I get the feeling that you aren’t asking for the short version, because most people wouldn’t latch onto that point and create an account for it.

Hmmm.

An example - the inefficacy of Fact checking efforts. Fact checking is quintessentially counter speech, and we know that it has failed to stop the uptake and popularity of falsehoods. And I say this after speaking to people who work at fact checking orgs.

However, this is in itself too simple an example.

The mechanics of online forums are more interesting to illustrate the point - Truth is too expensive to compete with cheaper content.

Complex articles can be shared on a community, which debunk certain points, but the community doesn’t read it. They do engage heavily on emotional content, which ends up supporting their priors.

I struggle to make this point nicely, but The accuracy of your content is secondary to its value as an emotional and narrative utility for the audience.

People are not coming online to be scientists. They are coming online to be engaged. Counter speech solves the issue of inaccuracy, and is only valuable if inaccuracy is a negative force.

It is too expensive a good to produce, vs alternatives. People will coalesce around wounds and lacunae in their lives, and actively reject information that counters their beliefs. Cognitive dissonance results in mental strife and will result in people simply rejecting information rather than altering their priors.

Do note - this is a point about the efficacy of this intervention in upholding the effectiveness of the market where we exchange ideas. There will be many individual exchanges where counter speech does change minds.

But at a market level, it is ineffective as a guardian and tonic against the competitive advantage of falsehoods against facts.

——

Do forgive the disjointed quality in the response. It’s late here, and I wish I could have just linked you to a bunch of papers, but I dont think that would have been the response you are looking for.