Charlie StrossApr 9, 2023

Conspiracy theories are mostly junk.

But there are two classes that sometimes hold water.

First there are the organizational cover-ups. Something bad happened: "let's sweep it under the rug or set up a committee to report back in ten years' time" is a common response. Which sometimes turns evil ("let's silence the witnesses").

And then there are shared interests. Own a coal mine? Worried about environmentalism? Donate to climate change skeptics! (Repeat, for all the fossil fuel industries.)

Show threadGavin Chait;
@cstross Is it really a "conspiracy", though, when powerful people behave this with way without even a pretence or gesture towards conspiracy or secrecy? Isn't it just plutocracy or mercantilism?
Apr 9, 2023 at 1:35pmWeb
Show threadJohn DyeApr 9, 2023
@GavinChait @cstross I was thinking along similar lines, so I actually went to the definition of conspiracy. "A group planning in secret to do something unlawful or harmful". Even if what is being done is technically legal, it still fits the bill. And I would argue that a lot of these powerful people DO engage in a lot of obfuscation and distancing to make it difficult to trace back to them. The whole concept of a super-PAC is arguably conspiracy enablement.
Show threadCharlie StrossApr 9, 2023
@GavinChait Is it a cartel if 95% of some commodity globally is supplied by 5 corporations and they all price it within +/- 1% of one another?
Show threadGavin Chait;Apr 9, 2023
@cstross There's a rather large body of research on implicit collusion:ablobcatwave:. The answer, apparently, is "it depends", so I get your point. My broader observation/question is to ask at what point it stops being outlier behaviour & becomes instead the general system of economic & political organisation?
Show threadVery Human RobotApr 9, 2023
@GavinChait @cstross how much of the research on implicit collusion is implicitly supported by explicit colluders, though?
🤔