Monthly Archives: July 2009

On Rumours, Conspiracy Theories and Facebook

I’m not fond of the term “Meme,’ mostly because any serious analysis of what it takes to be a meme and how they get transferred usually breaks down (there’s a reason why Dawkin’s stopped referring to memes and started talking about the extended phenotype), but if we accept that there are these ‘packets of information that spread virally,’ and they are referred to as “memes,” then the Internet is filled, almost to the point of bursting, with them.

There is, I think, a good paper to be written (hopefully by me) about the Internet and the transmission of Rumours. Such a paper would need to touch on memes (if only because a lot of rumours on the internet get referred to as memes and because people talk about information spread on the internet as viral)1.

One of my central theses in regards to Rumours is that they are a reliable; the way Rumours are transmitted in a community of speakers and hearers should give us pretty good grounds to say that the Rumour is likely to be true (the full story is much fleshed out and hopefully will see print pending the next set of revisions). However, my analysis somewhat relies on people doing some work to check out or verify the Rumours that they hear, and sometimes (perhaps often) it astounds me that this just doesn’t seem to happen2. Take the recent ‘meme’ about Facebook allowing third-party advertisers to use user pictures without explicit permission of the users themselves; I’ve seen several colleagues spread this rumour without bothering to do the one, easy step that every educated person should do; go to Snopes.com and check to see whether it is an urban legend (because it is)

Now, the fact that I did shows that the checks and balances of the Rumour transmission process occurs and hopefully my actions will not stop friends of mine from passing on the falsehood but will also make them more likely to check the status of the next Rumour they hear… Well, that’s what I hope, but ‘hope’ springs eternal and rarely ever quenches the thirst.

It’s tricky, I admit. If Rumours are reliable, as I argue, then people probably do have a prima facie reason to take them on trust, especially if they come from a trustworthy source, but, then again, the Facebook rumour asserts something quite… well, if not exactly incredible something that is fairly damning and should be unexpected; thus, because it is unexpected, people should think ‘Okay, my source might be good, its a Rumour so its likely to be true, but given how remarkable this claim is I should be a little sceptical of it and just go check Snopes.com.”

Which made me wonder why people didn’t. A simple answer would be that we expect this kind of behaviour from entities like Facebook, which is symptomatic, I think, of a kind of Conspiracism. We have this pre-existing belief that entities like Facebook, et al, are, despite protests to the contrary, up to no good. We believe that these entities are likely to be conspiring against us, and so rumours such like ‘Facebook is allowing advertisers to use our photos’ isn’t really all that unexpected or incredible at all; it fits with our other beliefs.

Now, there is a debate as to how rational that set of beliefs (about evil corporations and what they are up to) are, and that debate will inform the debate about when we should bother to check what our sources tell us. I was suspicious about the Facebook rumour so I checked it out; other people weren’t. Now it turns out that my suspicion was correct and the credulity expressed by others was not, but given that we are talking about reliable processes it may turn out that my suspicion was actually a bit malformed and perhaps I should have been credulous… Which is where it becomes all the more tricky and I decide to leave this to another time, a time, hopefully, that produces a conference paper or even a journal article.

Food for thought.

Notes

  1. Steve Clarke, in ‘Conspiracy Theorizing and the Internet’ has touched upon the way Conspiracy Theories are spread and a paper I have in circulation runs a comparison between Conspiracy Theories and Rumours, so intellectual profit can be made from all of this.
  2. Especially when its people I know and respect.
Posted in General | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Talk/Presentation – The Slippery Slope of Conspiracy Theories

On the 5th of August I will be doing a talk double-hander with David Merry in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Auckland. David will be talking about… Actually, I don’t seem to have made a note of that. I’ll correct this when I know. I will be previewing my talk to the Skeptics later in the year (end of September to be a little more precise).

The presentation is short (about thirty minutes tops) and is aimed at a largely philosophically… well, not ignorant but rather young? I can’t work out the word to use here; my point is that readers of this blog who aren’t philosophers are heartily invited to come along. Readers of this blog who are philosophers are invited as well, but the content of the presentation won’t be the most exciting or novel thing you will have ever heard.

Time: 4-6pm, August 5th (Wednesday)

Location: The Patrick Hannan Room (Arts II, Room 501, University of Auckland – map here)

Crude abstract: In this short presentation I am going to defend and develop the notion that ‘Conspiracy Theories’ are a kind of explanation. I will then touch on some salient issues in the appraisal of such explanations, asking specifically why it is that we normally take Conspiracy Theories to be inadequate, if not outright bad, explanations. I will then go through a number of examples of popularly held Conspiracy Theories, some of which skeptics might well feel an attraction to, using them to illustrate my analysis.

Posted in Events, General | Tagged | 3 Comments

Rejection once more

Well, the paper on Rumours and Conspiracy Theories has got its second rejection from the journal and, like last time, I received a largely positive review (it features a few points I’m going to take note of; not so much criticisms but things that could feature as footnotes) and a negative review (which was nowhere near as cutting as the last negative review). Normal practice at this point is to repackage the blighter and send if off to another journal, but I do want to have a quick look over it… And the last time I did a quick look over the paper I spent five days on it; don’t have time for that at the moment. I’m a wee bit behind on the current chapter and it needs to be finished.

In related news. one of the reasons why I’m so behind on work is the film festival occurring here in Auckland; eleven films watched so far and two more to go.

Which isn’t the best of excuses for not doing work but, then again, it’s an excuse and I’m sticking by it.

Posted in General | Tagged , | Comments Off