Conspiracy Theories: Weaponised From the Fringe to Your Feed? | Misinformation, Radicalisation & the Attention Economy

Gareth King (00:31)

Dani, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to Ruined by the Internet?

Dani Mercy (00:34)

Thank you so much for having me. I'm really excited to be here.

Gareth King (00:37)

We are here today to discuss how the internet and technology has potentially changed the world of conspiracy theories over the last few decades. So, to start us off, can you just explain what's really meant by conspiracy theory, and what is it about them that we as people find so fascinating?

Dani Mercy (00:56)

So, it's funny that you asked that question because the CIA actually created this term, conspiracy theories, after JFK's assassination, because all these people are coming forward and they're like, whoa, like this assassination doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And so, the CIA basically came forward, they're like, anybody that doesn't believe the narrative, they are conspiracy theorists.

And so now any time there's like this thought that's not the official narrative, it's considered a conspiracy theory, which is just like people looking into whatever's going on and being like, hey, whatever you're telling us isn't fully adding up and we're not fully believing in that. And so that's kind of where it originated. Well, I mean, there were conspiracy theories well before that, but the CIA really put a label on it.

Gareth King (01:39)

Yeah, it's interesting. It's, even if you've just broken it down there, it does feel like a very easy way to stifle any debate and questioning of that official narratives. But one thing I'd love for you to give us a little bit of a context on as well, given the name of your own podcast, is why are conspiracy theories so often described as a rabbit hole? And how does the internet play into this phenomenon itself?

Dani Mercy (02:06)

So, the term really comes from like Alice in Wonderland, right? Like she's falling down the rabbit hole and then it's like this endless wonder of things. Everything kind of like leads to the next thing and like spirals into this pile of information that is really hard to put it all into like one thought.

And so, the rabbit hole is just like literally me at my computer just doing all this research. Literally just like going from this thing doesn't make sense to this thing to this thing to this thing. And actually, it's led to me having eighteen unfinished notes because I found these things in my research that didn't line up with what I was researching, but I wanna come back to it later. And so, it's… it's a rabbit hole. Like there's so much information.

Gareth King (02:45)

Well, that's a great point there, that there is so much information. And I think that one of the things that we're all aware that the internet and social media, et cetera, it does overwhelm you with so much information. And it's so algorithmically-driven that it is a constant stream of, not you don't almost need to fall down the rabbit hole, it kind of throws the rabbit hole onto you at any given moment.

And I wonder beyond just that overwhelming amount of information, is there any other ways that the internet exacerbates what could loosely be considered as a conspiracy theory these days?

Dani Mercy (03:22)

Yeah, absolutely. I'll be on social media and it's all these conspiracy theories. And I'm really good at I guess almost like discerning between what's just clickbait and what's an actual conspiracy. Versus like I have a friend and she is not as good. So, she'll call me and be like, Dani, I saw this on TikTok. And I'm like, okay, you gotta get off TikTok.

Like, I mean, that's the point of it, right? Like this hyperemotional state where we're like freaking out about everything, but not everything is necessarily a conspiracy. I think that that's where like social media in particular will be exacerbating emotional responses.

So, JFK is a fantastic example of this. Before the internet, we have JFK's assassination. You have all these people that are talking and they're like, that doesn't add up. But these people aren't talking to each other. They're talking to like their immediate group of friends, maybe their neighbourhood, like whoever they know, which is what, 10, 20 people tops. And out of those 10 or 20 people, maybe five people believe and they're like, okay, cool, what whatever.

But you have after the news dies down, people kind of forget about JFK and they go on about their day. Well now I can get on TikTok, I can post a video, and it goes viral. Millions of people could see that.

Gareth King (04:25)

You know, obviously the internet didn't create conspiracy theories, but as you've alluded to there, it absolutely turbocharges the velocity of them. And also, as you as you called out there, creates that much larger connected marketplace for them.

As humans we recognise patterns and we can we can kind of create our own theories about anything and then mention it to somebody and they might just be like, you're being an idiot. Okay, cool. And it never goes any further than that until you find, as you said, like one or two other people that might indulge your idea. But now not only can we find thousands or millions of different data points and connect them together into a theory, we can spread that to thousands and millions of people instantly.

So, I think from there, what I'd love to talk with you about is how does the typical conspiracy theory start now in in this digital age? Is there a way that we see them forming online and spreading? And more importantly, is there a particular mindset that they potentially target or are more effective with?

Dani Mercy (05:30)

Yes and no. So, I think that like the algorithms are really good at pushing information that seems to be getting an emotional response. I think that the internet has really changed the way conspiracy theories are spread because with Ghislaine Maxwell recently, obviously she's in jail, right? Recently there was a picture circulating that she was actually in Canada, and you could see like this person looked just like Ghislaine.

Well, turns out it was like actually AI. And it was so easy to basically like just put a picture of Ghislaine Maxwell into AI, create it, and then post it on the internet. Now everybody's like freaking out because Ghislaine's out of prison and she's in Canada, which if Ghislaine was actually out of prison, then don't you think that she'd be hiding a little bit better?

But also, like I don't know, like it goes back and forth. So, we have JFK's assassination, and I think that a lot of people are comparing that assassination to Charlie Kirk right now. And so, Charlie Kirk gets shot. Instantly within hours. I'm getting flooded with messages because it's a conspiracy. Somebody, it wasn't this person, it was that person. It was like, why'd they kill him? It was a hologram. It was this, it was that. His wife's involved.

Anyway, the point is with JFK, the grief that everyone felt instantly and then started to kind of step back and be like, wait a second, like that doesn't add up. And even with like 9-11, you see that a little bit. But with 9-11, we have more videos. The internet's around, but we're it's not as advanced as it's as it is today. So, you have these videos and you're like, wait a second, but it was still slower to spread, right?

Gareth King (06:52)

And that's an interesting point there around, I guess, the progression in sophistication of technology. You know, the two the two assassinations that you've mentioned. Obviously, the recent Charlie Kirk one. I remember, you know, I was waking up here in Australia and it was it was morning and as a lot of us do, like we'd get a coffee and check our phone first thing and I was just like, my God, these things just happened.

And then, like you say, within hours, I felt like that was the only thing I could find online and it was all the as you said, these all these different people's theories about what had actually happened and what hadn't happened.

And part of me thinks with that is going back to your 9-11 example, I was 20 when that happened. And I remember, you know, you've got kind of TV footage and a couple of handheld camcorders capturing. And you know, the sophistication of the tech to fake something like that, I'm sure it would have been there, but it wouldn't have been something that hundreds of millions of people around the world would have been able to do so quickly.

You mentioned that that AI picture of Ghislaine Maxwell, that now we may not believe anything that we see unless we've seen it with our own eyes directly. And so, I guess where my mind goes on that is, as the tech is allowing people to create and disseminate not only simple new conspiracies, but complex ones through the power of the tools that we've got to create them, o you think it's also leading us to be more cynical of them because we know how much fake stuff is out there?

Or is it the kind of the velocity of the information coming at us all the time? We don't really get that time to question it. We're just like, this is real. You know, I already agree with this. This is real. I'm on board with this conspiracy. Like, what's really going on in that sense?

Dani Mercy (08:35)

I think it goes back and forth. My job is literally to research conspiracy theories. And so, like when I dig into something, I'm like, oh cool, like that looks like it can add to my research. And then I watch it and I watch it and I'm like; hmm I don't know. Like that seems off to me. Or it seems correct. So then like if you want to go look at it and you can make that decision for yourself because like I'm not like an AI detector. I have no idea. Like half the time it's easy, right? If they like three fingers or like, I don't know, their arms are really long, something weird is going on, but like half the time it's really hard.

Gareth King (09:09)

No, of course. And I think especially video, you know, if we see a static image that someone's faked using AI, like we can obviously spend that time interrogating it. But when it's a video, it's kind of unless you're really doing that analysis of freeze framing everything, you're just kind of watching the video and blown away by what you're seeing or deeply cynical of what you're seeing.

And so, I think that video platforms make the spread and maybe the belief of conspiracy theories a lot easier. Would you say that platforms, especially like TikTok, that are, you know, quick video, like it's designed specifically just to feed you one after another, are they particularly successful, I mean successful whether that's a right word or not, but are they are they particularly powerful at getting conspiracy theories moving in terms of spread?

Dani Mercy (10:02)

Sometimes. So, TikTok is very interesting. So, what I have noticed is conspiracy theories, they want you to believe they'll let they'll let spread like wildfire. Like they'll let it go and they like people will like buy into it. But the minute you hit a nerve of like conspiracy theory that, in my opinion, seems to be leaning towards truth, they will cancel that quickly.

So that's when they're like, they'll ban the videos, they're like, you can't talk about that, you're not spreading that, or like I posted a video, it got banned, and then I had two other videos that were fine, but they shadow banned them. So, like I went to my personal TikTok to go view because I was like, it has zero views. How does it have zero views? And I couldn't even see it because they just don’t, they won't even show it on your profile or anything. So it depends on the theory.

Gareth King (10:52)

Why do you think that they do that? Is it you know, there's a couple of ways I could I could take that. One is they want it to everything to be fake. Do you know what I mean? Like entertainment rather than factual. Is that what you think they're doing?

Dani Mercy (10:53)

I think it's a distraction mechanism. I think that that that's what social media is in general, is like they're trying to keep us pacified and distracted. Like they want to they want to placate the conspiracy theorist, right? Like they want to give you something that you might actually like that will seem like a conspiracy, whatever, it's cute, it's fun. Here's a conspiracy, right? And they give it to you.

But then they have all these actual conspiracy theories that have some evidence behind them and you're saying some like pretty aggressive things and they're like, Ooh, no, you're not saying that.

Gareth King (11:39)

You know, l we all hear reports and stuff about how these platforms are obviously massive enablers of the breakdown in trust of information in general. And the fact that they are potentially, as you said, shadow banning or taking down videos that are more factual than a fake one. It doesn't really fight that argument that these platforms are responsible for keeping fake and manipulating, manipulative information out there and messing with people.

But I think, you know, just on the topic of factual stuff, we've talked about JFK assassination so far. And so, I'd love to get into now whether because okay, we know with the internet and essentially the most supercomputer in our pocket at all times, we've got access to so much information. So, if we find something, we can try and debunk it or confirm it, whatever way we're leaning and whatever we're trying to get out of it.

Has that access for the regular people changed the longevity of conspiracy theories at all? Or is it simply a case of now that people can debunk them in real time, so they don't really get off the ground essentially if they're not real?

Dani Mercy (12:52)

So, people that don't believe in conspiracies, they're gonna debunk them. Well, okay, let's actually back up a little bit. The mainstream is going to try to debunk conspiracy theory instantly. They love to debunk things, but even if you just go to like news sites, cause you're trying to look up whatever, and they have, this is a conspiracy theory. And even in the title, it's like conspiracy theory, and then it has the name of it, and it says debunked. And it doesn't it just like reaffirms the main narrative and it's like; conspiracy theorists are crazy.

And so, and that's the same thing on social media. You'll have the same people they're like; oh the conspiracy theorists are gonna say this and that's just dumb. And I think that at the end of the day, you either believe it or you don't. And that's not for me to decide. I'm not trying to make up your mind. Even like I talked about facts, some people will say that like what I'm sharing is not facts. You're just trying to share things that are gonna emotionally like get people riled up. And if it moves you emotionally, it's probably on purpose. Like there's probably something there that you should pay attention to.

But if it doesn't, like maybe you don't resonate with that and that's okay too. So, I think that it's easy to debunk if you if you don't want to believe it. I think it's the ignorance factor. It's easier to not believe conspiracy theories.

Gareth King (14:06)

But then also I think another way that the digital world plays into all of this is this notion of dunking culture. Like everything online is about winning an argument. And as you said whether it's the larger, more mainstream news platforms, obviously they use their influence and power to, as you said, rubber stamp that this is a conspiracy theory on it because they do know that the emotional side of that takes the people that are already on board with what they're saying, and then they can use that as a bit of a weapon to kind of dunk on those crazy people that may believe this or not.

But what I find interesting about that is the term conspiracy theory seems to be, from what I can see anyway, largely applied to let's say more right leaning beliefs. Whereas, you know, everybody, and this is my personal belief anyway, everybody, no matter what kind of political, social alignment you have has their own conspiracy theories about the people or situations that they don't like. So why is it that the label conspiracy theory is so heavily weighted against one side of the aisle, do you think, as opposed to being an all-encompassing thing?

Dani Mercy (15:21)

I think it's to further divide because I believe that people on both sides of the aisle will either believe or not believe a conspiracy theory. I think that a lot of people will make this political and they'll be like, that's because the left doesn't think for themselves, right? And that's not the case. I think that it's to further divide, right?

But also, to put this like gross label on it, like, you guys are just spreading disinformation, like you guys are just, and to label us as conspiracy theorists as a very political motivated person. I don't know, like I'm not politically motivated any, I think that everybody's corrupt. But I'll get so many people and they're like, this is MAGA, this is right leaning, like of course you would think that, blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, okay, like if you want to believe that, that's fine. It doesn't affect me. But at the end of the day, if you believe that your politician is doing the right thing, you should call them. You should talk to them.

Gareth King (16:16)

Yeah. And again, like from what I can see, I feel like the label conspiracy theory is, as I said, so heavily weighted in one direction. But I think the ability of humans for pattern recognition, we all have it. And everybody's making up their own theories on things. But I guess where I was going with that was let's rewind back to say the start of the pandemic.

Now there was a lot of very fast spreading conspiracy theories, we can call it regarding the virus and things like that. You know, one that I found particularly intriguing and amusing was this notion of like 5G towers were like spreading a virus. And I was like, I don't know how this would work, but you know, like the ability for people to kind of put things like that together and then it spread everywhere.

And then of course, there was all different sorts of theories around different aspects of the pandemic and the response and whatever it was, that they're all disparate on their own, but then they can all be collated into one much larger narrative that I think we saw about Klaus Schwab and, you know, the World Economic Forum and all sorts of things that came out of there.

And so, what I found particularly interesting about how all that played out was I remember playing this game as a kid. And you get this piece of paper, and you write a line of a story, and then you fold the paper, and then someone else writes another line underneath. And then you at the end you unfold the paper and you read the story out. And it reminded me of that game in that you've got all these different people contributing to one narrative that forms and just becomes this huge thing that seemingly spread all around the world.

Obviously, that was facilitated by the internet while everyone's at home. We're not out kind of really doing much with people. And so that hyper focus on being online and dealing with people online, and as you've mentioned before, that polarisation that's already online, that this is just a kind of another cudgel that that flows into, it felt like it just created a perfect storm for not only generating and spreading what could be considered conspiracy theories or not be considered conspiracy theories.

But it also felt like that was a real watershed moment when for me personally, I noticed that the label conspiracy theorist became so liberally used across everybody that may have had a question about anything, and not just to do with COVID, like anything in general, that we've kind of never recovered from.

Dani Mercy (18:53)

I mean you can see that really well like when they created the label and like people would stop talking to their conspiracy theory friends, right? And so, and with COVID, I think that's such a great example of why you have to do your own research because you're right. Like I feel like it snowballed because people had so much time on their hands and they're like, I wonder like how much crazy we could put into this.

And yeah, you could say all kinds of things about 5G Towers. It spreading COVID, I don't think is one of them. I've heard the theory that it actually activates something inside the vaccine. And I know like a lot of the COVID discussion was like, you're an anti-vaxxer or you're a vaxxer. And like, okay. And I do think that that's actually when I would say it really became political, like left leaning or right-leaning. And maybe it happened before that, but you like really saw that polarisation because you have this argument where people are like, I'm not comfortable taking the vaccine because it has not been properly tested.

And then you have these other people that are like, you have to take the vaccine because then we can get back to real life. And you have this like fight, and it seemed to be very politically motivated. Right leaning people were not taking the vaccine. Left-leaning people absolutely were. And then they furthered the argument by adding racism on top of it. They furthered the argument by adding abortion topics on top of it. Like you have this all this fighting going on.

And so, at that point, people are just putting things on the internet, right. And so, anything can go on the internet. I can make a video right now and say, like, my sky just turned purple and show an AI video of it. And people will be like, Well, that's crazy.

So, like that's where you really have to do your own research because conspiracy theories can get out of control. And that's why there's such this negative stigma on it. Is because people will just say anything and then other people will be like, That's conspiracy theory, you're crazy, and that's the end of it.

Gareth King (20:40)

That phrase, do your own research. Now that is a particularly interesting one to me because from where I stand, anyone that may not believe a conspiracy theory, like the ideal thing to do is to research it yourself. And it doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory. It could be anything that you may not believe is true. Like you should look into it yourself and find it.

But it exactly as you mentioned there, that phrase do your own research seemed to completely flip in this hyper emotional period of time that finding the truth became a bad thing. So yeah, I found that quite an interesting part of digital conspiracy theories over the last few years that just trying to learn and educate yourself became a bad thing. And so, I wonder if that is still the case or we've kind of chilled out a little bit now.

But one thing I'd wanted to get into you with was the ability for digital first conspiracy theories to then translate offline. And one that a lot of people are definitely aware of because we've seen it kind of permeate into culture, even things on Netflix, et cetera, is very well known one of QAnon, which and I'm sure you could you could explain it better than I can, that started in these kind of niche digital forums and then it's just grown and grown and grown into this huge offline thing with real world consequences.

Now, because we are in this digital age now where everyone, as you said, can create anything, spread it online so rapidly and easily, is that a typical trajectory now for conspiracy theories? They might start online and then get out into the real world, or do they typically just stay online until they either die out, reach their peak, or are disproven?

Dani Mercy (22:32)

I think a lot of a lot more people will speak about it in person than online. Because like for a long time, this is gonna sound so funny. I was so nervous to tell people that I had a conspiracy theory podcast because I didn't want them to look at me and be like, you're crazy. But then when I started talking to people, you realize how many people are like, Yeah, I like I've been looking into our food more, or I've been looking into vaccines are a huge one, right? Vaccines more. I've had people they're like; I've been looking into the sunscreens and just different things where they're like, something, I don't know, something that I saw online triggered me to go look into it.

And they didn't post something online about it. They saw something online. They looked into it. And now like they're more willing to talk to you in person about what they've learned, what they've found, what they know versus like talking online because online's a really scary place.

And that's where you'll get like you'll post a video, and this happens all the time, right? That you post a video, you have like five people comment, they're like, wow, yeah, like yeah, I totally agree with this. Then you have ten people comment, they're like, you’re stupid, go kill yourself. We don't want to hear you, you're a waste of space, you're spreading disinformation on the internet.

So, you have this like balance, people don't want to deal with that. And I get it, like I deal with it and I just don't read the comments. So you have this idea that like I think people will see it online, but they're more likely to talk to you offline about it.

Gareth King (23:48)

Yeah, that's a that's a great point that the offline conversation does allow socially accepted deeper analysis. And you know, I've realised the same thing myself. I could read something online that I find interesting and mention it to some of my friends who I know are kind of similarly minded. And they will have seen it too. And then we can, as you say, debate it in real life, like laugh at it or whatever it kind of ends up being. But as you've said there, the digital space doesn't really lend itself to much nuance. It's like a hundred percent yes, a hundred percent no. And whatever you disagree, you're an idiot.

But I think what I'd love to get into now was the recent phenomenon of the monetisation of various platforms that obviously pay you based on the more engagement and stuff that you get across them.

We know that the way algorithms work is that more extreme views that does generate that emotional response gets the most visibility, which encourages that behaviour, which earns the most money. And we know that outrage is such a powerful vector for delivering this stuff and therefore making money.

Now, the fact that people can essentially turn, you know, making up things or exposing things, whatever they're doing, into quite a successful living. Do you think that that monetisation of platforms has changed the landscape of what is a conspiracy theory, but more importantly, like the type or the amount of them that are getting put out there simply because there's that financial incentive to do so?

Dani Mercy (25:28)

Absolutely. And I think that's what we're seeing with like when you brought up the COVID thing and people like adding on top of it, adding on top of it, you're incentivised to do it. You're getting the likes, you're getting the follows, you're getting the comments. And even if people are commenting bad things, they're still commenting. They're still, they're still feeding into the algorithm.

And so, you have this machine that works off of outrage, whether it's good or it's bad. So, then you'll have like somebody post this video and it's a conspiracy theory, and you have this other person and they debunk it, right? Well both people are just trying to make money off of you. And so I mean I say that like I monetise my podcast. You know, that's how a lot of us make money. But at the same time, you're right. Like the outrage creates this idea this incentive to want to but also like want to make it bigger and more than it is.

And so, I think that, I guess it's my opinion that if you keep faking it and like trying to put this like emotional charge behind something that's not true, people are gonna call you out about it eventually and you potentially will lose followers and then you'll lose the money. So why don't I just be truthful from the beginning?

Gareth King (26:37)

No, I think I think that's a great point. And I think if we're all really honest with ourselves, like that's the way it should be. You know, you can try and do whatever extreme version of whatever you're saying, whatever conspiracy thought you might have had or what you're encouraging, etc. But people investigating it themselves and calling out your bullshit, it seems like a fair consequence of what should be a responsible use of the digital world. Hopefully we can all contribute a little bit to filtering the information and keeping it kind of on the straight and narrow to what's true and what isn't. But on that point…

Dani Mercy (27:16)

TikTok also I'm sorry, I don't want to mean to interrupt, but TikTok also really incentivises this because, so I posted a video a couple months ago and I was like, I had found something on the internet that freaked me out. It freaked it freaked me out in a weird kind of way.

And people really do ask me all the time. They're like, do you think that you'll be like murdered for the information you're putting out? And to me, I'm like, no, because everything that I find is open source, it's on the internet, you anybody could find it. It's not just like me finding it. I might just be putting it into a platform that people have never put all these pieces together before. But no, like you can find all this on the internet and I've listed out all my sources.

Well, in this particular instance, I had gotten a comment from somebody that I know locally that I was like talking to, and then I found a piece of the puzzle that kind of fit together. And I was like, whoa. So that freaked me out. So, I posted this very emotionally charged video on TikTok and it really it didn't say anything. It I was just like, if you've ever wondered if I've ever felt like I would be unalived for the information I found, I haven't until this moment. And I was very emotional about it. And that was it. That's all I said.

And people, I don't know, that video blew up. All my other videos actually have information in them. They're like talking about whatever the conspiracy is. But that particular video, I was emotionally charged and later found out that like it wasn't as aggressive as I probably made it out to be. But in the moment, I was very I was distraught. So, I was like, I should post this on Instagram, I don't know. And so, I did. Well, of course, that's my biggest video. And then I have these other videos where I'm like talking about actual things that I've like found and they're like, oh no, we're not showing that.

Gareth King (28:51)

Yeah, look, that even that's a quite an insight into people's behaviour. And from what everything that you're saying there, it's like people latched on to that as see, this is the result of crazy conspiracy theorists. They're violent, they threaten people, they do they do whatever it is. So, it does kind of confirm their biases of what they consider a dangerous person and a dangerous person believes in conspiracy theories, et cetera, et cetera.

So, you know, it doesn't really surprise me from a human psychology angle that that kind of stuff is so resonant with the audience. But can you give us an example of a historical conspiracy theory that has either been confirmed or debunked thanks to the availability of information on the internet?

Dani Mercy (29:38)

I dunno about the internet. Well, the internet helps us spread things. My very first episode I did was Gulf of Tonkin. And the reason I did that episode is because it was a conspiracy theory at the time when it happened, but now it's been confirmed that what the conspiracy theorists believed was true.

I guess we had a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. It was under attack, is what they told us. We were under attack, so that's why we went into the Korean War, right? But what actually was happening was that there was just like really big waves and that the radar was I mean, it was still young. And so, radar was showing that potentially we were under attack, but really it was just like the waves.

And so, you have this ship out there shooting at nothing, saying that they're under attack, and then like the next day they reported back to Washington, they're like, sorry, like our bad. We were in this this storm, and it wasn't actually an attack, it was just these waves. And they're like, well, we've already told all the people that you guys were under attack and we're already going to war for it. We've already ramped up the people enough that they they're willing to back this war because we told them what you told us, which is that you were under attack.

Well, it turns out seventy years later, the information comes out that they never were actually under attack and we went to war under the pretence of us being under attack when we weren't.

Gareth King (30:53)

That is such a great example. And I think the breakdown of trust within media and government institutions ironically does lead to the rise of, as we've touched on a few times now, the stamping of people as conspiracy theorists who question it for not believing everything that they're told wholesale.

But, you know, examples like that, it really shows you why not trusting something as it's presented to you immediately is often a smart approach, which it feels like quite a symbiotic relationship between the denigration of trust that these larger organisations, outlets, platforms, whatever have brought on themselves with the rise of the same conspiracy theorists that they are so quick to push against for questioning what they're doing.

And I guess this can maybe lead on to my next question, which is you mentioned the Ghislaine Maxwell image that you saw. Now, AI tools. We've seen they’re everywhere. It's like you can't get away from people talking about them online these days. The sophistication of them, especially the video gen ones, is getting crazy.

How do you how do you think the world of conspiracy theories goes from here now that everyone will soon enough have access to pretty believable, the ability to make pretty believable-looking content that unless you're really trying to to look into it is enough for you to believe it?

Dani Mercy (32:25)

There's… it's hard because I think that the minute people start needing to do research into things because they can't believe what they're seeing, they're gonna start waking up to the truth of things. And I think that's their most powerful tool right now is that people aren't doing their own research. They're just seeing a video online. They're like, whoa, that was crazy. And then they swipe to the next video, right?

So as AI improves and as we start to realise like everything that we're seeing is actually fake because AI can do everything that we're doing, then I think that's when people will start to research into other things more and it could backfire a little bit. I think that that's what happened with COVID is like you see this huge influx of conspiracy theorists and theories during this time because people started to question things.

And the minute people start to question things; they start to research things. And when people start to research things, they become more sceptical and they become less trusting. Well, it's this like cycle you created this distrust or the like this breach of trust. So now I want to research it, which further creates this breach of trust. Well, as AI improves, it's gonna cause more people to be like, mmm, I don't trust that. So let me research it. Well, now I definitely don't trust it.

And once you don't trust one thing, it's really quick to not trust the next thing, to not trust the next thing. And so, it's a real problem for, I mean, big pharma, for the health, like public health, for our food industry, for I mean, all big industries could potentially collapse if too many people believe in conspiracy theories. So, it's in their best nature to make us seem crazy.

Gareth King (33:56)

It is interesting that not only can looking into things, you know, help us feel at ease, like, cool, you're lucky, I realise this is bullshit now. But, you know, the other point that you said there, like the more of this what could be fake, it could be real, you know, I'm not making comment on any of that here, but the more information that you are fed and uncover there, like the more you dig your heels in.

Umm and once you've gone so far down that rabbit hole, as they say, why do you think it's so difficult to, if someone's gone down one that's fake, we'll just use that as the example. Why is it so difficult to kind of pull them out of it? Is it because it's easier to convince someone to believe something that's wrong, than convince them that they were wrong?

Dani Mercy (34:39)

I think it's the time commitment. I think like you go down this rabbit hole and you go into it like looking to debunk it or looking to prove it, right? Whatever your goal is. And then you come out of it and you're like; I just spent all this time just to prove that I was wrong. Like and people don't want to be wrong. It's really hard to go into something and want to prove yourself right and then come out of it wrong. So, like to be proven wrong is really hard for people.

Gareth King (35:12)

No, of course. And on your point there, do you think people will just stay down the rabbit hole until they find that information that will confirm them right and then say, Hey, look, I was right because of this one or two pieces that I've found, rather than the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And obviously that is a positive or a negative of the way that the internet plays out in this sense.

One thing I'd love to speak about on that point is, you know, a lot of the time we hear people talking about, I know somebody and they're they believe in this conspiracy or, you know, I can't get them to change what they think, et cetera, et cetera.

Is there kind of methods, like just hypothetically, if someone is concerned that some their loved one or whoever is going down one of these rabbit holes of disinformation, we'll call it whatever, stuff that's not real. Is there any way to particularly approach that with people that's not just saying, hey, you're wrong and you're an idiot. Like what what's gonna work best for having that dialogue?

Dani Mercy (36:15)

I think personally you should never like and just like in interpersonal relationships, you don't go at somebody and be like, you're wrong, right? Like they don't want to have that conversation because you now you've cut them off. And I think this is a real problem in our society is that like I disagree with you. Let's talk about why.

And so, to me, if somebody came at me and they're like, I don't think your conspiracy is right. And I'm like, okay, cool. So, give me your evidence to prove that my conspiracy is incorrect. So, let's start there. Let's start with the conversation that like you think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong. So, you present me your evidence, and I'll present you my evidence. And let's have like an actual discussion, not like a heated argument.

If you can go into it being level-headed, then being level-headed and actually having a conversation, then you can make you can make serious moves. And that's just like an interpersonal thing. That's not even a conspiracy thing, right? Because you could talk about that with left and right. You could talk about that with like racism or abortion or like any like guns, any like really emotionally charged thing. We can't have this conversation if there's too many emotions involved.

Gareth King (37:16)

Absolutely. And I think you touched on something there, which it is bigger than conspiracy theories. It's a social level thing. And I think that one of the one of the real negatives of the way that this algorithmic sorting and monetisation and everything is so extreme and so quick, it doesn't lend itself at all to that nuanced discussion. And it feels like we're getting worse and worse and worse as we go.

If we're honest with ourselves, we know it's all about that interpersonal relationships and just being nicer to people, kinder, and having your mind open to learning something new, whether it proves you right or it proves you wrong, but just having an interest in, because I find what I find so interesting about conspiracy theories personally is the creativity that people can put into them.

And I think that then knowing everything that we've spoken about, this, you know, flood of information and new conspiracy theories, looking back over say the last twenty, thirty years then, would you as a conspiracy theory expert say technology's been an overall positive or negative effect on the world of conspiracy theories, and why?

Dani Mercy (38:25)

I think both because I think now it's easier for us to get the information. But I think that also it hinders like actual information because as an example, like I did a Jim Carrey episode 'cause of how he looked at the Caesar Awards. And so, I was going through and people had sent me these videos of him exposing and I say that in quotes, like secret societies on talk show hosts and trying to expose like all these different things.

So, I was like that's really interesting. Is that why they cloned him and made him a different person, right? Because that's the theory. Well, so I'm going through all this and I'm finding these videos of him on these late-night shows. And if you actually watched the full interview, that's not what he was doing. He was like making fun of the conspiracy theories that there are secret societies ruling Hollywood.

So, I was like, well, I can't use that because like it's not true. And so, you have this like battle online where it's like, well, I saw this video. Well, if you did like not even two minutes of research and went and saw the entire clip, then you would have found that the video's wrong. That it's out of context.

Gareth King (39:27)

Exactly. And it's such a great point that as you said, it is such an emotionally charged space that everyone is so susceptible to seeing something in their own unique way. And that's it's so fascinating to me that depending on what your preconceived thoughts or beliefs on the entire thing are, like you'll see something completely different in the same piece of information.

And I can imagine that that's like quite an interesting part of what you do in this is like just uncovering what people have come up with compared to what the real events that may may or may not have happened in the world.

Dani Mercy (40:05)

Yeah. I mean, and there's all kinds of things. My podcast, I try to prove the conspiracy theory, or like I try to back up the conspiracy theory. That's the point. If the like if you're there to learn about it, I'm trying to teach you about it. However, and I tell everybody I don't debunk it. If you want to go and like debunk it yourself, that's easy to do. Anybody can debunk a conspiracy theory.

I think it's harder to find all the pieces of a theory than it is to find like the debunked part of it. And so when you're listening to the podcast or if you listen to podcasts and it sounds very much like I'm pro conspiracy, that's the point. Like I'm trying to I'm trying to…

Gareth King (40:40)

That's an interesting point there too, that it's very easy to debunk something because you could find one piece that to you on a personal level is the magic bullet that is gonna debunk an entire complexly-woven narrative. And you'll just back yourself on that. And so, it's interesting that to prove something real, you need almost a gigantic case file of evidence. But, you know, in our minds to disprove something, it's just like, no, I saw a video that said this. So, you're completely wrong. Which is which is mad when you think about it.

Thanks so much for that, Dani. What have you got coming up and where can people importantly follow what you're up to?

Dani Mercy (41:20)

You can kind of follow me anywhere. Like all the big plat platforms, like podcast platforms. I'm on YouTube. I’m on Rumble. I just finished an Ellen DeGeneres episode, so that's like been really popular. People are really excited about that. And Wayfair, both those just came out. I'm working. I just finished a Britney Spears episode and a Jim Carrey episode. And then I have a Cuba episode coming up. Then I think I'm gonna dive into Aleister Crowley and the Bush family because why not?

Gareth King (41:47)

That all sounds that incredibly interesting and we'll definitely keep an eye out for those. Thanks again, Dani. That was great.

Dani Mercy (41:55)

Thank you. I appreciate it.