I've been reflecting on why we are losing the battle to disinformation on an unmoderated "unmitigated free speech" platform.
It starts with government and institutional distrust. I'd suggest its the very engine that powers it.
Here’s why that distrust makes fighting disinformation so hard:
1. Trust acts as a cognitive shortcut
When we trust a source (say, a health agency), we can accept complex information without personally verifying every detail. When that trust is broken (sometimes just because a fool like RFK is believed), every claim from that source is met with skepticism. A factual statement like "vaccines save lifes" isn’t taken as reassurance, it’s seen as a cover-up. The same source that debunks the myth is the one already suspected of causing it.
2. Real failures have earned the distrust
It’s not all irrational. Governments, pharmaceutical companies, and public health bodies have made serious, documented mistakes and with covid, sometimes clumsy, arrogant pandemic communication made it worst. Conspiracy theorists weaponize these real events as “proof” that this time the same thing must be happening. The kernel of truth makes the lie slippery and hard to isolate. With the antivax propaganda engine behind it, there is no way for truth to win.
3. Disinformation offers simple villains whilst truth offers complex systems
A story about a secret cancer-causing ingredient hidden in a kids’ vaccine, for instance, is emotionally satisfying. It names a clear enemy, explains incomprehensible tragedy, and gives a sense of control. The truth is messier. Childhood cancers have multifactorial origins, research involves technical genetic tools like promoter sequences that are easily misunderstood, and safety monitoring systems are robust but hard to explain in a tweet.
Complexity loses to clarity every time in a viral social-media environment. People prefer a frightening story they can understand to a reassuring one they can’t.
4. The algorithms reward emotion, not accuracy or truth.
Platforms amplify content that sparks outrage and fear. A post claiming “They poisoned the kids’ vaccines” will always outperform a thread politely explaining plasmid DNA nomenclature. This creates a visibility asymmetry. The correction is a whisper, the conspiracy a scream. And when a terrified parent scrolls through their feed, the scream is what they see first.
5. Correcting myths can paradoxically reinforce them
Simply repeating “The SV40 sequence does not cause cancer” forces people to process the original claim again. The more familiar a falsehood becomes, the more likely it is to be remembered as true, especially when the correction comes from a distrusted institution.
Debunking now basically backfire.