Our Opponents are Psychopaths Part MCMLXIII

I suppose we should give some credit for willingness to declare that Trump-supporting was not the key metric. Still:

[W]e found that it’s not conservatives in general who tend to promote false information, but rather a smaller subset of them who also share two psychological traits: low levels of conscientiousness and an appetite for chaos. Importantly, we found that several other factors we tested for — including support for former President Donald Trump — did not reliably predict an inclination to share misinformation.

You can make of that what you want, I guess, but they claim that "in the early months of the pandemic, conservatives were more likely to believe Covid-19 was a hoax, and to downplay the virus’ severity." I seem to recall that, in the early months, it was the Nancy Pelosis of the world who declared that you should go join the Chinese New Year celebrations in your local town. Trump's ban on travel from China was painted as racist, and not by conservatives. His follow-on ban on travel from Europe was painted as wild-eyed.

Can LCCs be prevented from sharing falsities? One of the most common measures for combating misinformation is using accurate messaging or fact-checker interventions, which have been shown to reduce the sharing of misinformation. Unfortunately, in two studies, we found that fact-checking warnings were inadequate: LCCs continued to share fake news stories at a higher rate compared with liberals and high-conscientiousness conservatives, despite being told the news was inaccurate.

This would be more persuasive if the "fact-checkers" weren't so reliably pro-establishment propaganda. I can't recall one I've read recently that wasn't designed to short-circuit debate and reaffirm the position of the powerful. 

At the same time, our research overall suggests a path forward. First, those seeking to combat false information online can now target their interventions toward a smaller subset of the population: LCCs. More targeted approaches have been shown to be effective in influencing individual behavior in the past.

Second, our research makes clear that anyone trying to reach LCCs needs to experiment with interventions that go beyond fact-checking. We believe the onus falls primarily on social media companies. There is plenty of evidence that a user’s personality and political ideology can be inferred based on their social media activity. If these companies can identify LCCs, that means they can also be proactive in making sure LCCs are presented with reliable information, and not with falsities.

Misinformation is a serious threat to American democracy that deserves serious attention. 

This sounds like a desire to identify likely enemies and make sure they don't have access to any information that isn't approved by their betters. Thoughts must be controlled to protect democracy.

I have an alternative suggestion: why not have real debates in which people can put forward their views honestly as they understand them? I don't listen to podcasts, but Joe Rogan's apparently hosted an alternative viewpoint that embarrassed him -- and his response was to admit that his opponent was smart and well-informed, but then to cite his source for having believed otherwise.

Reasonable people are grappling with all this stuff as well as they can. If democracy is in fact the goal, you have to begin by accepting that ordinary people will be making decisions. While expert opinions may be helpful to them in areas where they are not themselves experts, they also don't know which experts are trustworthy and legitimate. The more the powerful seem to be trying to winnow the field to eliminate opposing views, the less trust they're going to have for the ones endorsed by the powerful.

Open and honest discussion is the only real way forward. Rogan is a mixed martial arts guy, not a scientist. But everyone is grappling with this, whatever their backgrounds. All of them have to come to individual decisions about what to do: that's real democracy. You've got to trust them to engage the discussion, and give them space to do it well. The more the powerful try to suppress and control, the more they end up delegitimizing their preferred speakers in the eyes of the ordinary person. They may not be expert enough to understand the science or to identify the true expert from the fake one, but they can definitely tell when pressure is being employed to try to keep them from reaching any but the approved conclusion.