The internet used to be less saturated with misinformation and ads, more user-friendly, and populated by real people. Social media was for connecting with friends and family, not for fueling outrage. What happened?

Connecting with friends and family was for sharing vacation photos, not for sharing conspiracy theories.

The internet used to be less saturated with misinformation and ads, more user-friendly, and populated by real people. Social media was for connecting with friends and family, not for fueling outrage. What happened?

The Dead Internet.

https://theconversation.com/the-dead-internet-theory-makes-eerie-claims-about-an-ai-run-web-the-truth-is-more-sinister-229609

AI botnets are evolving.

The internet started with good intentions, but people soon realised that it also served another purpose: validating people who everyone ignored in the "real world". If you were a social reject, the internet was your perfect tool for revenge: you could create chaos under the cloak of anonymity. Take that idea to its logical conclusion, and you have the internet as it is today.

The internet used to be less saturated with misinformation and ads, more user-friendly, and populated by real people. Social media was for connecting with friends and family, not for fueling outrage. What happened?

Never forget, MSNBCCNNFOXBBC et al corporate news and the uniparty fully supported the BIG LIE of WMD’s in Iraq. Now they don’t like misinformation and propaganda. LOL

I disconnected 15 years ago.

The internet is not as bad as activists paint it. As with life offline, just take sensible precautions: use the options to protect your account and don't go looking for trouble. You'll be fine.

Some dudeToday 07:47 am JST

The internet started with good intentions, but people soon realised that it also served another purpose: validating people who everyone ignored in the "real world". If you were a social reject, the internet was your perfect tool for revenge: you could create chaos under the cloak of anonymity. Take that idea to its logical conclusion, and you have the internet as it is today.

The problem is not the anonymous, though, it is the low information users banding together to share conspiracy theories.

FizzBitToday 07:47 am JST

The internet used to be less saturated with misinformation and ads, more user-friendly, and populated by real people. Social media was for connecting with friends and family, not for fueling outrage. What happened?

Never forget, MSNBCCNNFOXBBC et al corporate news and the uniparty fully supported the BIG LIE of WMD’s in Iraq. Now they don’t like misinformation and propaganda. LOL

No one in their right mind would have assumed Saddam would have gotten rid of his weapons.

I disconnected 15 years ago.

Great decision, less stress.

No one in their right mind would have assumed Saddam would have gotten rid of his weapons.

Better stick to facts, still a Washington lie due to which more than half a million Iraqis died.

The problem is not the anonymous, though, it is the low information users banding together to share conspiracy theories.

Yeah, that's a major part of it too. But it's also tied in with what I wrote. The low information, conspiracy-loving types you refer to were almost certainly ignored as kids, bullied at school, and generally left out of things. That's why they get into this whole conspiracy /"I do my own research and stick it to the man" thing. It makes them feel powerful, and gives them the impression that they're "misunderstood", when they're just factually wrong.

The term "conspiracy theory" was first used by Bush to quash anything that didn't agree with the official government explanation of 9/11. It contains just enough truth to work. Of course it was a conspiracy. No one could deny that. What Bush didn't state was whose conspiracy it was. That has yet to be revealed. Oddly, "conspiracy theory" has come to refer to any theory that doesn't align with the official theory. Since other media, news sources are heavily controlled, the only way for people to express ideas that don't toe the public line is to use social media. But even that is being throttled more and more.

The term "conspiracy theory" was first used by Bush to quash anything that didn't agree with the official government explanation of 9/11. It contains just enough truth to work. Of course it was a conspiracy. No one could deny that. What Bush didn't state was whose conspiracy it was. That has yet to be revealed. Oddly, "conspiracy theory" has come to refer to any theory that doesn't align with the official theory.

I reserve it for when people give theories that require a conspiracy of people to be working in a nefarious manner, that are unsupported with anything other than innuendo and open-ended questions. See, it's not data nor intelligence that is leading the theorists to their theories, it's a 'feeling', which is why these theories deserve nothing better than derision.

TaiwanIsNotChina

No one in their right mind would have assumed Saddam would have gotten rid of his weapons.

No one? Please read the post again. No where was Joe six pack, Frank the Sociology Professor or Simon the businessman mentioned.

No one in their right mind would have assumed Saddam would have gotten rid of his weapons.

He didn't have any.

That was Bush doing what Republicans do - hearing innuendo, and deciding it's fact. He started a war, and destroyed a nation over it. There were no WMDs.

burgers and beersToday 09:30 am JST

No one in their right mind would have assumed Saddam would have gotten rid of his weapons.

Better stick to facts, still a Washington lie due to which more than half a million Iraqis died.

Nope, still anti-American nonsense I am responding to being pushed with the advantage of 20 years hindsight.

What happened?

What happened is that the quality of people who came online decreased due to the creation of easy to use devices that allowed even those of low intelligence access to the internet. Simple as.

Social media primarily, but other aspects of the internet too, and even other aspects of modern life, fuelled an environment in which narcissists and psychopaths can thrive. And they are very persuasive to some credulous, naive people. Thoughts, after all, travel faster in a vacuum.

BertieWooster Today 10:19 am JST

The term "conspiracy theory" was first used by Bush to quash anything that didn't agree with the official government explanation of 9/11.

Talk about misinformation,

Recorded use of the phrase “conspiracy theory” dates back to at least 1863, and it was notably invoked in reports following the 1881 shooting of then-President James A. Garfield, more than 60 years before the CIA was established.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-conspiracy-theory-jfk-941578119864

a turning point may have been when google dropped its motto “don’t be evil.”

a turning point for me was the depressing realization that nonsense written on bulletin boards and websites wasn’t by children on the internet.

i'm sure many feel the same way now. you read something and think it has to be a 12-year old writing it, but it’s an adult who has a job and a drivers license.

it’s entropy. everything breaks down over time and gets worse.

Peter Neil Today 04:13 pm JST

you read something and think it has to be a 12-year old writing it, but it’s an adult who has a job and a drivers license.

For some reason I find more irksome then misinformation the innumerable posts I see which confuse "than" and "then."

What happened? Corporations are what happened. Big money moved in and exploited it.

All it did was amplify what was already present in people.

Much like the Japanese saying, "sake-wa-hon-shin-wo-arawasu", the Internet has provided the same thing.

We keep hearing about this "misinformation" because they can no longer control the narrative. There is lots of misinformation, both online and in the MSM, but it's the truth they are worried about.

We keep hearing about this "misinformation" because they can no longer control the narrative.

If the information can be proved false, there is no narrative involved it automatically becomes misinformation. Except of course when it can be proved the people repeating it do it with the clear intention to mislead others into believing false things, which would make it disinformation.

We keep hearing about this "misinformation" because they can no longer control the narrative. There is lots of misinformation, both online and in the MSM, but it's the truth they are worried about.

Exactly! On the MSM, whenever someone expresses an anti-war or anti-pharma or anti-global warming view, they are fired or never re-invited. That was effective many years ago; Phil Donahue basically disappeared after he criticized the war. But today, that no longer works; Tucker is more popular now than he ever was on Fox! That worries the powers-that-be.

If the information can be proved false, there is no narrative involved it automatically becomes misinformation.

Yeah, if.

So, do you think the Iraq war was a good thing? That it was started for legit reasons?

We keep hearing about this "misinformation" because they can no longer control the narrative. There is lots of misinformation, both online and in the MSM, but it's the truth they are worried about

Where do we go to find this ‘truth’?

Thanks in advance.

I have noticed a lot more intelligent educated political YouTube videos by black American men and women. Of course I only watch the ones criticizing Kamala, easy to find these days, but this did not happen 4 years ago with Biden. Those whining about the lower intelligence of folks on the net is watching the wrong stuff. The ridiculous question above is just an INGSOC brainwashing attempt.

Exactly! On the MSM, whenever someone expresses an anti-war or anti-pharma or anti-global warming view, they are fired or never re-invited.

Using information that can be proved false? then it is justified, that is of course the rule for those that baselessly claim climate change is false. What is the point to inviting people that find no fault in lying and misleading people for their personal profit? It is not a narrative, just having the minimum professional ethic. Pretending media that shamelessly promote people that continously lie somehow is better is too obviously wrong.

Yeah, if.

So, do you think the Iraq war was a good thing? That it was started for legit reasons?

You understand that this example clearly proves my point, right? information that is proved false is misinformation, the same as pushed by antiscientific groups, even if they repeat it endlessly and refuse to accept the information is false.

Tucker is more popular now than he ever was on Fox!

He was caught red-handed lying to his viewers on Fox.

Now he’s grifting conspiracy theory morons.

A very cynical man. Talented in some ways though. That hysterical laugh is a bit creepy though. A bit mad.

So, do you think the Iraq war was a good thing? That it was started for legit reasons?

You understand that this example clearly proves my point, right? information that is proved false is misinformation, the same as pushed by antiscientific groups, even if they repeat it endlessly and refuse to accept the information is false.

So you're saying the Iraq war was a good thing, that it was started for legit reasons, and that they were right to fire Donahue because he spread misinformation?

Social media like Facebook for example, is nothing about connecting people anymore. I hardly ever see posts from the people on my lists. Same Instagram. So I've stopped using them both. Waste of time, anyways. So good riddance.

I notice that a lot of FB pages are dead now. People who used to post regularly haven't posted some of them for over a year!

"The problem with humanity, we have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, god-like technology." - Edward Wilson

So you're saying the Iraq war was a good thing, that it was started for legit reasons

That makes absolutely no sense with the text you are quoting, the information WAS proved false, therefore mis/disinformation. Are you on the idea that it is still considered correct information? because without that your argument makes no sense. From the very beginning people were complaining about the low reliability of the information. Pretending that proved misinformation should be allowed is the position that would justify the Iraq war.

What about the continuous mis-formation prior to the Internet from Corparate media which went unchallenged. All those years of anti Irish propaganda when the UK were conducting Apartheid. All the mis formation about JFK And RK assassination Mate the list goes on. etc. The Internet at lease challenged lying Governments and force Government to pull their finger out and arrest fifthly bad people. Shawn Diddy, Espsteins, Maxwell without the internet these bottom of the barrel filthy low life would go unchallenged. It gives trusted people a platform like Scott Ridder the UN Weapon inspectors who deny that WMD in Iraq but got lambasted by Corporate Media. No The Internet as been a blessing not a source of mis- information. It has slowed the corporate media mis- information.

John-SanToday 01:24 pm JST

Scott Ritter trusted.... right.

Keep your head bury in Fox Tai. Right. LOL.

So, do you think the Iraq war was a good thing?

Whether good or bad, I'm not sure it is connected to social media. In the UK, the cabinet member Robin Cook resigned over the decision to go to war with Iraq. He got a lot of attention and it sparked debate about the validity of the war. I guess people listened and thought about it, at least for a while. I wonder if the same would have occurred if social media was more prevalent at the time. Would Robin Cook's opinion not have been drowned out by rants that Hussein eats hedgehogs and Bush eats squirrels?

That makes absolutely no sense with the text you are quoting, the information WAS proved false, therefore mis/disinformation. 

No, at the time there was a "consensus" among the intelligence agencies that provided an excuse to invade and destroy Iraq. At that time, anyone who went against that narrative was accused of being a conspiracy theorist, spreading misinformation, or being offensive vulgar. Today it is acknowledged that the mainstream narrative was in fact disinformation, and the "conspiracy theorists" were right, but only after the damage was done.

No, at the time there was a "consensus" among the intelligence agencies that provided an excuse to invade and destroy Iraq. 

At the time people were skeptical and correctly identified the claims as an excuse, and ultimately they were proved right. You are arguing on the side of the people that promote falsehoods and even worse defend them even when the information they try to push is being proved false. According to your argument the war is still justified since nobody has the right to say it was based on misinformation. You are the one saying the war was good.

Its the same right now, claims that people are eating pets so forced deportations (to unrelated countries?) are justified are mis/disinformation, no doubt about it, already proved so.

Its the same right now, claims that people are eating pets so forced deportations (to unrelated countries?) are justified are mis/disinformation, no doubt about it, already proved so.

In the months after the 911 attacks I told all the students I was tutoring, that Bush will be attacking Iraq. Just made sense to me, like pieces in a puzzle. All the events after that, yellow cake, Powell at the UN, round the clock corporate news brainwashing, was all staged.

Don’t know or care about eating cats, your point about it is rather elementary schoolish.

On the subject of invasions, I remember the conspiracy theorists in their usual lockstep telling us that the idea of Putin invading Ukraine was pure MSM propaganda.

I think sheeple, Orwell and Idiocracy may have come up if I remember right.

Don’t know or care about eating cats, your point about it is rather elementary schoolish.

Yet people refuse to accept that information that can be proved false is misinformation, and that when it is used knowingly of the falsehoods is disinformation. I was true before and it is true now, even if people would like to pretend anything they like to hear automatically becomes true.

Conspiracy theorists will believe anything, and when one out of 100,000 of their theories pans out, they say "see!" and think that they look intelligent.

The WEB used to be called free. Then the money sites sprang up. Now they want you to turn off ad blocks and or allow them to use cookies. It's become uncommon to find a site to find the answer to a question you want to ask. It was inevitable for the money people to show up and ruin a great thing. There are fewer and fewer sites I go to. Soon, I'll use my computer only for emails. I bet they'll find a way to price people out of that, too.

Conspiracy theorists will believe anything, and when one out of 100,000 of their theories pans out, they say "see!" and think that they look intelligent

You also find they refer to other conspiracy theorists with conspiracy theory ‘proof’ of the conspiracy theory.

Their definition of ‘proof’ is very interesting.

Perhaps today's world has grown so complex that no one really perfectly can assess or articulate this reality at a point in time not to mention it's constantly changing to a point. This reality can't be describe by mere words and statistics. We are nothing more than a number and as such easily replaceable.

So of course people can't come to a common consensus among our fragmented world as the world to each of us is also a bit different.

Raw BeerSep. 21 09:30 am JST

So, do you think the Iraq war was a good thing? That it was started for legit reasons?

The rationale was sound, whether it necessitated an invasion without UN approval is a separate issue.

Their definition of ‘proof’ is very interesting.

Their proof generally pans out to be an open ended question that actually has answers, but they cover their ears and say "no no no" when someone points them at that answer.

If there is one thing you can say about conspiracy theorists as a whole, is that they are very low intelligence, and to a whole have low-self confidence in their intelligence, which is why they are so happy when they think they found something that others didn't know, and makes them look like they are more intelligent than they are.

The sad thing is, they don't see just how transparent they are, and how pathetic they look as humans for having such low self confidence.

Sometimes, ignorance in the form of extremely low intelligence, is bliss.

When there are so many tards people still thinking and believing that the Eart is flat, The Moon landings are fake, or there is a big conspiracy regarding the Covid vaccines, naturally their voice are lauder and even have the audacy of creating and promoting their dumb ideas over other... And since most of the world is made out of easily influenceble people...youndeduxt the rest.