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

[–] ritswd@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It might be controversial, but I think people have legitimate reasons to not trust public health authorities. They have had to fess up in the past after years of misleading people about a number of things, from tobacco, sugar, alcohol, cannabis, … The Spanish flu is only called “Spanish” because Spain was the only country willing to acknowledge it during war time. It didn’t help also that more recently, the White House admitted to lying about the lack of need of face masks at the very beginning of the COVID pandemic, because they didn’t want people to take them away from hospital workers who needed them.

So with that, I understand why people will want to be selective about what public health guidelines they’ll choose to trust and not trus.

Add to that, that getting a vaccine shot is unpleasant. And consoling your baby after they got vaccinated is even more unpleasant. From there, you can understand the mental shortcut that some people make, choosing to ignore the proven impressive track record of vaccines to limit or even eradicate contagion of some diseases, and all of a sudden, all vaccines are a lie.

[–] erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Not only that, but this whole thing has become a hot-button issue, and any time that happens, all logic and scientific facts are the first thing to go.

For example, there are people that are allergic to certain vaccines. That is a fact. They are a small amount of the population, but they do exist, and they will die or get really sick if they get whatever vaccine.

Try telling that to someone who blindly follows the media's crushing message of "All vaccines are good. Anyone who doesn't get a vaccine is a stupid, poor redneck" They will not be able to hear it. They will think you're anti-vaxx.