Why 8kun Went Offline During the January 6 Hearings
krebsonsecurity.com
krebsonsecurity.com
The CTs are not so 'clearly fabricated' to many people; CT adherents are often credulous people who self-select or are funneled into communities where they can find validation and reinforcement. Such communities may be engineered for or sustained by profit, fiscal or political.
In terms of aggression, many CTs are based on Manichean narratives of powerful evildoers suppressing hapless truth-seekers. Qanon in particular attracts people like this, as it posits a wicked conspiracy of elites that preys upon children. Offhand I can think of 4 murders where the alleged perpetrator was immersed in such beliefs. As Voltaire wrote, Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.'
At the more cynical end, some people may not believe CTs but see an opportunity to weaponize them or an excuse to engage in behavior as a member of a group that would be unsanctioned if they acted as an individual. There's some research indicating about 30% of people are motivated by seeing others worse off, even at cost to themselves.
Sure, pundits on 24h news are often wrong, but I wouldn't call them top experts, more like hot-take-deliverers. Believe them at your peril.
Vaccination rates in children have plummeted, and I suspect if we thought anti-vax rhetoric was bad pre-covid, it's not going to hold a candle to the near future.
Another problem, which I think is more overlooked, is that when people talk about the cases of the nay-sayers being wrong, it frequently goes like this:
- Theorist claims uncomfortable truth X.
- Nay-sayer says X is not true.
- X turns out to be true.
However, most of these cases are really closer to something like this:
- Theorist claims X, which, if untrue, is a harmful thing to spread.
- Nay-sayer says there is no (or not enough) evidence for X (which is way different from insisting that X is not true).
- X turns out to be potentially true, partially true, or true for a specific case (and sometimes unqualifiedly true!).
In reality, there are vanishingly few of the former case, and even for those cases that exist, the nay-sayer's case is still frequently the better case and could reasonably be held again if the same scenario happens again, where the theorist's truth is arguably a broken-clock scenario.
Not answering your question, just a terrifying current example.
But they have a vibrant latin community so... it's all good?
Nobody is going to 8kun to discuss vidya, the proof of this being that most of the thread images 404 since an image hosting server crashed last year and Ronanon hasn't sourced either a backup or a replacement. Weaksauce.
The only significant difference really is VC backing and being owned by someone socially acceptable.
Elon's doing a good job piercing that veil with Twitter though.
sage
I think it's long past due for Krebs to stop referring to himself as a "journalist". Editorializing like this belongs squarely on the opinion page.
Nowhere is the word "journalist" to be found, though his background is more in journalism than tech.
If you write for a news site, you are a journalist. And news is right there in the header.
This insufferable guy is taking a victory lap on actively fragmenting the internet along ideological lines.