This is 100% theory, and there is zero chance of anyone ever proving evidence supporting this thought. If that bothers you, please move on, I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm here to talk theory, not advance that theory to fact.
After reddit spilled over into voat, there has been an obvious shift in both websites. Reddit got strangely tolerant of free thinking (which I assume is the puppets trying to save their own game) and voat got really big on posting videos with zero evidence supporting the claim mad in the title.
It seems pretty clear to me that there is a psy-op going on to make voat look like a haven for extremism, and appear as if supporting evidence is optional in our definition of a "quality post." We can not let this happen, or we as a website will quickly be as credible to the outside world as buzzfeed style blogspam is.
When I first came to this site from reddit, I loved how reluctant people were to use downvotes. Now I realize this could be a problem at the opposite extreme from reddit. I had originally planned to keep my account at 0 total downvotes, but I have shifted this opinion after observing the drivel that is being posted. I will admit it is perfectly plausible that the crappy submissions are just vote-farming, but the functional effect is the same, whether it is sock-puppets or 14 year old kids bored in class.
So, a few questions for those of you that have been here longer than a month:
1 Outside of this sub, would you guys say there has been a spike in shit-tier conspiracy submissions? (/v/videos seems to be a hotspot for this)
2 Do you feel that theories without direct evidence (like this one ironically enough) are harmful to our credibility? Is an unsupported theory more or less dangerous if it regards real world events as opposed to psychological and meta-topics?
3 If you feel this is the case, what should be done to preserve our reputation?
view the rest of the comments →
pitenius ago
1, Outside of this sub, would you say that low-grade conspiracy chatter has increased?
Yes. This trend has been increasing since the 90s (X-Files, Coast to Coast AM, and Conspiracy Theory fandom), but the current trend on 4chan, ATS, and GLP has been to emphasize "community" over content.
2, Do you feel that theories without direct evidence (like this one ironically enough) are harmful to our credibility?
No. Not immediately. This is the difference between philosophy and history. Both are prone to manipulation, so both deserve discussion. Besides, what constitutes evidence is a pretty slippery slope. The difficulty is that the presentation of evidence (or even argument) is detailed and slow. Posting a video is quick. The quicker response is more easily subject to techniques of forum manipulation.
I think one way to counter this would perhaps be a curated wiki -- and any "Hay guise, didja noe that jet fuels can't milt steal biemz" would get struck, but a discussion of the available heat energy of a full fuel tank would be allowed. That might seriously alter how this subverse works, though.
3, If you feel this is the case, what should be done to preserve our reputation?
I dun tole yew, I guess. I'm not sure you have a reputation now. Reputations are rough in the conspiracy world. Half the people are paranoiacs (not without cause), a quarter are abusive (and probably shills), and a quarter are straight-up delusional. You might consider why and how reputations have changed, what the long-standing feuds among conspiracy theorists are, and who has good reputations.
Sciency ago
slow-clap
Amazing post, thank you for adding to the discussion! (also, thanks for being one of a few that actually used an account older than a month like I asked for!)
I tend to agree with these fractions. Obviously, those of us who really question what we are told, want to think of ourselves as being in that paranoid-but-sane 50%. Operating under the assumption that we are both part of that sane half, do you have any ideas that sane among us might use to be seen as separate from the crazies and puppets? It seems to me that the actual crazies are easier to ditch, simply because they aren't payed to chase us.
pitenius ago
I'm paranoid. I'll admit it. I don't know if I was put on this earth for a reason, but I'm pretty sure I'll be taken out of it for one.
How to separate the crazies? Yeah. Easy. But you don't want to. The crazies find "strange attractors" -- I'm not sure why, I'm not sure how, but they flock. Merovingians, morgellons... They tend to latch on to one or two ideas that are somehow closely connected to a zeitgeist. Now, health conspiracies and secret bloodlines are perennial but the crazies somehow all know what to discuss. They lack agency. They're embedded in a cultural timeline. In the 70s, astrology drew the woo. Now, there's actually decent academic discussion of the history of astrology. Perhaps even astrologers have improved. But in the 70s, it was superficial and overarching -- and a lot of people did it. These people are harmless.
Separating the abusive into categories is more challenging: those who lost a grip on their paranoia due to harassment, the racist, the arrogant, the vengeful, the shills. They overlap, too. Separating that from paranoia is a problem. In the old days, we did it by personal contact, message drops, a physical community. But the tools of verification fed the paranoia.