are more against than for..."
Seems simpler to delete it upfront.
posted by Zumbador at 4:30 AM on January 10 [8 favorites]
>> It's about cognitive effects of seeing or hearing things, and how our brains interpret that information when we see it again.
THIS!
To repeat the possible harms to our accurate cognition here: The research shows that even when the false claims are explicitly labeled as false, and people read that they're false, the simple act of repeating the misinformation makes people later remember the misinformation and think of it as more true than they did before they read the fact-checking debunking it.
Thank you for changing my mind on this important issue, which has literally destroyed American democracy and I’ve no clue how we as a society can fix it.
posted by edithkeeler at 5:57 AM on January 10 [5 favorites]
THIS!
To repeat the possible harms to our accurate cognition here: The research shows that even when the false claims are explicitly labeled as false, and people read that they're false, the simple act of repeating the misinformation makes people later remember the misinformation and think of it as more true than they did before they read the fact-checking debunking it.
Thank you for changing my mind on this important issue, which has literally destroyed American democracy and I’ve no clue how we as a society can fix it.
posted by edithkeeler at 5:57 AM on January 10 [5 favorites]
I will sit with this
I appreciate hearing folks on why they've arrived at their perspectives
For years the reporting on the US electoral system has led me to think it's hardly possible to believe in that system's integrity, and I feel like the focus here is off. A solid FPP on the topic, sans conspiracy (or inclusion only insofar as a data point among many) would be a way forward. This is also the 2nd "Why wasn't this post deleted" MeTa in less than a week, which bears mentioning
posted by ginger.beef at 6:14 AM on January 10 [6 favorites]
I appreciate hearing folks on why they've arrived at their perspectives
For years the reporting on the US electoral system has led me to think it's hardly possible to believe in that system's integrity, and I feel like the focus here is off. A solid FPP on the topic, sans conspiracy (or inclusion only insofar as a data point among many) would be a way forward. This is also the 2nd "Why wasn't this post deleted" MeTa in less than a week, which bears mentioning
posted by ginger.beef at 6:14 AM on January 10 [6 favorites]
When a mod determines this seems to be a conspiracy theory but it is not so bad and the post can remain, they could add the tag 'moderate conspiracy theory' - it's a label for the community and a request for the mods, so everybody should like this one.
posted by Ashenmote at 7:55 AM on January 10
posted by Ashenmote at 7:55 AM on January 10
This post has also been discussed on MeFi Reddit. It has been pointed out that it would definitely not have passed muster back in the days when there were enough quality posts.
That's simply not true at all. Browsing the Conspiracy/ConspiracyTheories tags on MeTa shows people have been making FPPs of that nature since the surface of the planet was still cooling and mods from mathowie on down have left them up. It would probably be helpful to differentiate between the MeFi Reddit and the MetaMetaMetaFilter Reddit.
A quick search around the Deleted Posts blog actually brings up two recent deletions by Brandon Blatcher of conspiracy content FPPs, one amusingly regarding the election. I assume the discussion will now pivot towards why these darn current moderators are so inconsistent, whereas back in the day you could set your watch by them and you could get twelve favourites for a dime and where did my lap quilt go I bet that nurse with the weird name stole it...
While I have my billion-year-old-man hat on, it's worth pointing out that Can The Discussion Justify A Weak/Problematic Post discussion has been beaten into the ground and usually resultis in a resounding Yeah, Sure, I Guess.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:21 AM on January 10 [7 favorites]
That's simply not true at all. Browsing the Conspiracy/ConspiracyTheories tags on MeTa shows people have been making FPPs of that nature since the surface of the planet was still cooling and mods from mathowie on down have left them up. It would probably be helpful to differentiate between the MeFi Reddit and the MetaMetaMetaFilter Reddit.
A quick search around the Deleted Posts blog actually brings up two recent deletions by Brandon Blatcher of conspiracy content FPPs, one amusingly regarding the election. I assume the discussion will now pivot towards why these darn current moderators are so inconsistent, whereas back in the day you could set your watch by them and you could get twelve favourites for a dime and where did my lap quilt go I bet that nurse with the weird name stole it...
While I have my billion-year-old-man hat on, it's worth pointing out that Can The Discussion Justify A Weak/Problematic Post discussion has been beaten into the ground and usually resultis in a resounding Yeah, Sure, I Guess.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:21 AM on January 10 [7 favorites]
the discussion will pivot towards why these darn moderators are so inconsistent now
what are the mods trying to hide??
Brandon, I'd like to know your views on grassy knolls immediately
posted by ginger.beef at 8:26 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
what are the mods trying to hide??
Brandon, I'd like to know your views on grassy knolls immediately
posted by ginger.beef at 8:26 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
Why don't we ever see Brandon and Edward Snowden in the same place at the same time is what I think we're all really wondering amirite.
posted by riverlife at 8:38 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
posted by riverlife at 8:38 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
The anti-Semitic lizard thing is a David Ickes production...since the 80s. Great guy.
posted by atomicstone at 8:59 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
posted by atomicstone at 8:59 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
I think this should have been an AskMe, like “Help me understand these conspiracy theories about the election so I can … “ I mean, it’s certainly true that the current MAGA party is morally capable of direct cheating - they would do it if they could - so the question is more about learning to have a better spider sense about these things and dig deeper before ever mentioning it to others. I mean I fact check every political Facebook post before I make it, because I feel this spreading misinformation is a moral issue. Helping people get better at that is askme, not fpp.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:22 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:22 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
Hey, I made my own conspiracy that "Icke'" (it's pronounced icky) had an S at the end. My whole life. It's "David Icke" for the record.
posted by atomicstone at 9:43 AM on January 10
posted by atomicstone at 9:43 AM on January 10
That's simply not true at all. Browsing the Conspiracy/ConspiracyTheories tags on MeTa shows people have been making FPPs of that nature since the surface of the planet was still cooling and mods from mathowie on down have left them up.
I never said that there were no conspiracy theory posts. The post in question would have never stayed up because it is a crappy post. A ton of posts today would have been deleted back in the day for being thin or repetitive or just not best of the web. Today’s Metafilter is very different and even the most boring or inconsequential post will stay as long as it doesn’t break the guidelines. That’s just the way it is because the site has gotten so small, and to some degree because the web has changed. It doesn’t reflect specifically on the moderators, who have adapted over time to accept that having content here means accepting basically anything that someone is willing to post. (Even explicitly nothing chat posts.)
posted by snofoam at 10:24 AM on January 10 [5 favorites]
I never said that there were no conspiracy theory posts. The post in question would have never stayed up because it is a crappy post. A ton of posts today would have been deleted back in the day for being thin or repetitive or just not best of the web. Today’s Metafilter is very different and even the most boring or inconsequential post will stay as long as it doesn’t break the guidelines. That’s just the way it is because the site has gotten so small, and to some degree because the web has changed. It doesn’t reflect specifically on the moderators, who have adapted over time to accept that having content here means accepting basically anything that someone is willing to post. (Even explicitly nothing chat posts.)
posted by snofoam at 10:24 AM on January 10 [5 favorites]
and to some degree because the web has changed
might be doing the heavy lifting of your sentence
posted by ginger.beef at 10:27 AM on January 10
might be doing the heavy lifting of your sentence
posted by ginger.beef at 10:27 AM on January 10
might be doing the heavy lifting of your sentence
I think the changes in Metafilter have had a bigger impact on Metafilter than the changes in the internet as a whole. There’s still interesting stuff to find and share, there are still places where people are having interesting conversations. A Metafilter that hadn’t shriveled up to a tiny remnant of what it was could still be a lot like it used to be.
posted by snofoam at 10:36 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
I think the changes in Metafilter have had a bigger impact on Metafilter than the changes in the internet as a whole. There’s still interesting stuff to find and share, there are still places where people are having interesting conversations. A Metafilter that hadn’t shriveled up to a tiny remnant of what it was could still be a lot like it used to be.
posted by snofoam at 10:36 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
I think the changes in Metafilter have had a bigger impact on Metafilter than the changes in the internet as a whole. There’s still interesting stuff to find and share, there are still places where people are having interesting conversations. A Metafilter that hadn’t shriveled up to a tiny remnant of what it was could still be a lot like it used to be.
KH said it best about Metafilter:
What Can Be, Unburdened by What Has Been
We have dreams. We can see what is possible, unburdened by what has been,
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:26 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
KH said it best about Metafilter:
What Can Be, Unburdened by What Has Been
We have dreams. We can see what is possible, unburdened by what has been,
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:26 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
I'd like to know your views on grassy knolls immediately
The Knoll brothers are pretty great and I don't believe a word about them being gassy, I'm sure it was just a Photoshop filter.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:59 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]
The Knoll brothers are pretty great and I don't believe a word about them being gassy, I'm sure it was just a Photoshop filter.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:59 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]
don't believe a word about them being gassy, I'm sure it was just a Photoshop filter.
Love your typos BB!!!!
posted by 15L06 at 3:38 AM on January 11
Love your typos BB!!!!
posted by 15L06 at 3:38 AM on January 11
Thank you, the lipo worked out great!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:52 AM on January 11 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:52 AM on January 11 [3 favorites]
My two cents: I think "conspiracy theories: okay to post or not okay?" is overly specific. The real answer is that posts that get posted to Metafilter because the poster feels "This is [IMPORTANT/A CRISIS/OUTRAGEOUS & INFURIATING], the People MUST KNOW!" are bad posts 99% of the time, whereas posts where the poster feels "Hey, this is [neat/cool/funny/interesting/thought-provoking]" are good posts at least more often than not. Conspiracy theory posts in the former category are bad, just like all the other posts in that category. Conspiracy theory posts that are being posted because somebody thinks it's funny or an interesting curiosity can be fine.
But really, even if you genuinely believe people on the internet have broken wide open a vast conspiracy about [election interference/lizard people/Russian hackers/UFOs/drones/drones that are actually UFOs/cubic time/&tc.] then surely there's something more productive and valuable to do with that information than post it to Metafilter so it can be beanplated to death.
For the rest of us, I think we need to be more relentlessly aware that there are plenty of people who look at the vast right-wing grfting & disinformation machine and think "hey I bet there's Grifting To Be Done on the left, too!" The comparison of some of these guys to Alex Jones is very apt. Playing to peoples' fears and biases is a great way to manipulate them and to part them from their money; that is a politically-neutral fact. Trump raised a bucketload of money that was theoretically for "recounts" and "investigations" of the 2020 election (that is not, it will not shock you to know, what the money actually got spent on) and there are plenty of people distraught enough over the 2024 results that "recount" efforts could get them writing checks too, just for a taste of hope. Nobody's as easy a mark as somebody who thinks they're too smart to get scammed - and with all love for all you folks, there are a lot of people on Metafilter who think they're too smart to get scammed and definitely aren't.
posted by mstokes650 at 12:04 PM on January 11 [8 favorites]
But really, even if you genuinely believe people on the internet have broken wide open a vast conspiracy about [election interference/lizard people/Russian hackers/UFOs/drones/drones that are actually UFOs/cubic time/&tc.] then surely there's something more productive and valuable to do with that information than post it to Metafilter so it can be beanplated to death.
For the rest of us, I think we need to be more relentlessly aware that there are plenty of people who look at the vast right-wing grfting & disinformation machine and think "hey I bet there's Grifting To Be Done on the left, too!" The comparison of some of these guys to Alex Jones is very apt. Playing to peoples' fears and biases is a great way to manipulate them and to part them from their money; that is a politically-neutral fact. Trump raised a bucketload of money that was theoretically for "recounts" and "investigations" of the 2020 election (that is not, it will not shock you to know, what the money actually got spent on) and there are plenty of people distraught enough over the 2024 results that "recount" efforts could get them writing checks too, just for a taste of hope. Nobody's as easy a mark as somebody who thinks they're too smart to get scammed - and with all love for all you folks, there are a lot of people on Metafilter who think they're too smart to get scammed and definitely aren't.
posted by mstokes650 at 12:04 PM on January 11 [8 favorites]
People talking about what research shows should be aware of the context, which is generally that of seeing some claim in a news article mock-up. It's often meant to give insight on how reporting on false claims in mainstream media could be handled. This has led to suggestions like the "truth sandwich" and other approaches to try and do something to report-and-debunk effectively.
But MeFi isn't like a newpaper. It's a different context. Research also shows that in-group debunking of claims is a very powerful tool. If a committed churchgoer hears that Q-Anon are a bunch of conspiracy-mongering nutcases during the after-service social hour, it will do more good dissuading them than a million Glen Kesslers.
How any people reading it consider MeFi commenters to be "in-group" is a guess, but I'm 100% sure that some readers who might have been willing to entertain some of the fraud ideas left that thread figuring they didn't hold water.
posted by mark k at 12:14 PM on January 11 [3 favorites]
But MeFi isn't like a newpaper. It's a different context. Research also shows that in-group debunking of claims is a very powerful tool. If a committed churchgoer hears that Q-Anon are a bunch of conspiracy-mongering nutcases during the after-service social hour, it will do more good dissuading them than a million Glen Kesslers.
How any people reading it consider MeFi commenters to be "in-group" is a guess, but I'm 100% sure that some readers who might have been willing to entertain some of the fraud ideas left that thread figuring they didn't hold water.
posted by mark k at 12:14 PM on January 11 [3 favorites]
I'm 100% sure that some readers who might have been willing to entertain some of the fraud ideas left that thread figuring they didn't hold water.
And maybe some folks left the thread figuring some of those ideas — the Grand Theory — did hold water. One mentioned the thread to their spouse, who later talked about it with a friend at work. The friend at work discussed it with her wife over dinner. She passed on what had been said to her sister. Her sister mentioned it to her best friend who mentioned the theory, in passing, to friends at her sports club. Five sports club members then sent their own takes on the theory to individual members of a PTA association, an entire book club, and extended family... Anatomy of a conspiracy theory: how misinformation travels on Facebook
posted by Violet Blue at 1:49 PM on January 11 [4 favorites]
And maybe some folks left the thread figuring some of those ideas — the Grand Theory — did hold water. One mentioned the thread to their spouse, who later talked about it with a friend at work. The friend at work discussed it with her wife over dinner. She passed on what had been said to her sister. Her sister mentioned it to her best friend who mentioned the theory, in passing, to friends at her sports club. Five sports club members then sent their own takes on the theory to individual members of a PTA association, an entire book club, and extended family... Anatomy of a conspiracy theory: how misinformation travels on Facebook
posted by Violet Blue at 1:49 PM on January 11 [4 favorites]
My point was that the research being cited repeatedly here was done in a different context, to answer a different question. It simply doesn't give a cut-and-dry answer to the question of how that thread will impact people's disbeliefs, and may even be suggesting the exact opposite of what should be done.
The Guardian link you include is similarly talking about a different context: Someone makes a false claim in a post, it is *not* immediately debunked by in-group members, who either supported it in the comments or (as in the case of the Prime Minister) kept quiet. That's not the situation here; if that were the only way misinformation travels then we're in pretty good shape!
On the larger question, I'm kind of on the fence about whether this should have been deleted. It kind of increased my trust in MeFites, TBH. But I think it would have been disastrous if it were let stand and accumulated a lot of people treating it as a serious and interesting question and then either removed too late (or not at all).
posted by mark k at 3:06 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
The Guardian link you include is similarly talking about a different context: Someone makes a false claim in a post, it is *not* immediately debunked by in-group members, who either supported it in the comments or (as in the case of the Prime Minister) kept quiet. That's not the situation here; if that were the only way misinformation travels then we're in pretty good shape!
On the larger question, I'm kind of on the fence about whether this should have been deleted. It kind of increased my trust in MeFites, TBH. But I think it would have been disastrous if it were let stand and accumulated a lot of people treating it as a serious and interesting question and then either removed too late (or not at all).
posted by mark k at 3:06 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
Thanks mark k, this is where I've been heading too
I appreciate the discussion, I don't think the posting of baseless conspiracy theories is a big problem on MeFi, and if anything the post we are discussing has been more akin to those phishing simulations the IT folks like to spring on you at work (in effect)
So every character typed because of the post, including this MeTa, is necessary and arcing toward a greater purpose
posted by ginger.beef at 3:55 PM on January 11 [1 favorite]
I appreciate the discussion, I don't think the posting of baseless conspiracy theories is a big problem on MeFi, and if anything the post we are discussing has been more akin to those phishing simulations the IT folks like to spring on you at work (in effect)
So every character typed because of the post, including this MeTa, is necessary and arcing toward a greater purpose
posted by ginger.beef at 3:55 PM on January 11 [1 favorite]
These are some weird-ass post hoc justifications for a garbage conspiracy theory post. Should we be making credulous posts about all disinformation in order to assure they are properly debunked by the Metafilter brain trust?
posted by snofoam at 4:43 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 4:43 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
Whenever I read threads like this, I always agree with whoever has posted last.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 3:58 AM on January 12 [4 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 3:58 AM on January 12 [4 favorites]
Yay! Pyrogenesis will agree with me for an undetermined (but probably short) period!
Anyway, by definition everyone in this thread is a paid member of Metafilter and virtually all of us read the comments.
The mods have always been reluctant to provide the numbers, but I suspect that we are a tiny portion of the total number of people who browse the front page. I doubt people who enjoy this place for the links spend much time in the comments. "Don't read the comment section" is a really good policy for most places on the internet.
In any case, allowing posts like this to stand will affect many people who will never see any of the debunking.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:24 AM on January 12 [2 favorites]
Anyway, by definition everyone in this thread is a paid member of Metafilter and virtually all of us read the comments.
The mods have always been reluctant to provide the numbers, but I suspect that we are a tiny portion of the total number of people who browse the front page. I doubt people who enjoy this place for the links spend much time in the comments. "Don't read the comment section" is a really good policy for most places on the internet.
In any case, allowing posts like this to stand will affect many people who will never see any of the debunking.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:24 AM on January 12 [2 favorites]
These are some weird-ass post hoc justifications for a garbage conspiracy theory post.
I thought we were discussing whether the post should have been deleted. The standard for deletion is not whether a post can be "justified" on MetaTalk.
posted by mark k at 10:41 AM on January 12 [1 favorite]
I thought we were discussing whether the post should have been deleted. The standard for deletion is not whether a post can be "justified" on MetaTalk.
posted by mark k at 10:41 AM on January 12 [1 favorite]
Of course the the MeTa discussion is post hoc, but what I was referring to is that the only justifications being offered here are about how the discussion in the post turned out, not whether the post itself as originally made was worth keeping. Several people have questioned whether this should be used as a standard. I don't think it should, except perhaps in outliers like the portobello mushroom post, which is an exception that proves the rule.
posted by snofoam at 10:50 AM on January 12 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:50 AM on January 12 [2 favorites]
I’ve seen threads deleted for not linking to good articles. This one seems to link to Reddit comments, which don’t seem like much. If we are going to have a rule to use to delete threads, as opposed to deleting on vibes, we could have a rule that the post must link to good articles. There’s still room for judgement that way but at least we are not backing ourselves into a corner that judges the topics people are interested in.
Isn’t this what teachers do with students who want to write papers on lizard people? Sure you can do that, all you have to do is find some high quality sources for your paper. Bingo, problem solved.
posted by Vatnesine at 12:06 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
Isn’t this what teachers do with students who want to write papers on lizard people? Sure you can do that, all you have to do is find some high quality sources for your paper. Bingo, problem solved.
posted by Vatnesine at 12:06 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
Clearly this bugs some people more than others
On the integrity of the recent US election, I'm happy to question it and don't need conspiracy theories to do that. The historical record is sufficient.
Be pure, be vigilant, behave
posted by ginger.beef at 3:35 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
On the integrity of the recent US election, I'm happy to question it and don't need conspiracy theories to do that. The historical record is sufficient.
Be pure, be vigilant, behave
posted by ginger.beef at 3:35 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
Hey, if the only content is from Reddit, maybe we should make like Meta and purge for the sin of linking to the competition! Forget the conspiracy theory angle, this is (not-for-profit) business!
posted by eirias at 7:32 PM on January 12
posted by eirias at 7:32 PM on January 12
On the integrity of the recent US election, I'm happy to question it and don't need conspiracy theories to do that. The historical record is sufficient.
Be pure, be vigilant, behave
Wow.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:49 PM on January 12
Be pure, be vigilant, behave
Wow.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:49 PM on January 12
I think a lot of these posts really depend on the intent of the poster, and whether it feels like trolling. Like someone just posted on one of my favorite FB pages a fake picture of the Hollywood sign on fire, and my immediate reaction was gasp! Oh no! I'm upset! And that's what the troll wanted. The admin immediately swooped in and removed it, but the damage was done and the troll got their brief thrill.
Trolls on Metafilter are removed pretty quickly, fortunately, and something that was posted in good faith can be discussed. The edge cases can be dealt with as they come up. But do remember that what bugs you may not bug someone else, as ginger.beef said.
posted by Melismata at 7:49 AM on January 13 [1 favorite]
Trolls on Metafilter are removed pretty quickly, fortunately, and something that was posted in good faith can be discussed. The edge cases can be dealt with as they come up. But do remember that what bugs you may not bug someone else, as ginger.beef said.
posted by Melismata at 7:49 AM on January 13 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
If in the future, it becomes a steady stream of WHAT IF type theories, then there will be reason to take action, but for now an occasional thread like that seems fine.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:53 PM on January 8 [4 favorites]