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

  • aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish
    105·
    11 months ago

    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

    • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pubEnglish
      2·
      11 months ago

      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

      • aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        11 months ago

        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.

    • lilsolar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      610·
      11 months ago

      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