Asklemmy

43851 readers

1036 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What are the strategic considerations behind the active spread of anti-vax theories? (mander.xyz)

submitted 1 year ago by notsofunnycomment@mander.xyz to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When it comes to spreading disinformation about climate change or the risks of smoking, I can clearly see how it protects economic interests (e.g. the value of the assets of the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry). I therefore understand that these lies are (have been) regularly pushed by people who do not necessarily believe in them.

But what are the strategic considerations behind the active spread of anti-vax theories? Who gains from this? Is it just an effective topic to rile up a political base? Because it hits people right in the feels? Is it just a way to bring people together on one topic, in order to use that political base for other purposes?

Or is anti-vax disinformation really only pushed by people who believe it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The movement seems to be more about expanding its base than informing or protecting them. Once ensnared, followers will reliably go to the polls, and vote the way they are told to vote.

Being staunchly antivaxx is detrimental to good health at the personal level, and at the public health level.

Based on real world outcomes, the antivaxx lobby gets enough of their base to vote as directed, to offset any lost votes due to base members dying for lack of protection from vaccines.

I mean, they kill off only a small portion of their base with bad advice, but get the political results that they want. Why would they care?