What’s happening in America today is something darker than a misinformation crisis.

The truth is, it’s getting harder to describe the extent to which a meaningful percentage of Americans have dissociated from reality. As Hurricane Milton churned across the Gulf of Mexico last night, I saw an onslaught of outright conspiracy theorizing and utter nonsense racking up millions of views across the internet. The posts would be laughable if they weren’t taken by many people as gospel. Among them: Infowars’ Alex Jones, who claimed that Hurricanes Milton and Helene were “weather weapons” unleashed on the East Coast by the U.S. government, and “truth seeker” accounts on X that posted photos of condensation trails in the sky to baselessly allege that the government was “spraying Florida ahead of Hurricane Milton” in order to ensure maximum rainfall, “just like they did over Asheville!”

As Milton made landfall, causing a series of tornados, a verified account on X reposted a TikTok video of a massive funnel cloud with the caption “WHAT IS HAPPENING TO FLORIDA?!” The clip, which was eventually removed but had been viewed 662,000 times as of yesterday evening, turned out to be from a video of a CGI tornado that was originally published months ago. Scrolling through these platforms, watching them fill with false information, harebrained theories, and doctored images—all while panicked residents boarded up their houses, struggled to evacuate, and prayed that their worldly possessions wouldn’t be obliterated overnight—offered a portrait of American discourse almost too bleak to reckon with head-on.

Even in a decade marred by online grifters, shameless politicians, and an alternative right-wing-media complex pushing anti-science fringe theories, the events of the past few weeks stand out for their depravity and nihilism. As two catastrophic storms upended American cities, a patchwork network of influencers and fake-news peddlers have done their best to sow distrust, stoke resentment, and interfere with relief efforts. But this is more than just a misinformation crisis. To watch as real information is overwhelmed by crank theories and public servants battle death threats is to confront two alarming facts: first, that a durable ecosystem exists to ensconce citizens in an alternate reality, and second, that the people consuming and amplifying those lies are not helpless dupes but willing participants…

… “The primary use of ‘misinformation’ is not to change the beliefs of other people at all. Instead, the vast majority of misinformation is offered as a service for people to maintain their beliefs in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary”…

… As one dispirited meteorologist wrote on X this week, “Murdering meteorologists won’t stop hurricanes.” She followed with: “I can’t believe I just had to type that”…

  • Avid Amoeba
    253·
    3 months ago

    that the people consuming and amplifying those lies are not helpless dupes but willing participants…

    Ah yes, the willing participants who tweak the algorithms to show them the most enraging hyper personalized garbage there is.

    Wait those might be different people.

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      1413·
      3 months ago

      Algorithms will show you what you like and what others like you like. That’s it. I got Muslim dating apps all day every day because I lived in London, but I never clicked, so it went away. It didn’t convert me to islam, just like seeing a church outside didn’t make me Christian because I’m semi-capable of at least some thought and not purely instinctual animalistic behaviour as you imply is the case for those who are led by algorithms.

      As I said before, the internet is simply airing out our dirty laundry. Humans are bloodthirsty ghouls most of the time and will believe whatever it takes to justify killing each other.

      In the context of WW2 for instance Hitler is the “bad guy”, but compared to some of the shit Churchill got up to for instance with the Bengali, he seemed fairly civilised, and even that would’ve seemed soft compared to Stalin’s purges and the Holodomor, but say what you will - none of them had Jim Crow laws.

      Im not trying to say all are equal, but more that it’s not at all surprising so many seem downright evil

        • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          22·
          3 months ago

          Yeah what’s engagement? Interactions. The winning move is not to play the game. I’ve yet to hear reasons why this is more difficult than e.g. stopping littering on the street or eating junk food.

          • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
            11·
            3 months ago

            Engagement and retention are both important. If the solution to retention is to walk away then the solution to engagement is to not be engaged that doesn’t track to me. Maybe the idea is to avoid phones, the internet and TV entirely which is not an idea that is grounded in reality.

            This one is less interesting to me for some reason, I think it’s an easier assumption to make or maybe it’s that the argument about harmful algorithms gained traction over a decade ago.

            This is an earlier paper but is a solid primer that touches on it

            The researchers positively showed that news and updates on Face-­‐ book influence the tenor of the viewing Facebook-­‐user’s subsequent posts

            Here’s an entire book about it or an article.

            Social media addiction has emerged as a problem of global concern, with researchers all over the world conducting studies to evaluate how pervasive the problem is.

            • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              1·
              2 months ago

              I don’t question that Facebook et al optimize for retention and engagement. I don’t question they’re also successful, I know all these things.

              What I don’t understand is why?

              Dr.Pepper was also very successful in getting me hooked as a teenager with his much less sophisticated tactics of sugar and soapy cherry-flavoured delights, however I stopped that, it wasn’t that hard compared to other basic day to day things in life like having to get up for work or brushing my teeth, compared to finding a job there’s basically no comparison.

              Flash forward to 2018, I had every corporate product a techie would have, now I have almost nothing trendy at all. So I wonder why when I say I’m leaving a platform because of its shady practices e.g. advertising or algorithms I just go ahead and do, but others cannot simply do so. I don’t use corpo/algo social media, I’ve unsubscribed from almost all the streaming services, on the internet I block all ads, on websites I don’t know I block JavaScript altogether, I bypass paywalls, I block known trackers, I don’t pay for media and torrent everything.

              The question is why?

              How can I take my seemingly unusual ability to just let go despite being exposed to the same algorithms etc and give it to others?

      • Avid Amoeba
        113·
        3 months ago

        For the Internet as a whole, perhaps. For Meta platforms and equivalent - this is factually false. They do not simply show you what you like. Far from it. You should read up on it if you haven’t.

      • flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        41·
        3 months ago

        To elaborate on what others have replied already, the algorithms will show you what will keep you on the platform, not what you like. Optimising for this means keeping you angry, not happy. Angry and divided people stick around so they can tell the other side how wrong they are (or watch their favourite pundit do that for them)

            • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              14·
              3 months ago

              Facebook doesn’t cause physical dependency on a chemical like opioids or even benzos. Being “”“addicted”“” to Facebook is like being “”“addicted”“” to weed.

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                2·
                3 months ago

                They are different kinds of addictions. You can very much be addicted to the lifestyle and coping mechanism of weed. Hell you can be addicted to going to the gym or shopping. People could very much be addicted to something that is so core to their identity.

                • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  11·
                  3 months ago

                  Yup, but that’s not the same. Alcohol withdrawals can kill you. Nicotine/Opioid/Benzo withdrawals can seriously hurt you. With weed or tiktok? It’s just hard.

                  • Lightor@lemmy.world
                    11·
                    3 months ago

                    Yeah, not arguing lethality, but it has been studied that weed can be addictive. Either way, my point was that people can be addicted to almost anything. Pair that with mental issues and you can have very serious issues with removing the addiction.

              • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
                31·
                3 months ago

                Lately when an article or comment interests me I’ve been attempting to dig into it and make sure my beliefs hold water, I like to be skeptical but informed. Here’s some stuff I found and it’s here if you’re feeling open minded or curious.

                Canadian Gov on weed and addiction

                Contrary to popular belief, people can become addicted to cannabis. Continued, frequent and heavy cannabis use can cause physical dependency and addiction. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/health-effects/addiction.html

                Communities of people who struggle to stop using cannabis. Many first hand accounts from long term users: https://old.reddit.com/r/leaves/ https://old.reddit.com/r/addiction/ https://forum.weedless.org/

                A podcast with Mathew Hill

                Addiction The addictive potential of cannabis is another critical area of discussion. and explore the concept of cannabis use disorder, noting that while cannabis may not be as addictive as substances > like opioids, it can still lead to significant dependence 1. Hill explains that the criteria for cannabis use disorder are similar > to those for alcohol or opioid use disorders, including the potential for life disruption and risky behaviors 2.

                There’s no question that people can develop cannabis use disorder. I mean, it’s definitely a thing.

                Mathew Hill’s lab is not against cannabis. It’s focus is on understanding THC in the body.

                our lab is particularly focused on how it regulates stress responses, affective behaviour, and feeding and metabolism.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        2·
        3 months ago

        You seem to be implying everyone is you and knows what you know or are as “rational”

        Like you reduce other people to animals and also assume they are not being tricked or pushed into more radical beliefs because… Ehh?

        Your nuanced take is not a take at all. It’s just you touting superiority.