Fake news and conspiracy theories

Had an interesting discussion and took the following notes. 

Differentiating epistemic positions and beliefs

What is the difference between fake news and a conspiracy theory?

First, let me define my understanding of a conspiracy theory. I understand it to mean:

a) There is a theory (belief, proposition, hypothesis) that

b) There exists a conspiracy (secret plan amongst a group of two or more people)

c) To do something malevolent (harmful) to society.

So for example, if we know Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth worked with others, then they were conspirators. At the time they were planning to perform their malevolent acts (assassination), they were effectively, conspiring (Latin: Con- together; -spirare: to breathe or hope; compare e.g. to be inspired). So, if someone at the time suspected them of plotting murder, then, that person would have a theory that there was a conspiracy afoot. A person believing in that theory would, in fact, on my definition, have a conspiracy theory.

However, nowadays, "conspiracy theory" seems to have developed a negative or pejorative sense. Meaning something like "crazy belief". I do not use it in that sense. I use it just to mean, a belief that there is a conspiracy to cause harm.

Now, how do I understand "fake news"? Let's start with "news". I understand "news", in the sense of "the press" or "journalism" to refer to new sociopolitical information or descriptions of events which affect persons or their interests. So what then, is "fake" news? Well, this is just also purported new sociopolitical information or descriptions of events which affect persons or their interests, BUT which is false.

A conspiracy theory is similar in that it is also new sociopolitical information or descriptions of events - specifically plans for nefarious deeds - which would affect persons or their interests, BUT which is not known to be true (could be true, could be false).

Both conspiracy theories and news aim to inform people of bad things that are happening, or which will shortly happen. Fake news, again, like "conspiracy theory", is taken as a pejorative. 

Hence, if we equate fake news and conspiracy theories, we are expressing skepticism about both positions, that is, that the information content is false. 

In both cases, the burden of disproof is given to the skeptic, however, in normal scientific practice, the burden of proof (providing supporting evidence) is given to the proposer of the theory, and, any disproof offered by a skeptic is taken as definitive, or conclusive, disproof of the theory. Think for example of normal news. If we see a video to the effect that a riot has taken place in a certain city, we might think that the video footage is faked, or old, or from another city. If the footage is faked or old or from another city, that is grounds for dismissing the video as fake news. However, if we see supporting evidence, such as newspaper reports, eyewitness testimonies, or even better, first-hand experience, where we drive through the riot ourselves and have our car smashed up, that is strong supporting evidence that the riot in fact did take place. So, what qualifies something as fake news (or a conspiracy theory), is that it lacks strong or compelling evidence. However, that some people "fall for" these ideas or information content pieces, shows that some people simply have lower standards of what is compelling evidence, or, the narrative better fits their world view. (Let's suppose that in the case of a conspiracy theorist, or fake-news sharer, that they do not double-check the theory, or, that they do not have direct personal experience of the theory or news being true, such as having personally driven through a riot, or personally helped manufacture a virus, etc).

This leaves us with the job of distinguishing fake news and conspiracy theories. Let's suppose that conspiracy theories are a subset of fake news. That is, fake news is news of anything bad that has happened or is about to happen, whereas conspiracy theories (the ones that are actually false) are a form of fake news that specifically imputes malevolent planning to the bad events. 

So, fake news might report that an earthquake destroyed London, with, say, pictures of ruined buildings. But a conspiracy theory would go further and allege that the destruction was created by a targeted seismic weapon, and that the weapon was fired by the US government to eliminate British power, or somesuch. Another example: meat causes cancer (fake news); whereas: Big Meat lobby is deliberately hiding the fact that meat causes cancer (conspiracy theory). Another example: fake news: 5G "causes" covid. Conspiracy: The Illuminati created 5G to cause covid. So, in short, a conspiracy theory - in the pejorative sense - is a theory that gives imputation or planning explanations behind fake news, and, often links the events to other bad events. 

Fake news drives, causes and informs conspiracy theories, and the conspiracy theory seeks to explain the fake news. In other words, fake news is the explanandum and the conspiracy theory is the explanans. Once you reject the explanandum as nonsense, you no longer need the explanans. Hence, most attacks on conspiracy theories try to debunk the explanandum: the fake news claims.

As we can see, the difference between real news and fake news is the credibility or expertise level of the source. Hence, conspiracy theorists always rebut criticism by saying "do your own research", implying that expert or official sources are not to be trusted.  So the differences boil down to: trustability of source (nature of source); extent of focused leadership or source (does it come from one person, or one organisation); is there intent, malice or planning behind the events forthcoming; and are there systematic links to other events or plans?

Given how similar these information types are, it is easy to see why people struggle to differentiate them, especially if they are skeptical of official sources or experts.

Futher research

Further areas or aspects worth thinking about are:

- The extent to which conspiracy theories are like cults (have a leader, ostracise you if you disagree, have fixed doctrines or beliefs which are immune to evidence or correction, specialised or targeted enemies, theories which can explain everything, can cause members to become socially isolated, etc); Once we understand the psychology we can prevent fake news being accepted and feeling as if it needs explaining.

- What the psychological motive is to accept and share fake news; and what the motive is to accept, share, or proselytise a conspiracy theory (perhaps control, attention seeking, vanity, acceptance, social acclaim, hierarcy, specialised knowledge claims, recognition, fear, followers on social media?). Once we understand the psychology we can prevent conspiracy theories from arising.

- What is the fundamental flaw in a conspiracy theorist's thinking which leads him to offer conspiratorial explanations for ANY news, fake or real? If real news (such as covid-19) comes forward, sometimes we see conspiracy theories arising in order to explain that. In such cases, it is the sheer drama of the real news that prompts the conspiracy theorist to try explain. Hence, conspiracy theories (in the pejorative sense), are not there just to explain fake news, but, to explain any dramatic, out of the ordinary, or terrifying news (such as war, pandemics, etc).

Primary hypothesis

Fake news appeals to one's pre-existing identity, culture, and belief structure, and fear of things threatening that identity, culture, and belief structure. It relies on confirmation bias; the tendency to believe what you already believe and find more evidence supporting it. If you already believe, for example, that the US government is fundamentally malevolent, you will also be inclined to accept the 9-11 conspiracy theory (That the US govt did it). Fake news relies to a large extent on its implied threat or danger toward the target market. A republican middle american who saw fake news that the government was rounding up immigrants and taking their guns as well, would not only believe the news but think it was a good thing, and not be concerned, as it would not directly affect him. He would only bother sharing it if he had a particular hatred of immigrants, and wanted to share his schadenfreude with others. However, a Mexican immigrant would read that news with terror and believe it, and share it a lot on social media as a result, in an attempt to help his community avoid ICE officials. Hence, fundamentally, fake news spreads amongst audiences to which the threat contained therein, is targeted. It spreads due to not noticing one's own confirmation bias (lack of critical thinking).