Online conspiracy theories are now inspiring real world violence. Since 2018, supporters of the grotesque QAnon conspiracy theory (which originated in the US but has adherents across Europe) have been linked to kidnappings, car chases, and even a murder. The FBI has gone so far as to label the movement a domestic terror threat.
In October 2020, Facebook banned QAnon-linked accounts from its platforms. Similar crackdowns have been enacted by YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit. Is this the right approach? Should conspiracy theories that inspire violent acts be banned from all social media platforms?
What do our readers think? We had a comment come in from Civis, who says: “Freedom of speech goes with responsibility. And I don’t see any responsibility in people publishing conspiracy theories online or anti-semitic content for example. There should be some reasonable limits to free speech, especially when it contains an appeal to violence against others.”
To get a response, we spoke to Dr. Daniel Jolley, who studies the psychological consequences of conspiracy theories at Northumbria University. What should be done to stop conspiracy theories circulating on social media platforms?
For another perspective, we also spoke to Professor Michael Butter from the University of Tübingen. As the project leader of “Populism and Conspiracy Theory (PACT)” his research focuses on the importance of conspiracy theories for populist movements. What would he say?
The best thing to do about conspiracy theories is not to look at the symptoms, but rather at the causes. People who feel powerless can be better involved in political decision-making processes but, above all, you can invest heavily in education. You have to teach people how society and politics work.
Conspiracy theories always misjudge what happens by chance and what happens through structural relationships. At least in the German educational landscape, a lot is happening right now, and people are thinking about including the topic in curricula.
I am very skeptical about banning things. There are, of course, very clear cases – anti-Semitic hate speech or calls to violence are already banned in many countries. Such posts should be deleted. But there is always an area where this is not so clear. In this grey area, where people often have different opinions and interpretations, it can get hairy; then the question of freedom of expression comes up, which is a very important value. Therefore, I am more of the opinion with such posts that they should be left online. Especially if the decision is made by large American companies, otherwise you will end up doing more harm than good. Freedom of expression must – as far as possible – be preserved.
However, nobody has a right to freedom of dissemination, and one’s own opinion does not have to be amplified by algorithms on social media. So, it is better if YouTube no longer automatically links to conspiracy videos and the other platforms use warning notices.
Should conspiracy theories be banned on social media? Would you ban conspiracy theories such as QAnon? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions?
30 comments Post a commentcomment
extremism should not be differentiated by the political and/or religious framework it uses to build upon. You want to stop islam extremists, fine, but then apply the same rules for christian extremists. You want to stop far-right radicals, ok, but then apply the same rules for the far left. This is how laws should work, everything else is hypocrisy. All that however has nothing to do with digital platforms- they are operated for-profit from private entities and are free to apply whatever filters they find fit, to fulfil their financial goals. Given that the question is invalid, since it implies some moral/legal problem that comes along with the bans- and that is not relevant to the mode of operation(legal, moral or fiscal) of the social networks.
Today’s conspiracy theory is tomorrow’s reality. Just remember back to the war on, Iraq and, all the faked dossiers and truing to pressurise the un into voting for war. That was apparently a conspiracy theory until a British intelligence officer from gchq spilled to the press
the conspiracy theory was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction…
Nope. Bs is the price we pay for the free market of ideas. And it is absolutely worth it.
We must debunk their ideas and show how stupid they are. Not feed their persecution complex and hide the conversation from the open daylight. Then is becomes more dangerous.
problem is when ideas are weaponised
They don’t actually care about being proven wrong, just the opportunity to keep spreading misinformation and disrupt real-world politics while they’re at it.
It’s all about the clicks.
No. Tech giants are a problem. Big corporations are killing freedom. They control the money of the world and the rest of the population earns less and less. This is the dictatorship of the big corporations and is based in a Comunism
Hahaha how is CAPITALISM and CORPORATISM “based on communism”.
Lol wtf…
No. That would be censorship. Stupid people have the right to be stupid.
Who are tech giants to thought-police people? This is not compatible with the freedom of speech and political pluralism our liberal-democracies are supposedly based on. One should distinguish between conspiracy theories – even inane ones – and inciting domestic violence (which of course should be banned).
“inciting domestic violence (which of course should be banned)”
shouldn’t relevant government agencies deal with these as well, instead of tech giants themselves?
Jeffrey Epstein’s island was also a conspiracy theory. Each One is free to think, believe in what we want and express what we want. Mental control and information control are things that you only find in China, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.
Question irrelevant !
Who decides what is a conspiration theory? In democracy, all opinions should be allowed, otherwise it is not a democracy. Up to the governments to convince people not to believe to such a theories
don’t give them ideas to think, they will make laws accordingly
No! I absolutely love the FlatEarth belivers! They are delicious!
These are the comedians on the internet because you can laugh your head off every day at the concentration of stupidity.
Until they burn cell phone towers and attack doctors….
In my opinion conspiracy theories should not be banned. They just need a mandatory disclaimer to state: “based on the following information, which is referenced, this is my personal opinion.’ People will always question, challenge and then believe what they want. I have at least 10 different social media platforms and one search engine to find all banned, or algorithm hidden videos and information. Responsible disclaimers is the way to go. Plus critical thinking skills need to be taught in schools. In this digital age it is necessary. Media agencies will need to become unbiased again with transparency, honesty and ugly truths or nobody will be interested in what they have to say and conspiracy theories will take over. Media agencies cannot hide or skew the truth any longer because their journalistic bad practices are creating a conspiracy monster.
Not if you believe in Freedom of Speech.
No that’s even a stupid thing to ask. It’s like should another opinion should be silenced. Are we living in Communism seriously debate Europe your questions often sounds like coming from China not Europe.
Should the journalists be banned of manipulating people in social media?
Definitely a BIG NO! Freedom of thought, speech and expression are way more important. We do not need protection, we are grown ups!!!
Well Facebook already use censorship so no wonder Debate Europe is only showing what is yet to come completelly
Facebook is censoring whatever it doesn’t like privately. It is not commanded by any law to censor people. Another platform is free not to censor and we are free to choose media.
Except there is not alternative to FB. It is a monopoly.
You are NOT REALLY “free”.
Who decides what’s a conspiracy theory, and what criteria do they use?
There is no cure for dumbness.
Now this one is an utterly stupid question. No offense. So let’s just imagine for a second, how you define a “conspiracy” theory and how you distinguish it from any other theory? Would it be considered a conspiracy theory to say disagree with religious dogmas too? One may argue that saying “god does not exist” is a conspiracy theory. Or one may say the opposite 😀 If you (I mean anyone who proposed this ridiculous idea) want to increase control over what people may say or think, hence make a step toward even less freedom of speech – go for it!
Conspiracy is totally the wrong name anyhow, if you take the actual meaning of conspiracy.