How to differentiate between true conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories that are used as a weapon to hide the truth

[noname223]

Trump says his Epstein connections were a hoax or conspiracy of the left to ruin him
Israel says the suffering of the Palestinians was mostly staged. They call it Pallywood.
There are fake narratives around the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Cui bono? Who benefits from a particular narrative.

Being aware of cognitive distortions and biases of the sources that one relies on

Being up-to-date with noname223's newest threads on your favorite pro-choice suicide forum (best source for politics)

Follow the money

A healthy skepticism without the need to take antipsychotics to keep your paranoia in check

Evaluate the credibility and history of takes of the sources you use

Don't fall for confirmation bias - very common, understand how your psyche functions and how you process information

Be aware of misinformation campaigns and learn to spot bad actors

Do you have good suggestions to add?

 

[Dejected 55]

Define "true conspiracy theory" to me... That feels like an oxymoron. By definition a conspiracy theory is unsubstantiated rumor, usually designed and intended to inflame and upset people. IF a conspiracy theory ever turns out to be true, then it was never a conspiracy theory in the first place.

Sometimes when we first learn a thing it can seem unbelievable. It can be labeled as conspiracy if it seems to target a person or a group and is largely unsubstantiated and seems to benefit the opposition. IF a conspiracy theory is proven untrue than it was either a lie, a fabrication, or incorrect conclusions drawn from flawed information. IF a conspiracy theory is proven to be true, then it was just a revelation or discovery.

As a mind exercise, forming a conspiracy theory about a secret cabal of lizard people who own everything and control all the world's leaders can be entertaining if you don't truly believe it OR seek to have anyone else truly believe it. But some conspiracy theories are intended to sow discord, to bring a side down, to elevate another side, to distract and get everyone looking one way while you do something for your own gain in the other direction.

But like any "theory" a conspiracy theory is nothing without factual backing. With facts and proof, it is no longer a theory, no matter how fantastical it may have seemed at first. Without facts, it is at best distracting entertainment... at worst evil intentional obfuscation to distract from real harm being done elsewhere.

 

[Hvergelmir]

Just to get the terms straight:
Conspiracy is when a group cooperates, to perform an illegal or subversive act. This happens quite frequently.
A theory is an explanation of how and why observations relate to one another, supported by well-tested hypotheses. A theory is as close to certainty as we get in the natural world.
A fact is an observation or a measurement. A proof, is a purely mathematical/logic term - true by definition.

My first rule would be to accept uncertainty; that we simply can't know.
My second rule would be to spot when someone builds upon unproven hypotheses, or unverified observations.

Common "conspiracy theories" often rely on several unproven hypotheses to be true. Very often things are built on top of dubious claims, before culminating in emotional pressure to choose side.

 

[Forever Sleep]

The question is interesting. Do you suppose there are very innocent conspiracy theories out there? Aren't all of them suspicions that the powers that be are hiding the truth from us for their own gain?

I guess- there are differences, as others have pointed out- between plain theories and, conspiracy theories. So- 'I saw strange fast moving lights in the sky. I think it may have been an alien.' Is a theory. 'We've been told that the impossibly fast moving lights were drones- we think we're being lied to- we still think they're aliens' is a conspiracy theory.

I suspect all conspiracy theories are malicious in some way. Take 9/11. 'Conspiracy theories' abound that it was an inside job. I still find that plausible myself, because I still find many of the actual circumstances and explanations very strange. Things like- the collapse of building 7. (The unlikelihood of) finding a terrorist passport in the ruins. The independent discovery of thermite (a military grade explosive) in the dust. Just how the buildings collapsed in freefall seemed off.

The question is- where is the conspiracy theory there? Is it those that propose that it was an inside job? Is what they put forward accurate? What motive do they have to suspect/ accuse their own government of killing its own citizens? Or, is it the official line that is the conspiracy theory? I think it can be massively difficult to find the truth. Especially when such high powered agencies are involved.

I'm suspicious of just about anything a politician says- as a rule. Most especially if they are photographed or recorded in a compromising situation and, then go on to make excuses or denials. If they flat out deny it, it seems all the more suspicious.

Sure, AI is a problem now but for now, it's not quite that good to fool everyone. They can presumably test for authenticity if the matter is that serious too.

Most people in power though, I automatically view with a certain level of mistrust! I'm sure a lot will lie to gain favour, displace blame and save face. I'm willing to consider anything they say is a potential lie to benefit themselves ultimately.

 

[Skallagrim]

Conspiracy - when people, governments, or corporations, act either illicitly or immorally, for their own gain, without discussing or disclosing it to those they should. By that standard, conspiracies are happening CONSTANTLY. Everything from studies into the damage tobacco does to how welfare cuts affect suicide rates - suppressed. Governments, businesses, they don't want to act, fix right what's wrong if can be used against them, or pay money to right the wrongs they've caused.

The problem now, which we all have and which is why conspiracy "theories" are proliferating so much, is that the media is now a part of it. Most of our current affairs journals are either owned by corporations who are, in turn, owned by another corporation, which itself owns the companies they're supposed to report on. Example; the "far-left" outlet MSNBC is owned by NBCUniveral. This is, in turn, owned by Comcast. Comcast is part owned by the "asset management" firm known as Blackrock. Blackrock also have a stake in the agriculture giant, Monsanto. So we end up with this "far-left" news outlet running stories on Monsanto like this.

If anyone is curious as to what Monsanto are actually like, here is the video from Veritasium. If you look at the people interviewed, they're scientists and experts, not people wearing tinfoil hats.

Spoiler: Monsanto Exposed

So, to address the question, how to differentiate between conspiracy theories that are nutty and those that might have some validity? You can't. Not really. By their nature you're getting information that comes from sources you can't identify or verify most of the time. It could be something from an important person who is desperately trying to warn people. It could be some nutter with an axe to grind. So at that point, it comes down to the credibility of the source. Someone who you trust telling you that they have information from someone THEY trust is better than someone with a track history of lying telling you the same thing. Trust is habit, gained over time and lost quite quickly.

In fact, this is what's fueling the rise of conspiracy theorists in general - mainstream media is completely untrustworthy now. Everyone knows it, but most people just feel it without explicitly understanding why. So let me get into the weeds here for a second.

Check the framing of mainstream media news these days. Imagine how takes on a story would be if the platform was truly neutral. This sounds obvious but it isn't. In fact it's really subtle most of the time.

Gonna use the current wars in Ukraine and Gaza to give an example of what I mean.

Here are two stories from the BBC about the current war in Ukraine;

Ukraine strikes key Russian oil terminal in massive drone attack.

Ukraine says three killed in 'massive' Russian aerial attack.

The first article details the damage done to the country. The headline goes with an almost triumphant tone of "yeah!" compared to the second. It pays lip service to the civilians hit in these attacks, but does its best not to push them forward.

The second article contains no details at all on the damage done to Ukraine's capacity to continue fighting, as it doesn't want to demoralize supporters of Ukraine. The title leads with dead civilians, intended to provoke your emotions. It also says, just out the blue; "Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022." - Completely superfluous and, no matter how hard you look, you won't find any article from these outlets that says "George Bush launched a full-scale invasion of..." or "Obama's drone strikes have killed..." or any action by any Western country that revolves around one single individual like this - anyone who knows anything about this knows that the entire political machinery went for this.

Rights or wrongs of this war, or any other war, are irrelevant to my point. If you have an opinion on situations like this - that's fine. But if the place where you're getting your information about these things is taking a side, and then giving you only that side's story, then you're not forming the opinion, they're forming the opinion and planting it in your head.

Now that was a subtle example of how insidious these things are. For people skeptical I'm going to give you some less subtle examples of framing.

Spoiler: Take a look

Each of those competing examples was plucked from the identical outlet. So it's not just a case of me grabbing apples and oranges.

Let me reiterate, I am categorically NOT taking a side, or telling you what to think about any war or any situation. What I AM telling you is that if your takes about this conflict are based on what you've read in The Telegraph (UK News Website of the Year)...

Spoiler: Schroedinger's victory

...you've been had.

This sort of framing happens all the time now as media outlets have become more involved in being part of politics instead of informing on it (any news outlet that expresses any preference for something is, by definition, involved in trying to get that something to happen; and you should not trust it from then on).

But a conspiracy theorist? Some guy like Chris Hedges? Or Glenn Greenwald? People without dogs in these races? People with no links to party politics or have affiliations with shady characters? It's just far easier to trust them now. As paradoxical as it might seem, the less you hear from someone, and the less you know about them, the more we're starting to trust them.

So, more generally, if you've found yourself increasingly skeptical of mainstream media it's not because you're getting any stupider or turning into a whack-job. You are not imagining it. You are seeing this, then you are seeing this, and if that destroys your trust in these institutions, that actually makes you the normal one. And if, looking for answers, you've gone to some strange places, you're not turning into a lunatic, no matter what they say.