does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ?

Kerensa

Closed Account
Re: the OP again, though, I think an interesting question is whether social media, due to the sheer number of consumers/participants, crosses any kind of threshold. By that I mean that while one can yell "fire" at home, one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, because various thresholds have been crossed (number of people, factored by size of space = too dangerous). Or that one can own a pistol but not a 60mm.

Certainly, China is applying this logic in declaring "rumor-mongering" illegal, though the law applies whether the rumor is spread online or offline.

Personally, of course, I'm against repressing speech whether offline or online, and I think China's logic is flawed, or rather the rule applies too broadly and is not specifically tailored enough to be a good law.

Interstingly, CSP spokesman Lt. Paul Vance stated that people conveying inaccurate information online about Sandy Hook would be prosecuted as felons (!). The traditional media had some fun with that.

I think it smacks more of a generational disconnect than anything. Again with the older generation's abiding suspicion of "things computer." Not that they're all unjustified.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Interstingly, CSP spokesman Lt. Paul Vance stated that people conveying inaccurate information online about Sandy Hook would be prosecuted as felons (!). The traditional media had some fun with that.
What a legal quagmire THAT would be!
 

Kerensa

Closed Account
What a legal quagmire THAT would be!
Lol. I must shamefully I admit I was looking forward to the spectacle. As far as I know, there were no cases brought.

But I also found it kind of chilling, and hoped it wouldn't be one of those funny-at-first, not-so-funny-later deals.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I don't think there's any mystery. I had been asked why I first thought Ryan was the shooter, or something to that effect, and I'm sure it's for the same reason many others in the nation thought the same. I feel like I should ask what the mystery is, lol.
I was more trying to get at the repetition of an account that never held water, never made sense…why all this time later
keep implying that anyone ever thought a guy in New York would be the Connecticut shooter…
(unless of course you were trying to indirectly support some kind of conspiracy theory…and since you made lots and
lots of long posts suggesting--but never proving--that a helicopter should've been called because of road blockage…
since I could never quite get a direct answer about where you were going with all that…
combined with your previous comment about thinking that Adam Lanza didn't even exist (which I realize you no longer say),
I'm just trying to figure out what you this all adds up to. I swear, Kerensa, I'm not tying to give you a bad time…
I just get confused when people put a massive amount of energy into trying to establish a dubious point,
and the poster will never clearly say why that point would've mattered. I can only guess that you have a motive
re. a theory that you'd prefer not to share…and I confess that I'm not as patient as many here, who will just
go back and forth with you endlessly, hoping there's ultimately a point or theory. Cute avatar, though. :)
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
What a legal quagmire THAT would be!
Agreed, which is why looking at Vance's comments in context is so important.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/tech/social-media/newtown-social-media-crime/

Read broadly, out of context, and as applying indefinitely to the future, yes, Vance's comments could be truly chilling.

But given that his remarks were made the Sunday right after the horror of Friday, as countless idiots
created fake "Adam Lanza" profiles for attention or to muddy the investigation, it's obvious he's speaking to that,
and not garden variety CT nonsense. To the best of my knowledge, no one was prosecuted or even specifically threatened
with prosecution just for being wrong, stupid, conspiratorial, etc. In other words, lots of indignant CTs…no charges.
Also, I don't believe Vance ever said anything like since that one time December 2012…which would be odd
if there really was a plan to prosecute folks for "conveying inaccurate information online about Sandy Hook."
 

Kerensa

Closed Account
I was more trying to get at the repetition of an account that never held water, never made sense…why all this time later
keep implying that anyone ever thought a guy in New York would be the Connecticut shooter…
(unless of course you were trying to indirectly support some kind of conspiracy theory…and since you made lots and
lots of long posts suggesting--but never proving--that a helicopter should've been called because of road blockage…
since I could never quite get a direct answer about where you were going with all that…
combined with your previous comment about thinking that Adam Lanza didn't even exist (which I realize you no longer say),
I'm just trying to figure out what you this all adds up to. I swear, Kerensa, I'm not tying to give you a bad time…
I just get confused when people put a massive amount of energy into trying to establish a dubious point,
and the poster will never clearly say why that point would've mattered. I can only guess that you have a motive
re. a theory that you'd prefer not to share…and I confess that I'm not as patient as many here, who will just
go back and forth with you endlessly, hoping there's ultimately a point or theory. Cute avatar, though. :)
I came to the conclusion some time ago that it is premature to grasp onto any final theory about the Sandy Hook crime and response. There is far, far too much data yet to churn through, much of which has not even been released.

My guess would be that hundreds of thousands of people thought Ryan Lanza was the shooter, regardless of any logical flaws (many undoubtedly had no clue where he lived or that he'd eventually be found in a NY law office, etc.) All we heard was, "The shooter has been named as Ryan Lanza. Sources say his father has been found dead at a Hoboken residence, and a girlfriend and friend are missing," something to that effect. But sure, as Ryan turned up at the office or in transit from the office to the apartment or whatever, I remember there being discussion as to how he could be the killer, whether he'd driven straight from the scene, and so on. And of course that later changed to "person of interest" and then finally to "not a suspect." I guess I don't understand how my recollections of that day are in any way nefarious; I'm very certain you could find many other people for whom this sequence of thoughts that day would be roughly the same.

This is all I had said about Ryan: "Yes, Halbig should ask whether paras were allowed into the school, and yes, media should have not jumped to the conclusion that Ryan Lanza was the killer (even though cops told them he was)."

I was just using it as an example of premature conclusions.
 

Kerensa

Closed Account
Agreed, which is why looking at Vance's comments in context is so important.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/tech/social-media/newtown-social-media-crime/

Read broadly, out of context, and as applying indefinitely to the future, yes, Vance's comments could be truly chilling.

But given that his remarks were made the Sunday right after the horror of Friday, as countless idiots
created fake "Adam Lanza" profiles for attention or to muddy the investigation, it's obvious he's speaking to that,
and not garden variety CT nonsense. To the best of my knowledge, no one was prosecuted or even specifically threatened
with prosecution just for being wrong, stupid, conspiratorial, etc. In other words, lots of indignant CTs…no charges.
Also, I don't believe Vance ever said anything like since that one time December 2012…which would be odd
if there really was a plan to prosecute folks for "conveying inaccurate information online about Sandy Hook."
Someone wrote a great piece on this--I'll track it down. It does a great job of looking at the legality of Vance's intent and does so with a legal knowledge which far exceeds mine, lol. But some of it will go directly to the OP, I think.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Someone wrote a great piece on this--I'll track it down. It does a great job of looking at the legality of Vance's intent and does so with a legal knowledge which far exceeds mine, lol. But some of it will go directly to the OP, I think.
while youre at it track down where Vance said this.
Interstingly, CSP spokesman Lt. Paul Vance stated that people conveying inaccurate information online about Sandy Hook would be prosecuted as felons (!). The traditional media had some fun with that
this is why social media does help promote conspiracies because people like you can say and imply anything they want whether their statements are true or not. you don't say "I think I heard somewhere that..." you make your statements as if they are fact. which they are not.
(side line ot: people don't swear to their name in court. they are swearing to tell the truth)

"Yes, Halbig should ask whether paras were allowed into the school, and yes, media should have not jumped to the conclusion that Ryan Lanza was the killer (even though cops told them he was)."
again stated as fact not opinion.

it's very easy to spread misinformation or disinformation on the internet, as you know because that is what you are intentionally doing. People don't even have to stop when they've been shown their statements are untrue. They just keep spewing them out.

Throw enough muck out into the internet and normal people have a hard time even finding the truth among the bunk.
 

Kerensa

Closed Account
True enough, it was media who quoted unnamed law enforcement sources. I wouldn't assume they'd be lying, but anything's possible.

However, given that no one in national media claimed to have known Ryan Lanza, nor did they see the body even if they had known him, it would be hard to understand how they got the name if it wasn't from law enforcement.

Just out of curiosity, why is the Ryan Lanza thing so controversial here?
 

Kerensa

Closed Account
Here's a decent summary:

Outlets, starting with CNN, initially reported that the man who murdered at least 26 people was named Ryan Lanza.

However, hours later, those outlets were forced to retract that identification. The New York Post and Fox News were the first to report that Adam Lanza, Ryan's brother, was the alleged shooter. They were followed by outlets including CNN, CBS, the Associated Press and the New York Times.

The AP wrote that a law enforcement official had "transposed" the names of the two brothers. There were also reports that Adam may have been carrying Ryan's ID.

A local CBS station aired footage of what it said was Ryan Lanza being led away in handcuffs, though it stressed he was only under questioning.

Before these developments, a number of news sites — including The Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, Gawker, Mediaite, Slate and Fox News — linked to a Facebook profile of someone named Ryan Lanza, saying either that he was or that he appeared to be the gunman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...connecticut-shooter-ryan-lanza_n_2302864.html
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I came to the conclusion some time ago that it is premature to grasp onto any final theory about the Sandy Hook crime and response. There is far, far too much data yet to churn through, much of which has not even been released.

My guess would be that hundreds of thousands of people thought Ryan Lanza was the shooter, regardless of any logical flaws (many undoubtedly had no clue where he lived or that he'd eventually be found in a NY law office, etc.) All we heard was, "The shooter has been named as Ryan Lanza. Sources say his father has been found dead at a Hoboken residence, and a girlfriend and friend are missing," something to that effect. But sure, as Ryan turned up at the office or in transit from the office to the apartment or whatever, I remember there being discussion as to how he could be the killer, whether he'd driven straight from the scene, and so on. And of course that later changed to "person of interest" and then finally to "not a suspect." I guess I don't understand how my recollections of that day are in any way nefarious; I'm very certain you could find many other people for whom this sequence of thoughts that day would be roughly the same.

This is all I had said about Ryan: "Yes, Halbig should ask whether paras were allowed into the school, and yes, media should have not jumped to the conclusion that Ryan Lanza was the killer (even though cops told them he was)."

I was just using it as an example of premature conclusions.
No, cops NEVER thought that the accountant working in New York that morning shot a bunch of kids in Connecticut.

I'm still mystified about your motive: Why repeatedly represent a minor confusion over names, as more confusion than it ever was?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But what's bunk about Ryan having been initially named as the shooter?
actually that whole statement is bunk. The shooter was initially thought to be named Ryan Lanza.
big difference.

I won't bring up how Ryan was NEVER arrested, because this (above question and answer) may be an important distinction for you, and Cters to understand.
How words are typed into social media matter.
You can type the sentence as I did, and be correct.
Or you can type it as you did and be incorrect.

edit: You can say police put up road blocks. and be correct
Or, you can say the road was blocked. and be incorrect.

they are completely different things with completely different meanings.
 

Kerensa

Closed Account
No, cops NEVER thought that the accountant working in New York that morning shot a bunch of kids in Connecticut.

I'm still mystified about your motive: Why repeatedly represent a minor confusion over names, as more confusion than it ever was?
Well, I obviously am missing something here. Let's abandon Ryan Lanza - it was never the point. His story is just an example of how bad information can reach wide audience (i.e. it's not just social media users making these mistakes).
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Well, I obviously am missing something here. Let's abandon Ryan Lanza - it was never the point. His story is just an example of how bad information can reach wide audience (i.e. it's not just social media users making these mistakes).
Well, I'm about done here…I just can't get any answers
(why so much effort to imply serious road blockage that is not what the evidence shows?)
(why repeated mischaracterization of the Ryan/Adam name issue, as if there was significant misinformation?)
(why no answer--despite countless requests--for what would be gained if your assertions were true?)

You have very right to evade a dozen questions I've asked about supposed significance of these distortions…
but at some point (well, here, incidentally) :p I'll just give up…
(I'm guessing there may be an unstated conspiracy theory beneath all those long posts…but I simply can not tell.) Best of luck, K.
 

Kerensa

Closed Account
All I said was Ryan was mistakenly identified as the shooter. How that implies some evil motive is beyond me.

Newtown EMS Dir. Maureen Will said there was road blockage, and travels around the country giving Power Point presentations on this very issue.

I'm not making these things up--they happened, and as far as I know are not controversial, with the possible exception of in these threads.

I don't know anyone who considers road blockage at Sandy Hook to be a conspiracy, or purposeful, if that's what you're suggesting. As far as I know it was just a bottleneck for too many vehicles.
 

Kerensa

Closed Account
I don't have any unstated theory about Sandy Hook. I'm of the opinion it is a complex, convoluted crime and will take years to unravel. Yes, I think law enforcement cut some corners, and I suppose I do think there is a high likelihood children were transported in an SUV (as the report states they were), which, yes, will be controversial. That's just my opnion based on studying that particular issue. This is not unusual in such a high pressure case--corners being cut--and there is almost always a lengthy investigation not only of the crime, but the emergency response, for these very reasons. So yes, I expect Sandy Hook will not be different from any other major case in the end, and it behooves us to be thorough so that a full accounting is made. Note: by corners being cut, I mean for well-intentioned reasons, i.e. getting kids to Danbury faster and leaving reserve rigs for additional wounded.

It's not been my experience that EMS or LE personnel are generally afraid of identifying and fixing any errors or missteps in their response, upon review. And of course what is first IDs as error may later be proven to have been the right decision.

As some EMTs like to say: "This worked. That sucked. Fix it." No one likes to be under the microscope, but it's protocol, not a conspiracy. That's why Will doesn't hesitate to speak publicly at EMS conferences about both what went right, and what went wrong. It's not about indictment, it's about fixing things. But you have to understand what's broken in order to fix it.
 

Kerensa

Closed Account
Agreed, which is why looking at Vance's comments in context is so important.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/tech/social-media/newtown-social-media-crime/

Read broadly, out of context, and as applying indefinitely to the future, yes, Vance's comments could be truly chilling.

But given that his remarks were made the Sunday right after the horror of Friday, as countless idiots
created fake "Adam Lanza" profiles for attention or to muddy the investigation, it's obvious he's speaking to that,
and not garden variety CT nonsense. To the best of my knowledge, no one was prosecuted or even specifically threatened
with prosecution just for being wrong, stupid, conspiratorial, etc. In other words, lots of indignant CTs…no charges.
Also, I don't believe Vance ever said anything like since that one time December 2012…which would be odd
if there really was a plan to prosecute folks for "conveying inaccurate information online about Sandy Hook."
The problem with Vance's statement isn't the bit about people posing as Lanza, i.e. disinformation (which is quite a bit different from misinformation and inaccuracy), though even that is a bit goofy. Adam Lanza was dead. To suggest that those creating new Adam Lanza accounts were genuinely interfering with the investigation makes a very weak argument.

The problem with Vance's statement, as is often the case with gaffes like this, is that it was not narrowly tailored enough even to cover disinformation; it also covered inaccuracies, i.e., errors.

From his public statement:

"So that’s the newest twist today that we want to make sure that’s perfectly clear that social media websites that contain information relative to this case are NOT being posted by Connecticut State Police, are NOT being posted by the Newtown Police, are NOT being posted by any authorities in this case. So any of that information and people that are putting that information up there IN ANY MANNER alright that can be construed as a violation of state or federal law, will be investigated and prosecuted..."

If his target is kids creating Adam Lanza FB pages, how in God's name could the public genuinely confuse that with information coming from the CSP? That was a goofy statement all around. Of course Adam Lanza FB pages aren't being posted by the Newtown Police...what the hell.

But the serious problem with his statement was the implication that simple inaccuracy would also earn the poster an arrest; even if he didn't overreach intentionally, the fact remains that he overreached. Beyond that, it is not in fact a crime, nor was it ever, to create a FB page using the name of a deceased murderer.

 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Interstingly, CSP spokesman Lt. Paul Vance stated that people conveying inaccurate information online about Sandy Hook would be prosecuted as felons (!). The traditional media had some fun with that.
The only search result I can quickly find to that is your post on Metabunk. What did he REALLY say- when and where?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The only search result I can quickly find to that is your post on Metabunk. What did he REALLY say- when and where?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/tech/social-media/newtown-social-media-crime/

the official press release (not written by vance, vance signs all his press releases ) http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?A=4226&Q=515570

also: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/...ading-false-info-on-facebook-after-shootings/

people were pretending to be Officials/police officers and distributing (false) information. hence his statements.
also someone posed as ryan talking about (supporting) adam etc which caused Ryan major problems, hence identity theft mentioned.
stuff like that.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/tech/social-media/newtown-social-media-crime/

the official press release (not written by vance, vance signs all his press releases ) http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?A=4226&Q=515570

also: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/...ading-false-info-on-facebook-after-shootings/

people were pretending to be Officials/police officers and distributing (false) information. hence his statements.
also someone posed as ryan talking about (supporting) adam etc which caused Ryan major problems, hence identity theft mentioned.
stuff like that.

Thanks.


That was certainly shooting from the hip! Hysteria of the moment, I guess.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 0
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Trailblazer Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Supreme Logic Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
P Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Z.W. Wolf Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Tony Szamboti Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Steve Funk Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Ogmion Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
David Fraser Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
qed Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
fonestar Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore] Conspiracy Theories 178
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
Critical Thinker What does Greenpeace think about chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 34
iKnowWhoYouAre why does this site even exist? General Discussion 134
Canadasix If its just contrails why does it start from the east and work it's way west? Contrails and Chemtrails 10
scombrid Does drug use cause paranoia or do paranoids seek out psychoactive drugs? General Discussion 7
Leifer Rabies does not exist. Conspiracy Theories 8
U Why does this site not debunk government and corporate wrongdoings? Site Feedback & News 4
Juror No. 8 Does the U.S. government manufacture terrorism? If so, why? General Discussion 99
firepilot Does Roxy Lopez have callers on her friday internet show? Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Pogopoint99 Does Rosalind Peterson believe in chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 17
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top