The most effective way to prevent people from looking into something is to poison the well. Attach the thing to something else obviously false, bonus points if evokes a negative emotional response.
Example; if someone decides to research 911, and instead of seeking out published papers and original sources, they go on yt and start watching videos about it, they will in short order hear a number of false things; holograms, lasers, nuclear weapons, missles, etc. Stuff that the average person would instinctively know is false.
The goal is not to convince the person that any of those examples is true. It's to associate them with other information and to game confirmation bias.
A 38min documentary. Sorry about the size, I promise it's not borring. If someone gives me an approprate ffmpeg command I'll transcode it. Preserving the source footage quality was important.
You could perhaps give the title, names of the creators, links to reviews, etc.? As opposed to "trust me, as some random dude on the internet, that you should download this, potentially risk prosecution for pirating, and waste 38m of your time"?
It's in a public folder so there's no need to scare monger with the whole 'prosecution for pirating' bit. Why not just watch it for yourself instead of making things up to attack him?
You could write a one-paragraph description in five minutes. You're one person. You've got maybe 1000 readers, and you're asking them to each spend 38 minutes on faith that your recommendation is good, with no other information given - just a link.
Asking you (not you, nothanksmydude, but jakeogh, who posted the no-info-given link) to spend five minutes, rather than asking us to spend 38 x 1000 minutes... that seems like a pretty reasonable request.
The point scoring system gets things completely backwards.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they take generic possibilities, which often have been true at at least one point or another, and apply it to a specific situation with no evidence.
So, for example, it gives a point for “spread of diseases is deliberate, concealed effort, by some government”, and uses 2 historically known instances (I’m not sure how “concealed” these efforts are, but for the sake of argument let’s assume they’re valid), to give an entire point for the theory itself. However, the problem is there is no conspiracy theorist going around saying the thing in general, and if they are, they are met with a resounding “yes, that has definitely happened”. The problem is that conspiracy theorists were saying that this was true of Aids, or vaccines, and there is no evidence to believe either these (or the variety of other similar conspiracy theories) were true.
Yet, the scoring system here gives that theory a full point.
The problem with many conspiracy theories are that they take known conspiracies, and imply that because there was a conspiracy, that means everything similar is a conspiracy. And this scoring system rewards that fully.
A conspiracy can play out in public, even if very few people are involved in pushing the agenda. All that needs to be done is put a few people in a few well-placed areas to seed the information needed to have public servants, CEOs or ground-roots activists, etc... act in sympathy or concert with what the conspirators need to happen to play out their plan.
12 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 37.1 ms ] threadExample; if someone decides to research 911, and instead of seeking out published papers and original sources, they go on yt and start watching videos about it, they will in short order hear a number of false things; holograms, lasers, nuclear weapons, missles, etc. Stuff that the average person would instinctively know is false.
The goal is not to convince the person that any of those examples is true. It's to associate them with other information and to game confirmation bias.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/prete... (win users might need videolan.org)
Asking you (not you, nothanksmydude, but jakeogh, who posted the no-info-given link) to spend five minutes, rather than asking us to spend 38 x 1000 minutes... that seems like a pretty reasonable request.
Imho it's neither worth the download nor the time.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they take generic possibilities, which often have been true at at least one point or another, and apply it to a specific situation with no evidence.
So, for example, it gives a point for “spread of diseases is deliberate, concealed effort, by some government”, and uses 2 historically known instances (I’m not sure how “concealed” these efforts are, but for the sake of argument let’s assume they’re valid), to give an entire point for the theory itself. However, the problem is there is no conspiracy theorist going around saying the thing in general, and if they are, they are met with a resounding “yes, that has definitely happened”. The problem is that conspiracy theorists were saying that this was true of Aids, or vaccines, and there is no evidence to believe either these (or the variety of other similar conspiracy theories) were true.
Yet, the scoring system here gives that theory a full point.
The problem with many conspiracy theories are that they take known conspiracies, and imply that because there was a conspiracy, that means everything similar is a conspiracy. And this scoring system rewards that fully.
Google "FBI manufactures terror suspects."