Home Blog Page 98

What James Randi meant to me: Chris French reflects on the passing of The Amazing Randi

0

Late at night, London time, on October 21st, I received the news that James Randi had died. He was 92 years old. I am one of thousands across the globe who were deeply saddened by his passing. His work had a huge influence on me and I was honoured to be his friend. I wanted to take this opportunity to present a few reflections on what James “The Amazing” Randi meant to me personally. I will not even attempt to summarise Randi’s truly amazing life. For some insight into that, have a look at his Wikipedia page. Instead, I want to describe a few of my own interactions with him over the last half-century or so.

I think James Randi first came to my attention when Uri Geller first appeared on British TV screens back in the 1970s (however, knowing what I know now about human memory, this could well be a false memory!). Back then, I was very much a believer in the paranormal and I was hugely excited by Geller’s claims to have genuine psychic powers – claims that seemed to be supported by a number of well-respected scientists. However, I have a memory of seeing some guy on TV who also appeared to be able to demonstrate the same abilities – but who insisted that what he was doing was magic tricks. If this is a genuine memory, that that guy must have been Randi. However, at the time what he was saying seemed to teenage me to be entirely irrelevant. Okay, so you could do stuff that looked the same by trickery – but Geller wasn’t doing it that way, was he? He was using psychic powers! Oh, the gullibility of youth!

James Randi demonstrating 'psychic surgery' on ITV series "James Randi, Psychic Investigator"

Credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Randi_demonstrating_%27psychic_surgery%27_on_ITV_series_%22James_Randi,_Psychic_Investigator%22.jpg
James Randi demonstrating ‘psychic surgery’ on ITV series “James Randi, Psychic Investigator”

For me, the world of scepticism did not really open up until the early 1980s. I read James Alcock’s Parapsychology: Science or Magic? and realised for the first time that there were plausible alternative psychological explanations for many ostensibly paranormal phenomena. There were many references in that book to a certain Mr James Randi and it was not long before I was enjoying his books, including The Truth About Uri Geller and Flim-Flam. I was well and truly hooked but never dreamt at this stage that I would one day be able to count both Jim Alcock and Randi himself as personal friends.

My interest in all things sceptical began more or less as a hobby but gradually I began to publish the odd paper in the area of anomalistic psychology from the early 1990s onwards, often citing Randi’s work in the process. I think I first saw him speak live at a talk he did around then in London but I did not get the chance to speak to him directly on that occasion. If my memory is correct, I think I first got to speak to him face-to-face when he came to Goldsmiths to do a TV interview for a programme that we were both appearing in. That must have been in the early 2000s as the programme, The Man who Paints the Future, was first broadcast in 2003. I think the first time I really got the chance to have a proper conversation with the great man was at a European Skeptics Congress but I can’t for the life of me remember which one. I do recall that I was sitting with a small group of friends at a table outside a restaurant. Randi joined us and proceeded to entertain us for the evening with anecdotes about his amazing adventures. A very memorable evening!

An even more memorable evening was to follow. In 2008, Randi once again visited the UK and I was one of the organisers of “An Evening with James Randi and Friends” at Conway Hall in London. Tickets for the event sold like hot cakes and the event itself was a huge success. Richard Wiseman acted as host for the evening, as always doing a superb job of keeping the audience entertained and amused as he introduced each speaker. Prior to the main event, four speakers (myself, Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, and Susan Blackmore) each gave a short presentation describing the influence that Randi had had on our own thinking. There is absolutely no doubt, however, who was the star of the show. At 79 years of age, Randi had lost none of his spark and he kept the audience spellbound for over an hour, after which he received a rapturous (and lengthy) standing ovation. Jon Cohen wrote a review of the evening, describing it as “a huge success and … in all likelihood the greatest sceptical event ever to have taken place in the UK”. Who am I to argue?

James Randi at the Amaz!ng Meeting 2014

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Randi_with_Skull_Cane_2014.jpg
James Randi at the Amaz!ng Meeting 2014

The following year, Randi was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Following an operation to remove a series of small tumours from his intestines, he began a course of chemotherapy. He found that the chemotherapy played havoc with his biological clock and appealed to friends to stay in touch via emails at any time of day or night. As it happened, I spent several weeks in Taiwan that year on a research and teaching visit, along with my wife, kids, and mother. I decided to write keep a diary of our experiences and asked Randi, somewhat tentatively, if he’d like me to send him instalments as I wrote them. He immediately agreed and was very complimentary about my literary efforts! I’d like to think that I helped him in some small way to get through this difficult period. He made a good recovery but his illness did leave him somewhat frailer.

Back in 1964, Randi had offered $1000 of his own money to anyone who could demonstrate paranormal powers under controlled conditions. By 1996, the size of the prize had grown to a million dollars and it stayed at this level until the board of the James Randi Educational Foundation terminated the prize in 2015. Not unreasonably, in general claimants were required to pass a preliminary test prior to formally undertaking the “Million Dollar Challenge”. These preliminary tests were carried out by people that Randi knew and trusted. Thus, the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths tested a number of dowsers and various psychics over the years, all of whom failed to progress beyond the preliminary test stage. This obviously reduced the workload for Randi considerably!

Randi’s enemies – and he had many – would often claim that the prize was a con and that Randi would use duplicitous means to ensure that his tests could never be passed. It was not at all unusual for supporters of a given psychic to begin by belligerently asserting that, “Skeptics will never test <insert name of psychic in question> because they know s/he would pass the test and they would be shown to be the fools that they are!” Once the challenge had actually been accepted and a test was being designed to assess the claim in question, these same people would often change their tune and urge the psychic not to take the test because, “It’s a trick! You can’t trust Randi to make it a fair test!” Having sometimes worked directly with Randi in designing tests for claimants I can confidently assert that this accusation is completely untrue. Randi would go to great lengths to design a fair test with the full collaboration of the claimant. I recall on one occasion we were designing a test of a particular claimant and, because of the design of the test, the ultimate success or failure on each trial depended upon the toss of a coin. “Don’t do it!” one fan of the psychic declared. “Randi is a magician and magicians have loads of ways to make a coin land the way they want it to!” This may well be true but Randi would not be the one tossing the coin – not least because we were carrying out the test in the UK and he was in Florida. I mean, I know he was good but even he wasn’t that good.

Our paths would cross several more times over the years and he always made me very welcome. I know he could be a grumpy old bugger and he did not suffer fools gladly but maybe he made an exception in my case? I always saw the kinder, gentler side of his personality whenever we interacted. In 2017, I heard that Randi would be attending the European Skeptics Congress in Poland. I made sure I attended as I felt that this would probably be the last time I would see Randi in the flesh. By this stage, we were on hugging terms but I was a little afraid that if I hugged him too tight, I might break him. He still had that twinkle in his eye though. Sadly, it was the last time I saw him.

With the passing of James Randi, we have lost one of the brightest minds we had – but his influence will live on through those whom he inspired.

BUT HIS EMAILS! Trump’s relentless emails remind me of my psychic penpal, Peter Popoff

0

For reasons lost to the mists of time, I am signed up for updates from the campaign to re-elect Donald Trump as President of the United States in November.

I am a British citizen. I have been to America once, for a few weeks, on holiday. As such, I am not actually eligible to vote in US elections. I do, however, have a reasonable interest in the outcome of the election, given the influence of the US on the rest of the world. It is also several years until the next scheduled general election in the UK and quite frankly I need to get my global political fix somehow.

I have been getting these emails on and off since 2017. Since June 2020, however, there has been a marked increase in their frequency, and of late I have received between eight and eleven emails A DAY from the Trump Campaign. For example here are the emails I received on the 1st October alone:

Eleven emails from the Trump campaign on the 1st October with subject headings ranging from "let's meet up" to "FINAL THREE HOURS" and "Congratulations! The President handpicked you".

Each of these eleven emails, and indeed the many additional emails I’ve received, asked me to contribute money to the Trump campaign, in various amounts. The October 1st requests, for example, are as follows:

  • Sunny LA – YOU + President Trump: Requests at least $5 donation to be a VIP guest at an event in Los Angeles.
  • We are in the fight of our life – For ONE HOUR: Requests a donation of at least $5 and states that an 800% match has been activated for one hour.
  • Time is running out – Will you step up?: Requests a donation of at least $5 and states that the 800% match has been extended.
  • Congratulations! – The President handpicked you: Invites me to join the ‘Trump 100 Club’ if I contribute at least $5.
  • What do you think? – President Trump wants to know: Asks me to become a Trump Text Member and to take a poll in the next hour. If you click on the poll the link is broken.
  • September 31st: Requests at least a $5 donation and states the 800% match has been extended for a day.
  • Let’s meet up: Requests at least $5 donation to be a VIP guest at an event in Los Angeles.
  • Take the Official Presidential Debate Approval Poll NOW – We’re sending the responses SOON: Doesn’t ask for money, but it says the response to their survey in my state is low and that President Trump wants to hear from me. If you click on the survey, it takes you to a page asking for a donation of at least $5.
  • End-of-Quarter ALERT – 800% Match ends soon: States this is my last chance to donate at least $5 to be 800% matched.
  • FINAL THREE HOURS – For a 800% MATCH: States there are three hours left for a donation of at least $5 to be 800% matched
  • We need to CRUSH our goal – I need you to step up: Requests at least $5 and promises this will be 850% matched

With that barrage of communication, if I were minded to support President Trump and contributed as requested each time I would have donated at least $50 dollars on 1st October. Regardless of my views on a president who has suggested his followers inject themselves with bleach to cure them of a pandemic virus he first insisted was a Democrat hoax, it is actually illegal for the campaign to accept contributions from me, as I am a foreigner… but the emails don’t reference that. And that is, I repeat, ONE DAY of emails from the campaign.

Many of these emails are written as if I am being singled out for special treatment. For instance, on 9th August 2020 I was informed by the campaign that I was ‘TRUMP PATRIOT OF THE WEEK’.

The first part of an email from the Trump Campaign titled "Congratulations! You are the Trump patriot of the week!" and beginning "Friend, after looking through all of our BEST supporters, President Trump chose YOU as the very FIRST Trump Patriot of the Week. Your support has not gone unnoticed. You've truly earned this prestigious recognition".

This was exciting and slightly baffling news for me, what with my not being a US citizen, and given I have never actually communicated with the Trump campaign. It seems I am not alone: browsing Twitter that day, there seemed to be a lot of other people who had also been told that they were Trump’s patriot of the week. So many, in fact, that I *think* these emails are being mass mailed, rather than specifically sent to me…

Emails from the campaign are very distinctive – each has the following in common:

  1. It is written as if I am one of Donald Trump’s favourite people and he knows who I am.
  2. It requests money.
  3. It suggests that Donald Trump will know if I don’t donate and will be unhappy.
  4. It suggests the money I give will be rewarded with more money.
  5. A time limit is put on when I can donate if I want to benefit from the donation.
  6. It contains bold, eye-catching graphics and lots of CAPITALISATION.
An image of what appears to be a cheque that reads:
"Pay to the order of: TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE, YOUR GIFT WILL B 850% MATCHED"  "$ 850% MATCH" "Memo: DEBATE DAT MATCH" "Your President"

Given the format of these emails, something has been bothering me: it felt like I had read messages like this before. Messages that, should they find the right audience, could be very profitable. Then it hit me; I used to receive messages very similar to the Trump emails from another man who will be familiar to lots of people who have followed the western skeptical movement: Reverend Peter Popoff.

For the un-initiated, Peter Popoff is a televangelist who has preached the gospel for decades, and has claimed to be able to heal all manner of illnesses through the miraculous power of god. He came to the attention of the skeptical community in the mid-1980s when James Randi and Steve Shaw (known as Banachek) used radio scanners to intercept radio transmissions between Popoff and his wife during a show. These transmissions showed that Popoff’s wife was feeding Popoff information about audience members through an earpiece. The evidence was presented on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. Popoff filed for bankruptcy in 1987.

However, in the late 1990s Popoff had a resurgence, with infomercials depicting him healing the sick in the same way as had been previously exposed. These infomercials started to run in the UK in 2009, offering miracle mineral water to cure what was ailing you – be it health or financial concerns. This is how he came to my attention, and I applied for some of his miracle water, as he was sending it out for free. Over the course of several months I received dozens and dozens of letters with all manner of ‘miracle’ items that promised that if I planted a ‘seed gift’ of money this would be repaid with much more money, a miracle cure or other windfall. I made further requests for my dog and a cuddly toy, but God did not seem to feel it important to tell Popoff that these requests weren’t from human beings and they also got letters from Popoff. Exactly the same letters, down to the personalisation and signature. I tell all about it in this talk I gave a few years ago.

Samples of Popoff’s letters – these letters were sent to different people, but are identical in content
Samples of Popoff’s letters – these letters were sent to different people, but are identical in content

Letters from Popoff were very distinctive – each had the following in common:

  1. They were written as if I am one of God/ Popoff’s favourite people and they know who I am.
  2. They requested money.
  3. They suggested that God/ Popoff will know if I don’t donate and will be unhappy.
  4. They suggested the money I give will be rewarded with more money.
  5. A time limit is put on when I can donate if I want to benefit from the donation.
  6. They contained bold, eye-catching graphics and lots of CAPITALISATION.

It may be difficult to understand why any organisation would send messages like these when a quick google would show you that these messages are being sent to large numbers of people and are from people who have a track record of problematic finances or even proven fraud. One would think that the reputational damage from acting in this apparently dishonest way would be too high for such famous or influential people to do.

However, this is where I and my fellow skeptics need to consider who these messages are aimed at. To me, and the many people I see on social media laughing at the emails they are getting from Trump, these emails are clearly not being sent in good faith. However, this style of communication must be sufficiently worthwhile for the senders to justify the reputational damage. A quick internet search will show you on Popoff’s own Wikipedia page that he is a proven fraud, or that Trump Campaign emails claiming to be directed at one person are actually being sent out en masse. They are getting through to some people. And clearly enough people to make it worthwhile.

Despite Popoff being exposed on national television as a fraud and having had numerous negative rulings made against his infomercials by regulatory bodies in the UK he is STILL offering his ‘miracle’ water on his website. At the time of writing, you cannot request ‘miracle’ water outside of the US – I suspect that this is in large part to a number of successes in recent years from the campaigning of The Good Thinking Society.

Messages like these from Trump and Popoff seem designed to exploit the vulnerable and the desperate. In much the same way we hear of elderly people being scammed out of their savings by dodgy salesmen, these messages seem designed to overwhelm someone lacking in tech skills or who might have issues with their memory. The Trump campaign emails, really, seem like a slicker, more modern version of Popoff’s tried and tested ‘miracle’ letters. They follow the same patterns, are written in the same way, and they all request money.

However, while these messages might seem nakedly and even comically exploitative to most people, we should bear in mind that if they weren’t effective for at least some people, they wouldn’t have been sent. I imagine people like my dad, a tirelessly hardworking man nearing retirement and badly hit by the last recession. And hit again by the currently unfolding financial crisis while supporting a medically vulnerable partner. I imagine what would happen if he lived in the US and, believing in the American dream, felt he was just on the brink of financial security after many setbacks. I imagine what he might feel if it seemed like the President of the United States (and self-proclaimed billionaire) or God himself was paying close, personal attention to him and his plight. I can easily see how he might not check out these messages as thoroughly as I have.

We need to make sure we are understanding and compassionate when trying to tackle this kind of practice by those prepared to exploit marginalised groups in society. Simple ridicule is not likely to change minds, especially where someone may have already parted with some money. And laughing about ridiculous emails on twitter is not going to reach people who will fork out their limited income in response to these requests.

Finally, in the interests of fairness, I also attempted to sign up to campaign emails from Joe Biden. However, the sign up process for his emails requested my zip code. When I wasn’t able to legitimately provide one, I couldn’t sign up. I double checked the Trump Campaign at the same time, to make sure they hadn’t tightened up their sign-up criteria and… well, I think I’m about to get a LOT more emails between now and November 3rd.

Institute of Biomedical Science falls for the Traditional Chinese Medicine hype

My wife is a Biomedical Scientist. I try and throw that into as many conversations as I can. She’s also the one that told me about this whole scientific skepticism business. As such, when those two worlds collide she’s quick to let me know. The most recent example came from an unexpected source: as a paid up member of the Institute of Biomedical Science she gets the Biomedical Scientist magazine delivered each month, and September’s cover story set her skeptical spider senses tingling.

“You might want to have a look at this!” she said with a smile, waving it in front of my face. Her annoyance at pseudoscience invading her profession clearly outweighed by a potential opportunity to watch my blood pressure rise. She was not disappointed.

The magazine cover somewhat disturbingly goes with the title “Chinese Medicine – From the Shang dynasty to the current pandemic”, while the online version has the slightly more benign “A History of Chinese Medicine”. The article promises to look at “the medical history of one of the most ancient civilisations on earth”, an ominous nod to the appeal to ancient wisdom fallacy. It achieves its goal to a certain degree, but ultimately it comes across as an endorsement of its methods rather than an investigation of its evolution.

A person's exposed stomach with orange towels covering above and below has three acupuncture needles protruding from it.

Before we delve in though, a quick definition: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is an umbrella term for a wide range of highly questionable treatments including acupuncture, cupping therapy, herbal remedies, and moxibustion to name but a few. The variety of treatments is a confounding factor in itself.

History lessen

Despite the billing as a chronological voyage through the story of TCM, there are some convenient omissions (more on those later). Much more importantly though, despite being spread across a full six pages it essentially fails to make any tangible attempt to answer the most important question of all: Does it actually work?

That failure might be acceptable if it was purely a history lesson, but throughout the piece there are numerous references to conditions that ‘can be treated’ by TCM, with little or no caveats, and certainly no serious investigation of whether those treatments are in any way effective.

For example, the article claims liquorice is “well known for its detoxification powers”, and also apparently “has anti-inflammatory and anti-allergy properties, helps with digestion and eases respiratory problems”. Putting aside the highly questionable concept of detoxification,  it must be comforting to believe that Liqourice Allsorts is a valid health claim as well as a delicious confectionery product.

Elsewhere, turmeric is linked with stimulating blood flow, so apparently can help with cardiovascular conditions, menstrual irregularities, and even to treat pain caused by ‘blood stagnation’, which appears to be a made-up term exclusive to TCM – most charitably, it may be analogous to some real conditions such as thrombosis. In addition to that, it very much appears as if the author of the article simply copy/pasted much of this block of text from a page on the meandqi website. The turmeric claims don’t end there either. We also get congestion relief, treating bruises, aiding digestion, dissolving gallstones, decongesting the liver, and just for good measure you can use it to treat nosebleeds and heatstroke. The section ends somewhat predictably on the claims that it has ‘cancer-fighting properties’.

The perplexing final conclusion drawn by the author is that we should integrate both conventional and Chinese medicine into a “universal approach to healing and treatment”, rather than perhaps taking a more methodical approach to identify elements of TCM that may actually have some kind of beneficial clinical effect. This is especially confusing since the same paragraph compares Western vs Eastern philosophies on the body and medication “before orthodox medicine revealed the real cause of disease”, so there’s a clear admission that both were wrong.

To add insult to injury there’s a somewhat patronising implication that ‘Western’ doctors are somewhat deficient in their evaluation of their patients. Apparently TCM practitioners looks at a patient ‘holistically’, and uses the four pillars of diagnosis “looking, listening, touching and asking”… as if regular doctors don’t use all methods available to assess their patients.

A pestle and mortar surrounded by various herbs and plants including ginger and rosemary, star anise and cinnamon on a white background.

Herbal diarrhoea

Of course, China isn’t the only place where we humans have taken what grows around us and attempted to make use of it for medicinal purposes. A quick literature search gives a veritable splatter of results, from South America, to India, over to Europe, and on to many more places depending on how far you want to scroll. What they essentially tell us is that all over the world, the further back you go in medical history the more guesswork there was going on. Generally speaking it didn’t go well. Even today development of medicine is based on trial and error, except that the trials are (hopefully) properly run clinical trials. That’s not to dispute the notion that something which occurs naturally can have medicinal properties, of course. For a glorious musical illustration of that, and other skeptical talking points, check out Tim Minchin’s ‘Storm’; or, if you prefer something a little less catchy, then feel free to read ‘The Aspirin Story’.

When it comes to herbal remedies, each claim should be scrutinized individually, and with great rigour. Results can vary from disappointing to promising (example: Science Based Medicine’s look at Turmeric), and if there is a tangible effect then you’re on the path to becoming a real medicine. That very point is actually made elsewhere in the article regarding artemisinin for malaria.

Omission impossible

When taking an in-depth look at TCM from past to present, it appears that the author skated past a number of noteworthy items which deserved a mention. Here’s a few of them to set things right:

  • Many TCM remedies are derived from animals. This has had a devastating impact on many endangered species.
  • It has been said that Mao Zedong promoted the catch-all term of Traditional Chinese Medicine in the 50s, despite the fact that he didn’t even believe it worked.
  • TCM is a multi-billion dollar industry, and is heavily endorsed and protected by the Chinese Government, whose significant influence have led to it being endorsed by the World Health Organization.
  • Sometimes when TCM is chosen instead of conventional treatment, it can prove fatal, such as in the tragic case of Xu Ting, the Chinese actress who died at the age of 29 after putting her faith in TCM in lieu of chemotherapy.
  • There doesn’t appear to be any tangible evidence that the TCM has provided China’s population with any historical advantages in terms of health outcomes, such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, or resilience to pandemics. There are obviously multiple variables which affect all of those outcomes, making it certainly hard to draw comparisons, which is all the more reason to apply skepticism.

Considering the author’s praise of TCM practitioners taking a ‘holistic’ approach to their diagnosis, it’s somewhat disappointing he didn’t do the same when writing the article.

SARS-hole

The one saving grace of the article is that despite the mention of the current pandemic on the magazine cover, there is no direct mention of COVID-19 in the article, and you have to, somewhat appropriately, delve down all the way down to the very bottom of the references to find a somewhat questionable article in the Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine. A more relevant mention could perhaps have gone to the Chinese government’s promotion of unproven coronavirus treatments.

Con-collusion

A woman from behind as she stands in a lab wearing a lab coat

The seemingly miraculous popularity of Traditional Chinese Medicine despite its apparent lack of efficacy is somewhat mundane once you take a Scooby Doo style look behind the mask. There’s a strange fetishisation of ancient Chinese civilisation here in the West, welded together with the appeal to ancient wisdom fallacy, which can clearly have an effect on scientists writing in a scientific magazine. There’s also a worryingly long list of references in the article pointing to studies which presumably support some of the claims being made in the article, with no attempt made to evaluate how good those studies are. This is of course a common problem, exacerbated by the deluge of TCM studies that flow into the literature. Finally, and probably most importantly, TCM is worth billions of dollars, and is strongly championed by the Chinese Government. The combination of money and power generates incredible influence.

Unfortunately, they’re probably going to get away with it despite us pesky skeptics. All we can hope for is that institutions such as the IBMS take a more critical, evidence-based approach in the future, because the perceived credibility they’re giving here can be damaging.

To close out, a recommendation: If you want a more even-handed and entertaining look at Medical History, then you might want to check out the excellent Sawbones podcast.

Facebook’s efforts to curb QAnon and anti-vax conspiracies are too little, and much too late

There’s been much critique of social media giants and the influence their platforms have on discourse, democracy, and public health – and with good reason. While some of the claims about Facebook’s ability to microtarget users in order to wholly sway election may turn out to be a little overstated, it is hard to deny that tech platforms’ drive for engagement has inadvertently amplified conspiracy theory, health misinformation and maliciously-designed fake news.

In response to the criticism, companies now direct users and journalists to the efforts they are making to limit the spread of misinformation and disinformation: earlier this month Facebook and its subsidiary Instagram banned “any groups, pages or Instagram accounts that “represent” QAnon”; last week, Facebook overturned a long-standing policy to announce that holocaust denial will no longer be welcome on their platform, with Twitter swiftly following suit; and most recently Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook will no longer display advertising that discourages vaccination.

These changes are doubtlessly welcome, but it’s hard not to look at these policy shifts and to wonder: what took them so long? How long was Facebook accepting payment to display adverts that spread false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines? How recently did they realise the adverts they were paid to show could be persuading people that vaccines were unsafe? These feel like pretty important questions.

While these new policies will go some way towards addressing the spread of misinformation, few who have followed these issues will believe the measures to be sufficient. Take, for instance, the ‘ban’ on anti-vax misinformation: it applies only to paid advertising, but not to any other form of anti-vax content on Facebook. Adverts which explicitly discourage vaccination would be non-compliant with the Committee of Advertising Practice Code, the set of rules which govern advertising claims in the UK. If Facebook was serving anti-vax ads to UK users, they would already have been in breach of these regulations.

More importantly, in practical terms, it’s hard to see that this policy change will have any appreciable impact at all, because the overwhelming majority of anti-vax content spread on Facebook is done via groups, shared posts and pages – not through paid advertising. Facebook’s updated vaccine policy wouldn’t stop, for example, this post from being shared:

A Facebook link share on 10th July by HomeopathyOnline - the link is to a website called CovidWatching.org and is titled "Flue vaccine increases the risk of COVID19 - research" with an excerpt that reads "Discussion has already started about this year's flu season - what you should know about flu and COVID19".

Nor would it stop this, from a member of the Society of Homeopaths:

The post reads:
"Ok so here's the thing: viruses are always with us. The way to deal with the is to raise your level of health so they have little or no effect. The way to do that is to: i) eat well (ie not processed, polluted or pesticided) ii) drink well (clean water I mean ;)) iii) sleep well (that's when we heal and regenerate) iV) think well (that means NO 24hr rolling news!) v) exercise well (getting enough sunlight on your skin and vi) just say no to drugs (pharmaceutical ones that is!). If you are not doing this stuff it is likely that you will be more susceptible to viruses, allergens, pathogens etc. So what do you want to do about it? CV19 is here to teach us! If we think we will get well by i) eating denatured food, ii) drinking only tea, coffee and alcohol, iii) staying indoors, iv) being frightened, v) not exercising or being in sunlight and fresh air, vi) taking paracetamol whenever we feel we are getting ill and getting every vaccine going...then we will become much more susceptible to viruses, influenzas, infections and so on. This is what the CV19 and all our acute illnesses teach us. If we disregard their teaching we make ourselves extra susceptible to chronic illness....or death. It's our choice. It's our responsibility. It's our life. Love life. Choose love. Choose Homeopathy (and/or ayurveda, acupuncture, cranial osetopathy, herbalism, chiropractic etc etc) Love Health. Love your viruses. Respect your immune system. x"

The post has 274 reactions, 43 comments and 79 shares.

Or this, sharing an article from a website that has repeatedly published anti-vaccine misinformation:

A user shares a link on 10th July to an article from Junk Science asking "would you have this vaccine?". The comments say "interesting article. A No for me ! The best way forward I believe is keeping our immune systems strong. Both husband & I had the virus in March. I had it for 10 days but my husband had it & then pneumonia. He was v ill for 10 wks. He had suffered a stroke just 3 wks previously & was already struggling..", "not with abysmal stats like that." and "I don't think so. have 3 immune system issues, over 80, not taking unnecessary risks..."

In the comments, multiple users explain that they have health complications that leave their immune system comprised and put them in an at-risk population, yet they believe the risks of vaccination outweigh the very real risks posed to them by COVID-19. This is the coalface of the damage anti-vax misinformation can do.

Because none of these posts – or the thousands like them on personal feeds, in public and private groups, and in comments on pages – are paid advertising, none of them would be affected by Facebook’s new ban. Facebook has suggested that these kind of misleading claims would be picked up by other policies they have introduced to curtail the spread of vaccine misinformation, but these were just the first examples I found when I went to look, and no such counter-measures had been deployed.

Facebook’s ban on QAnon content, too, is less impressive upon inspection. While the platform will remove accounts that “represent” QAnon, this will only apply to “groups, pages or Instagram accounts whose names or descriptions suggest that they are dedicated to the QAnon movement”. Crucially, this would not limit the spread of posts containing QAnon conspiracies shared by people from their personal accounts, or from groups and pages that are dedicated to other pseudoscientific topics – including other conspiracy theories, alternative medicine beliefs, fake cancer ‘cures’ and even the anti-vaccination movement.

This is a genuine problem, especially given the rise of “Pastel QAnon” – a term QAnon researcher Marc-André Argentino coined to refer to QAnon believers who are “lifestyle influencers, mommy pages, fitness pages, diet pages, and [have] alternative healing” accounts. Pastel QAnon launders QAnon messages and narratives into the timelines of people who signed up to see content in or adjacent to the health and wellbeing spaces, but without explicitly labelling those messages as part of the QAnon movement. Their posts normalise terms like “the storm” and “the great awakening” – terms I’ve even seen appearing on the Facebook feeds of my own family, who I don’t imagine for a moment understand these terms are signifiers of a conspiracy theory that believes a shadowy cabal of satanic paedophiles are soon to be brought to justice by Donald Trump.

Pastel QAnon, along with movements like “Save Our Children”, have allowed the conspiracy theory to jump streams and enter wider discourse, divorced of the explicit signs of the origin of these ideas.

An instagram post - a pink background with the words "Key terms in your journey down the rabbit hole" with the caption "in the previous post, a few must watch videos were recommended. In those videos you might hear some top key terms repeatedly. Here's a breakdown list of some of those top key terms that you will need to understand in your journey down the rabbit hole. SWIPE. There is an emoji of a white rabbit. The hashtags include #FollowTheWhiteRabbit #WhiteHat #QAMon #Plandemic2020 #DefundHollywood #TheFallOfCabal #DownTheRabbitHole #WakeUpAmerica #SaveOurChildren #WakeUp2020 #GodFirst #kek #MAGA #Trump2020 #TruthSeekers #OutOfShadows.

The adoption by QAnon believers of “Save Our Children” as a slogan and rallying cry seems tailor-made (possibly deliberately so) to appeal to the communities who make up Pastel QAnon, and to offer the movement plausible deniability. After all, who could argue with the goal of saving children… as long as you aren’t forced to explain that the thing you’re saving the children from is a Satanic paedophile cult of senior politicians and international celebrities based on a blood libel that is nakedly anti-Semitic.

This cover is so successful that even mainstream publications like the Mirror and the Mail Online last month failed to spot they were being used as a vehicle for “Save Our Children” activists to spread paranoia about alleged paedophilia.

Article from The Mirror with the headline "Mum accuses Asda of seling kids' t-shirts with slogan 'promoting paedophilia'" The subheading reads "Kiki Marriott, a mum and Save our Children activist, has slammed Asda for selling a t-shirt for children with a message she says promotes paedophilia as a sexual orientation"

Given the rise of Pastel QAnon and the penetration of the conspiracy theory into the wellness movement, the flaws in Facebook’s efforts to tackle either anti-vax or QAnon posts unfortunately have a compounding effect: the accounts that promote misleading and scaremongering information regarding vaccines are the same ones now at risk of promoting entry-level QAnon content. Failure to tackle one of these issues is a failure to tackle the other.

This is a problem for which Facebook must shoulder some degree of responsibility: their role in the growth of QAnon goes beyond merely failing to arrest its spread. As the Guardian found out in an investigation in June, Facebook’s recommendation algorithm has actively been promoting QAnon groups to users who may not otherwise have been exposed to them:

“The Guardian did not initially go looking for QAnon content on Facebook. Instead, Facebook’s algorithms recommended a QAnon group to a Guardian reporter’s account after it had joined pro-Trump, anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown Facebook groups. The list of more than 100 QAnon groups and accounts was then generated by following Facebook’s recommendation algorithms and using simple keyword searches.”

The promotion of groups is significant, given that in early 2018 Facebook announced it had changed its algorithms away from promoting “relevant content” and toward “meaningful social interactions” – the upshot of which was that Pages would be de-emphasised, whereas content from Groups would be promoted:

The first changes you’ll see will be in News Feed, where you can expect to see more from your friends, family and groups. As we roll this out, you’ll see less public content like posts from businesses, brands, and media.

With content from groups fed more actively into people’s feeds, and groups with high engagement (likes, posts and comments) emphasised, it is little surprise that Facebook’s algorithm flagged QAnon groups as worthy of recommendation; I can think of few better sources of engagement than confused conspiracy theorists franticly competing to read meaning into the cryptic, opaque and nonsensical pronouncements of a supposed online whistleblower.

The QAnon genie is well and truly out of the bottle, proliferating far beyond the message boards it originated on, and far beyond the accounts and groups who spread it explicitly. Whether they like it or not, Facebook has been more culpable than any other platform in provoking and promoting the spread of this belief, and the steps they are proposing to fix it are wholly inadequate. This is, in part, their mess, and they need to be serious about cleaning it up.

No, the COVID-19 app does not share your data with the police

0

On Saturday evening, the website Health Service Journal (HSJ) published an article claiming the police are to be given contact details for people instructed to self-isolate under the NHS Test and Trace program.

The article was met with an immediate and visceral reaction when posted to Twitter. Frustrated users reported that they had uninstalled the NHS COVID-19 app in anger, while others complained about the violation of their privacy and cited the European Convention on Human Rights. Some sneered at the notion that the app was ever going to respect individual privacy, and that this news validates their decision not to install it.

Cartoon of  four viral particles on a purple background

The problem is: the NHS COVID-19 app is not sending your contact details to the police, and uninstalling it is not going to protect your privacy.

The NHS COVID-19 app works by exchanging anonymous tokens—effectively very long random numbers—with other phones nearby. The tokens associated with a user change regularly, so your device will built a list of tokens it has assigned to you, and when each token was used. Each device running the app maintains two lists of these random numbers: the first contains every token it has sent to another phone in the past two weeks, the second list contains every token received from another phone in the same period.

When someone tests positive for COVID-19, their phone publishes the first list, the list of tokens it has sent to other devices, which other phones then download and compare to the list of tokens they have seen from other devices.

If there is a match, it means you have been in close enough proximity to someone who has a positive test result for your phones to have exchanged information. The app will then assess how likely it is that you were exposed to the virus during that encounter, based on several factors including the strength of the signal between your phones, and if the likelihood of exposure is sufficiently high it will generate a notification to advise to self-isolate.

At no stage in this process does the app gather your name, address, contact details or any other form of identifying information. The data it collects and publishes is a list of random numbers; there is simply no way for the app to tell the police anything. Even the partial postcode, gathered while setting up the app, does not leave your phone.

So, to what is HSJ referring?

The Department of Health confirmed to Sky News that it has agreed a “memorandum of understanding” with the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) to provide forces with contact information on those advised to self-isolate, on a case-by-case basis. In practical terms, this means that when investigating reports of someone who is not complying with a mandatory self-isolation period, police can now request information from NHS Test and Trace about whether that person has received a positive test.

However, this data looks to be coming from the COVID-19 test centres, not from the NHS COVID-19 app. Although both are part of the Test and Trace effort, the self-isolation notifications generated by the app are effectively anonymous. Nobody other than the user knows that their device has shown them a notification.

A person wearing a lab coat, face mask and hairnet holds out a sample tube with the words "COVID-19 TEST" alongside it.

Privacy campaigners and public health experts, including the Chief Medical Officer and the British Medical Association, have cautioned that allowing police access to this data may discourage people from being tested and hamper efforts to control the spread of the virus—concerns which I share.

But uninstalling the NHS COVID-19 app is not a useful response, as it is not the source of these privacy issues. Deleting the app will serve only to exacerbate the problem by further undermining the Test and Trace infrastructure.

Finally, it is worth highlighting that the writing of this article was hampered by the requirement by HSJ’s website that the author provides personal information to them before being allowed to read the full article. HSJ also uses embedded tracking scripts to share user data with Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Oracle, and others, without asking for permission from the reader first. I sincerely hope the irony of this is not lost on the editors at HSJ.

Has the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in ghostly encounters?

October is typically a pretty busy month for me and I am sure you can guess why. There is a certain date at the end of this, the spookiest of all months, that is an irresistible temptation for media folk looking for a hook for a story. This year is no exception. One of the emails I received recently was from the producer of an American radio show planning a programme on “the increasing prevalence of people who say they believe in ghosts or have seen a ghost in recent years – including the rise during our current pandemic.”

A ghostly silhouette

I was intrigued. Had there really been a rise during the pandemic? There are always fluctuations in opinion poll data relating to belief in and claimed experience of paranormal phenomena of all kinds. Endorsement rates can be affected by numerous factors including the wording of questions, the topicality of the subject, popular depictions in films and TV programmes at the time, and so on. Has belief in ghosts increased in recent years? Some evidence would appear to suggest that maybe it has. A report on the Chapman University Survey of American Fears shows a gradual increase from 2016 to 2018 in the percentage of Americans agreeing or strongly agreeing that “Places can be haunted by spirits”: in 2016: 46.6%; in 2017: 52.3%; and in 2018: 57.7%. On the other hand, a more recent 2019 YouGov poll found that only 45% said that ghosts “definitely exist” or “probably exist”. At the very least, we can conclude that a large proportion of the American public appear to believe in ghosts.

When it comes to assessing how many people claim to have actually seen a ghost, again the picture is not that clear. A survey by the highly respected Pew Research Center in 2009 reported that 18% of Americans claim that they have seen or been in the presence of a ghost. To me, this is a much more believable estimate than the dubious claim in a report in The Independent in 2018 that no less than 60% of Americans say that they have seen a ghost! Given that this figure is higher than estimates of levels of belief in ghosts, there would have to be quite a lot of people around who refuse to believe in ghosts despite having seen one!

But is there any evidence that the number of ghostly encounters has actually increased specifically during the pandemic? I am not aware of any such direct evidence. An article in the New York Times in May this year reported that John E. L. Tenney, a paranormal researcher and former host of a show called Ghost Stalkers, claims that during 2019 he received between two and five reports per month of haunted houses but that this has risen to five to ten reports per week during the lockdown – suggestive, if not conclusive, evidence.

It would not surprise me if there has indeed been such an increase. Mr Tenney, who believes that the vast majority of these cases are “completely explainable”, argues (and I would agree with him) that, “It does seem to have something to do with our heightened state of anxiety, our hyper-vigilance.” He also makes the valid point that, as most of us are spending more time at home, we are more likely to notice sounds like “hearing the bricks pop and the wood expand” when the sun comes up and the house starts to warm. Those sounds were always there, maybe we just used to sleep through them.

Evidence from around the world is accumulating supporting the claim that, for many people, sleep quality has deteriorated during the pandemic, presumably as a result of both the direct stress of worrying about one’s health but also that caused by indirect effects such as worries about finances, employment, and even relationship problems caused by social isolation. Poor nocturnal sleep quality will inevitably have effects during the day including difficulties with memory and attention. So maybe it wasn’t a ghost who moved your car keys, maybe you just forgot where you put them? Sleep deprivation is also associated with an increased likelihood of hallucinatory experiences and paranoia, all of which may result in claims of being haunted.

A bed in a soft pink room with grey sheets and a white table beside it. A pink book lays open on the bed.

One of the most common types of hallucinatory experience that leads people to believe that they have had a ghostly encounter is, as readers of The Skeptic will no doubt already know, sleep paralysis. Sleep paralysis is a temporary period of paralysis experienced in that twilight zone between sleep and wakefulness. It is often accompanied by a strong sense of presence, hallucinations, difficulty breathing, and intense fear. Sleep paralysis is experienced by about one in twelve people in the general population at least once in their lifetimes but the incidence is much higher (approaching 30%) in two specific sub-groups: students and psychiatric patients. Both of these sub-groups are known to have notoriously irregular sleep patterns, albeit for different reasons. One of the strongest correlates of sleep paralysis frequency is poor sleep quality and the latter is, of course, associated with stress, anxiety, and depression – levels of which have all increased dramatically during the pandemic.

So, as if we didn’t have enough to worry about with Trump, Brexit, and the pandemic, it looks like we are probably also experiencing an outbreak of increased ghostly activity. Who you gonna call?

The Curse of Monster Island: a four year experiment in unmoderated free speech

Gather round friends, I want to tell you a true horror story. I can’t promise a twist ending; the monster is still going to turn out to be humans with funny hats on. What I can promise is a direct connection to a recent high-profile act of violence, and an increased anxiety about unregulated internet speech.

Our story begins in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election. Like many very online Millennials, I was posting a lot of political content to my personal facebook wall and getting some rather inflammatory pushback from individuals on the right. It got so bad that I started to get private messages from friends begging me to find an alternative venue. The final straw came when a Native American friend saw a thread where one right wing individual repeatedly referred to Dakota Access Pipeline protesters as “primitives” and “savages”. We’ll call this right-winger Bruce. Bruce, myself, and a few other regular participants decided to take our debates to a private group. A place where people from a truly broad range of perspectives could fully express their most controversial views at a safe distance from the rest of humanity. There was only one possible name for such a place: Monster Island.

Monster Island logo

As the resident mad scientist, I saw Monster Island as more than just a containment system for some of the worst people I’ve ever experienced: it was a place to experiment on those monsters, myself included. I wanted to study if it was possible for people from radically different worldviews to debate in an environment that had informal guidelines but no officially enforced rules. It was already clear in 2016 that the regulation of online speech was going to be a rolling disaster, producing an endless stream of rage against the moderators, who were invariably cast as biased against the right. Donald Trump himself has claimed that sites like Twitter and Facebook discriminate against right wing speech. Respectable experts have raised concerns about the lack of oversight for algorithmic moderation. Our failures to address this problem proactively seem to promote a desire in some to return to a “golden age” of the internet, before things got so big that moderation of speech on an epic scale became necessary. I had my doubts that less moderation was really the solution to our problems, and Monster Island presented a perfect chance to test my theories.

I would say things went about as well on Monster Island as they did in the Stanford Prison experiment, except we let the disaster run for 4 years instead of just a week. The only guideline we had going in was “what happens on Monster Island stays on Monster Island”, and yes I realize the irony of telling you about that here in a public forum. Think of this article as the letter at the beginning of a Lovecraft story, warning you of a place you should not go, only now you’re too far in to turn away. The forbidden knowledge of Monster Island calls to you. If I disappear in the night, you’ll know why.

Almost immediately we had to add the guideline “no deleting” as individuals started to delete sections of posts to mess with arguments or cover spots where they’d messed up. I call it a guideline because at this point we hadn’t had to actively enforce anything beyond stating the norms. What became clear though was that even the existence of those unenforced guidelines was an affront to some monsters’ sensibilities, and so they set to work testing the fences for weaknesses. They used all the typical troll techniques. Do things that are very close to breaking the guidelines and then force everyone to argue over whether they count. Look for other horrible things they could do that weren’t technically in violation of any guidelines, just to see if it would force us to develop new guidelines in response. It was always a losing battle, because there is a fundamental asymmetry between order and chaos, and chaos always has the advantage in tempo. One troll named Ryan Balch, whose name I have not changed, for reasons that will become apparent, openly declared his intentions to destroy Monster Island, just to prove he could. Several trolls joined his cause.

The result was several years of the purest banality of evil. We ended up needing to add rules against doxxing, blocking admins, explicit threats of physical violence, and taking photos from people’s personal profiles and photoshopping them into sex acts with military dictators. Meanwhile, the quality of discourse deteriorated from semi-functional, where some folks could have actual arguments or at least do a dance that looked vaguely like presenting evidence, to endless spam of the most disturbing memes you’ve thankfully never seen. Here’s a relatively mild example from Ryan Balch that still conveys the type of content we were inundated with:

A Christian knight templar and a norse viking stand together in front of an caricaturishly ugly horde. The horde includes a naked woman with a blasphemous message daubed on her body; a naked man with “woman” daubed on his body; an obese man eating fast food; two gay punks in fetish gear; a heavily tattoed Hispanic man holding a knife and gun; a hooded black man; and a bearded communist adorned with a hammer and sickle. The crowd are holding signs saying “Equality”, “Black lives matter”, “Stop white oppression”, an anarchist symbol, a rainbow gay rights flag, and “My Body, My Rules”. Behind the crowd is a giant looming spider wearing a Star of David. The Viking and the Knight Templar agree to fight together

At some point in the first year we had to start kicking people, though not for material like this, since this post did not violate any Monster Island rules. People really only got kicked when they explicitly broke a stated rule. Even then, it just became a game of whack-a-mole as every troll had multiple sock puppet accounts. Of course, once that happened the reactionary behavior went up exponentially. We tried everything we could to stabilize the situation. Monster Island had always had left-leaning demographics, but we tried hard to invite more right wing folks to the island. That was how we ended up with a horde of Ryan Balchs. Perhaps it was just the result of which groups our right wingers ran in, but we found it nearly impossible to bring in right wing individuals who would even try to engage in debate before dropping some random hate speech. We even formed a leadership group where I represented the left, Bruce represented the right, and our mutual friend – let’s call him Peter – who helped us form the group originally stood for the moderates. Peter was technically a moderate conservative. Having leadership that explicitly leaned right was still insufficient. The right wingers claimed I still held absolute power over the group and they claimed Peter was too soft on the left and so Bruce was effectively outnumbered. Nothing short of giving Ryan Balch a leadership position was going to satisfy them, and thankfully we didn’t go with that option.

By year three it became clear that I’d gotten all the results I was going to get from this experiment, and the toxicity of the island was consuming more and more of my time and life-force, so about a year ago I gave up and swam for shore. Many would say it’s absurd I stuck with it that long, others would call me the worst monster of all for letting the experiment go on as long as I had, and they’re all probably correct. Some of the members seemed to still enjoy the group though, so I passed control over to Peter, set sail, and never looked back. I felt comfortable concluding that unmoderated discourse faces a tragedy of the commons no different than any other unregulated communal resource. There are places online where people who strongly disagree, up to a point, can engage productively. What those groups have in common is substantial rules and heavy moderator enforcement.

I approach the end of my cursed tale, and I promised you a connection to real world violence. If you haven’t placed Ryan Balch yet, give these two articles a quick read.

Ryan Balch got his three seconds of fame as the white supremacist who joined Kyle Rittenhouse and his militia buddies, allegedly as their “tactical advisor”,  shortly before Kyle was involved in a shooting that claimed the lives of two protesters. Here is the relevant passage from the case filed against Balch, Rittenhouse, several militia groups, and Facebook:

8. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendant Balch assumed the role of
Tactical Advisor of the squad that included Rittenhouse and, along with other armed militia
members, took up preplanned sniper positions on roofs and strategic street corners. This
effectively controlled the ingress and egress of Black Lives Matter protestors around the
Civic Center Park area of downtown Kenosha, the designated meeting point for the protest.

9. That is when tragedy struck. Under the command of Tactical Adviser Balch, the group of coconspirators trailed and harassed Plaintiffs and protestors, scaring them, arguing, intimidating, and ultimately engaging with them in a parking lot. Defendant Rittenhouse, under the tactical supervision of Defendant Balch, then shot and killed two protestors with his assault rifle, as well as shot and grievously injured a third. One of the protestors who was murdered, Anthony Huber, was the life partner of Plaintiff Hannah
Gittings who, along with experiencing the nightmare of the militias while peacefully protesting, was forced to watch her best friend and soulmate die.

While this lawsuit is unlikely to succeed for various reasons, it drives home how real-life violence is directly connected to online radicalization and organization. I can say pretty confidently that any material the media found when going through Ryan’s internet history pales in comparison to what he was sharing behind closed doors. As far as we know, Kyle Rittenhouse himself did not express white nationalist sentiments the way Ryan Balch frequently did. What Kyle did frequently post about was pro-police sentiments, and America is currently actively wrestling with the overlap between our policing system and white nationalism.

It’s hard to believe that a person from a Facebook group with fewer than 400 members ended up directly connected to vigilante violence against protesters. When we saw the news, Peter and I decided it was finally time, and Monster Island sank back into the internet ocean. I’m happy to see it gone, but I’m haunted by the dark irony that Ryan Balch ultimately made good on all his promises. He got out in the streets, and in doing so he destroyed Monster Island.

Like all highly successful disasters, Monster Island is rich in moral take-aways. Personally, I learned that I do not want to spent my time engaging with people like Ryan Balch, even as some Hail Mary attempt to change their minds or try to understand what mix of nature and nurture got them to that dark place. I do find learning about cult thinking and behavior endlessly fascinating, but I’ve no need to spend my daily life around it. The best I can do is pity, as that seems better than hate or anger.

More generally, I learned that discourse really only works if it’s properly moderated and everyone is committed to the system. That means that someone is going to have to be empowered to make decisions and enforce rules, and we’re going to have to find a way to invest enough trust to keep the discourse from collapsing. That’s a difficult prospect with so many individuals actively seeking to poison the discourse and keep it on life support so they can benefit from the disfunction. I learned from Monster Island that the group of people who just want to watch the world burn is larger than anyone wants to admit and that their goal is the easiest one to achieve.

These days I spend my Facebook hangout time in the Philosopher in Space Facebook group, which requires almost zero real time moderating for a few reasons. First, I moderate who’s allowed in and the few times we’ve had toxic people in the group they haven’t lasted long. Also, we’re not trying to have it out over extremely controversial issues. Most of the group is some version of left/liberal and the most heated debate ever was whether science and magic, and by extension sci-fi and fantasy are really distinct things. I strongly encourage everyone to find their own Philosophers in Space group and avoid anything that feels too much like Monster Island. You may think you can go for just a peek, but rage is addictive and you’ll end up another trapped soul.

Finally, I learned that the boundary between the online world of trolls and the real world of vigilante violence is much thinner than we want to believe. Balch’s symbolism above is repulsive when it’s made explicit, but there is a whole ecosystem of dog whistle versions of Balch’s symbolism that have infested mainstream right-wing culture. Here is a prime example:

James Lindsay shares a tweet from Christopher F Rufo of the Evangelical creationist organisation the Discovery Institute: "The forces of critical race theory have established dominance in our institutions. But the rebel alliance - @HawleyMO, @ConceptualJames, and yours truly - is ready to fight back. Swords up!"

The image accompanying the tweet shows James Lindsay, Josh Hawley and Christopher Rufo superimposed onto the bodies of Knights Templar, brandishing swords during the crusades.
James Lindsay from New Discourses shared this a tweet from Christopher Rufo, a director at the creationist think tank the Discovery Institute

Notice again the use of templar knights and the common theme of protecting western culture from the invasion of globalist forces and their social justice ideologies. Either the individuals involved in creating and sharing this image don’t understand the memetic pool they’re swimming in, or they’re unconcerned about the fact. Neither option seems like good skepticism, as this symbolism and the corresponding ideologies present a serious obstacle for promoting compassionate and constructive discourse on a variety of controversial issues. Skeptics need to be highlighting the role of internet on-ramps in radicalizing young white men, not participating in that process.

We still need to be able to talk to each other, and we need it to go better than Monster Island, or we’re going to follow Monster Island into the ocean.