Hacker News Reader

Comment by version_five | Hacker News Reader

The author could have said "misconception" and been much more accurate than "conspiracy theory". This isn't something about microchips or sattelites or Rothschilds or Illuminati, the article is saying people misunderstand economics and this companies are profiteering. People can have an opinion, even a wrong or allegedly wrong one, without automatically being conspiracy theorists.

View on HN

at least some of the people arguing for this do seem to talk as though there's an actual conspiracy.

It's true that misconceptions are not the same as conspiracy theories. However, misconceptions on social phenomena are more likely become conspiracy theories, because they commonly involve speculating other people's behaviors or intentions.

In this case, I find it very hard to distinguish. Is believing inflation caused by corporate greed simply a misconception or is it a conspiracy theory? I'd like to hear someone can elaborate on the difference. Like on what condition it's only a misconception and to what point it becomes a conspiracy theory.

I have the sense that you're dismissing my comment, but I'll elaborate: conspiracies, in the sense of 10 years ago, would imply that a group of people have deliberately "conspired" to achieve something, by colluding or executing some secret plan. Greed in itself is not a conspiracy, even if it was the true cause, it would just be human / corporate nature doing its thing. The emergent behavior is not the same as an actual conspiracy.

If all the captains of industry and elites had met at Bohemian grove and decided to deliberately coordinate their actions to gouge us, that would be a conspiracy. I didn't see any accusations like that leveled in the article.

You seem to adopt a more narrowed definition of conspiracy theory. I agree you do provide a valid example. However, as you noted, "in the sense of 10 years ago", you may also agree that it would be harder to distinguish with the broader sense of "conspiracy theory" used today.

Yes I agree, that's exactly my point (even if I wasn't super clear about it) - there seems to be a definition creep in "conspiracy theory". We've all agreed those are bad and something to dismiss at face value, and so now it gets used as a rhetorical device, even when what's really being discussed is just a misconception as in the article

I would say it’s both a misconception and a conspiracy theory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com