By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awkward in-between spot and is bound to create such controversies.
We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative.
Most of these ideas aren't new, but in decades past you might have heard about them from a conspiracy-therorist neighbor, a low profile website, or an alternative magazine with little reputation of its own.
Now, these ideas are spread on the exact same platforms as objectively truthful / scientifically sound media. Your Youtube conspiracy theory channel is right next to the BBC's videos. Your viral Facebook post could be from the New York Times, or it might be from a propaganda organization - or worse, an account that looks like a normal person but which was specifically created to spread misinformation that seems plausibly truthful.
Credibility is distributed and anyone can publish to a huge audience, which is wonderful sometimes, and othertimes deeply problematic, because the viewer often doesn't know enough to distinguish fact from fiction and can't trust the publisher at face value anymore.
Its uncharted territory. The cost to distribute is zero, and ideas spread far and wide - but that means that there are equally as many incredible sources on any given topic as credible ones, and telling the difference is hard, and sometimes not knowing the difference is dangerous. Dunning-Kruger writ large.
I also think that poor general education has also been exposed. People lack general science education and critical thinking skills. Just look at all the 'gotcha' posts of people giving scientists a hard time for changing their positions as new information is learned, when that is exactly what a scientist is supposed to do.
The other part drives these conspiracy theories is not just that they share a platform with legitimate sources, but also the algorithms. Someone clicks on a single story that is borderline conspiracy out of curiosity, and now they are served them at every turn. It's easy for a person to get lost and think that what they are being pushed is the entire world.
By the way, I think you're being downvoted because of this statement:
We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative.
I've noticed there is a contingent on HN that do believe in some or all of these things.
Where are the studies that actually show it is a substantial number? Where's the peer-reviewed replication of those studies? How do those studies account for the "Lizardman constant" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...)?
Maybe I'm unique, but I'd guess many of the downvoters have similar complaints.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-b...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-half-americ...
How many people does it take to become 'substantial'?
If you didn't read my link, I suggest you do. Plenty of polls are designed in a way that almost encourage terribly inaccurate results.
Perhaps these aren't, but I'm not going to be convinced they're accurate by just a cursory glance at results.
I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, either - just being skeptical until I see a really strong case.
As I suggested in my first post, though, not all studies are created equal.
This one could be accurate, but I'm not jumping straight to 98% certainty based on two articles. Survey design matters, and high confidence must be earned.
I shouldn't have said I take issue with the claim. It would have been more accurate to say I don't know that I trust the claim implicitly.