My latest article about scientific memes seems to have hit a nerve with segments of the anti-vax, lableak, 'great reset' #conspiracy myth crowd.
Now I am apparently in the hall of fame, next to Fauci, @PeterDaszak, and Cuomo?! as a "maniac in power" 🙄
What power do I have? 1/
Well, quite a lot apparently.
You see, using precise analyses, well-documented research, case examples, and expert opinions in my work & make them accessible to a wider readership is threatening to the 'alternative reality' ecosystem.
Now obviously my personal ambition has been to educate and to try to offer a more systemic understanding of why a discrepancy between science and society is bad for us in the long run.
Bad for science, bad for the public good, bad for democracy, and bad the world.
3/
This is not an easy or intuitive argument to make, and I am certainly by far not the only one making it.
I might be even the most unimportant voice, given the work of many brilliant disinformation researchers, investigative journalists, and scientists.
Yet it is still worth
4/
speaking up for democracy, because every second these actors waste on thinking or harassing me, they will not do so against more important voices who were too long alone in this fight against alternative reality ecosystems and mis/disinformation
So yeah, keep'em coming guys
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think there is a nuanced argument to be made why democracies can not afford small lies in service of greater goods.
Using the lableak conspiracy myth as a cudgel to hammer biosafety concerns into people might seem like a small price for a worthy cause, but what people
tend
1/
to ignore is that lies (and especially conspiracy myths) are an externality that a democratic society can not afford.
The same is true for using the conspiracy myth to sell people on the moral and worldview failings of a geopolitical adversary. Yes, democracies should not be
2/
naive when it comes to autocratic nations like China, especially since their political leader has been accumulating more power and might pose dramatic challenges to the world in the future.
Agreed on that part. But 'fighting fire with fire' and propaganda with propaganda
3/
While it is true that @KatherineEban sham article in @propublica will eventually be corrected/retracted based on its errors, it does not matter. Damage is already done, targeted at the midterm elections, and later corrections might be embarassing but irrelevant to them.
This is what people often do not understand about information operations, the right timing has a much higher strategic utility than the unwelcome repercussions from lies later when attention has wandered off.
They already won, holding them accountible to correct the record is
2/
necessary but ultimately insufficient to deter future malicious behavior.
The only consequences @KatherineEban will see for her unethical behavior and journalistic malfeasance is at best a slap on the finger and a falling out of polite circles with some scientists.
Small price
but what is the most interesting for me is the way how some game designers manage to create choice architectures that allow us to explore ourselves.
This is the core of games as an art form, and dependent on our own agency through the choices we make, concepts like empathy
2/
can become alive in hitherto unprecedented ways.
But what might be even more important is that as a new art form building around human agency, games inevitable open up a new space for experimentation and exploration that might be critical for human society.
3/
MEME ALERT: There is a new GOP minority report out today 'concluding' SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab.
I've read it and it is basically a rehash of outdated #lableak talking points, irrelevant anecdotes, and a strong misrepresentation of scientific studies and data.
Short version:
WHAT TO EXPECT:
#Rightwing networks will amplify this anti-scientific report dramatically in hopes of mobilizing their #conspiratorial base before the midterms.
If you are an individual: Ignore & don't amplify.
If you are an influencer: Talk to scientists & don't amplify
If you are a journalist: Investigate & don't amplify.
I read @KelseyTuoc coverage on the 'synthetic' origins preprint, and while there are parts I vehemently disagree with, I appreciate the sentiment that it tries to shine a light behind 'how the sausage was made'. So consider reading it: vox.com/future-perfect… via @voxdotcom
Now some of my contentions, which I will outline shortly but can also be found in here:
First, the decision to cover comes with undue amplification. In @KelseyTuoc case, probably a smaller issue given the economist blurting it into the world irresponsibly
She also acknowledges that this would not usually be covered by her and her story had a 'meta' section which is responsible to do.
Second issue more serious: undue credibility bestowed on the authors without mentioning their history of advancing false scientific claims...
Bit embarrassing when your own university feels the need to put out a statement lamenting "methodological weaknesses" and "over-interpretation" and refutes your main conclusion.
the statement does not include acknowledgements that Bruttel has a history of problematic claims about viruses.
To put it mildly. He has never seen a virus not being engineered.
2/
Second (but I guess expectedly for University PR reasons), no mentioning of likely fraudulent conduct by Bruttel et al. by excluding genomes they were explicitly made aware of months before would contradict their hypothesis.