Remembering that all four chatter groups studied have a distrust of conventional authority figures, RAND suggests using the more easily-persuaded in the group (moderates who aren’t fully convinced) to carry out the messaging of conventional authority figures on their behalf.
This tactic of being sneaky about where the messaging is coming from may be one of the reasons why people don’t trust conventional authority in the first place — a lack of transparency.
Gee, ya think?
Be careful who you follow.
They could try but Shills melt and post on /pol/ about how we've made their job a soul sucking hellhole. So RAND wants to be the next group to say hold my beer?
<Laughs like Snoopy the Dog>
Ok
I guess they have given up on dressing in khaki shorts and pretending to be MAGA in person. That didn't work out well.
Newsflash: They've doing that for decades.
Gee, I bet no one in the history of the world ever thought of infiltrating the enemy's camp. /s This is just the media way.
remindsd me so much of stuff we run across on GAW. also reminds me how they are doing their best to divide and conquer right here on our own platform.
Glowies have entered the chat: "We would never do that!"
Sad but makes sense. Its works against the npcs. If you bring up later on how a conspiracy was proven true, they forget about it by the next day.
I think autists will see dishonest and poorly argued messaging for what it is, regardless of whether it comes from an authority figure or a "moderate" sympathizer.
Maybe RAND should study whether authority information that's actually correct even has a conspiracy problem? For example, there's no conspiracy theory that eating candy is good for you.
And they fail, why? because it requires both truth and wisdom. They have neither.