
Ex-Googler Turned Whistleblower and QAnon Fan Made 'Plandemic' Go Viral - elsewhen
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/k7qqyn/an-ex-google-employee-turned-whistleblower-and-qanon-fan-made-plandemic-go-viral
======
tptacek
If you're unfamiliar with the batshit Plandemic video, the debunking at
_Science_ is probably the best starting point:

[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-
judy-m...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-
mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral)

The thing about Plandemic is, as big a deal as it was on Facebook, the
backlash started almost immediately; in fact, the virality had probably as
much to do with people dunking on it (and on anyone who seemed to be
propagating it) than on any kind of adoption of its message. There are no
doubt low-information people who believe the video, but my guess is that
they'd believe some other random nonsense had this video not been released.

~~~
stillbourne
> There are no doubt low-information people who believe the video, but my
> guess is that they'd believe some other random nonsense had this video not
> been released.

In a world where people think that Hillary Clinton and high society democrats
satanically ritually abuse and eat children in the basement of a pizzeria, I
think perhaps the level of nonsense people are capable of believing may exceed
expectations.

~~~
tptacek
Really, that's my point: if it wasn't Plandemic, it would be PlanzzaGate.

------
fossuser
I find this kind of thing scary because it seems like it’s so easy to go down
a rabbit hole and begin to believe crazy things that break your ability to
reason.

Lots of people already believe crazy things, how easy is it to get trapped by
conspiracy nonsense? Does exposure take an otherwise rational person and
infect them with delusions? Does it require some underlying predisposition? Is
there a good way to defend yourself?

It freaks me out in part because I suspect we’re all more vulnerable to it
than we think we are. I think possibly even more than average because we’re
more willing to question what we believe to be true, I just hope my tools of
reasoning about what’s true continue to work.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
The solution is good education. Teach children critical reading skills, i.e.
question what you read, conduct a debate in your head rather than simply
accepting it because it's the printed word.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. at least, children are not being taught to think
critically. They barely have read a single book by the end of high school, let
alone the panoply of the great classics. I know this for a fact; I have a high
schooler currently finishing 9th grade and it seems as if her history and
literature teachers are more focused on social justice topics than the grand
pageant of Western culture. Too bad.

~~~
lowdose
It is the same in Europe where fallacies are only taught to the class prepped
to go to universities. Almost as if logical thinking is preserved to a special
kind of people.

Critical thinking what I learned in the first year of university like Carl
Popper and such should have been given to every child after writing.

If children do not understand it is on the teachers that they do not get the
point. More investment is maybe necessary in visuals, animations to put life
into stories that are otherwise to abstract for kids to grasp.

~~~
fossuser
It's not just the kids, a lot of the teachers are terrible at critical
thinking too.

I suspect it's actually a minority of the population that does it at all in
any capacity.

~~~
lowdose
Exactly but for many people it is an unknown unknown in this case and for the
minority of people that are aware of this choose for a significant amount of
time to exclude 90% of the population in this matter.

------
kens
Back in 2009, I used Paul Graham's Arc language to do some simple genome
analysis of XMRV [1], the virus (wrongly) claimed to cause chronic fatigue
syndrome. That virus was discovered by Mikovits, the star of this video. It's
kind of bizarre for her to reappear a decade later in a conspiracy video.

[1] [http://www.righto.com/2009/11/simple-genome-analysis-with-
ar...](http://www.righto.com/2009/11/simple-genome-analysis-with-arc-in.html)

------
fzeroracer
This readily illustrates the problem with trying to fight a lie on equal
grounds. Once the lie has gone viral it's no longer an even fight; you're now
trying to convince a large portion of the world that what they read was wrong.
Even worse the fact that the lie is now popular further shields it, because it
becomes an argument of 'how could it be wrong when so many people have seen
it' and 'no one would spread a lie like this'. You're no longer fighting a
battle of fact vs fiction, you're fighting a battle of ideology which is much
harder to win.

This can become seriously dangerous by preemptively trying to get people to
avoid vaccination or by not taking basic measures to prevent disease spread
such as wearing a mask.

~~~
tzs
Also, even if you do successfully fight it, in the time it took you to make
your case the makers of the lie have had time to make and spread two or more
other lies because making lies is less work than refuting lies.

------
henriquez
I had not heard of this Plandemic film before reading this article, but now
I'm going to look it up. I enjoy viewing anything labeled with the "debunked
conspiracy theory" trope at this point.

As far as I can tell the lede here is "let's dox some random YouTuber." Not
super classy.

~~~
rconti
On the flip side, you could view it as giving publicity to people with ideas
that weren't worth spreading in the first place. After all, you hadn't heard
of it before this article was posted here; I'm sure it'll be new to many
others as well, so actually the publicity will help them. An alternative would
be not covering it at all.

As it turns out, not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same
value.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _As it turns out, not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same
> value._ "

In 1981, it was "obvious" to industry professionals that the x86 was only
suitable for microcomputers and serious computing would always be done on
servers and big iron. Talking about it was, in the parent poster's words,
would have been " _giving publicity to people with ideas that weren 't worth
spreading in the first place_"

In the mid 1990s, it was "obvious" to industry professionals and pundits that
Linux was a toy OS for hobbyists and would never amount to anything. Talking
about it was, in the parent poster's words, would have been " _giving
publicity to people with ideas that weren 't worth spreading in the first
place_"

While the last thing I want to do is to defend the video authors, the point is
that nobody can ever know what ideas are going to have value and that's why
stifling ideas is a losing game despite the vast majority of ideas being
worthless.

~~~
tedunangst
Is there no difference between conjecture about yet to happen future events
and promoting false claims about the past?

~~~
ThrowawayR2
No. Take, for example, "China admits Wuhan coronavirus death toll at least 50%
higher than first reported" [0]. Would you have labeled those who said before
that admission that the death toll in Wuhan was probably higher than the
official number as "promoting false claims about the past"? What truth would
you have based your decision on?

I have as little love for the Holocaust-deniers as anyone but I have just as
little love for those who want to suppress "false claims about the past"
because I know darned well they have no better idea of what the truth is than
anyone else and that it won't stop at just the obvious falsehoods.

[0] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wuhan-death-toll-coronavirus-
ch...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wuhan-death-toll-coronavirus-
china-50-higher-than-first-reported-today-2020-04-17/)

