When it comes to spreading disinformation about climate change or the risks of smoking, I can clearly see how it protects economic interests (e.g. the value of the assets of the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry). I therefore understand that these lies are (have been) regularly pushed by people who do not necessarily believe in them.

But what are the strategic considerations behind the active spread of anti-vax theories? Who gains from this? Is it just an effective topic to rile up a political base? Because it hits people right in the feels? Is it just a way to bring people together on one topic, in order to use that political base for other purposes?

Or is anti-vax disinformation really only pushed by people who believe it?

  • @Ultraviolet
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It only became a partisan issue in the 2020 election, and this is probably by design. By making COVID denialism a de facto part of their platform, they would increase their relative turnout on Election Day, while making mail-in ballots (i.e. what someone taking COVID seriously would use) proportionally more Democratic-leaning. Then they tried to get as many mail-in ballots thrown out as possible.