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.
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.