ARE THE WAVES of collective hysteria that wash across social media from smart phones and tablets making us lose our marbles? Does the heightened sense of immediacy and intimidating volume of comment undermine our sense of proportion and ability to reflect before we are tempted to react?
From politics to personal finance or public health, our loss of trust in established sources of authority gives many of us cause to question the most revered and respected figures and institutions (No, not Garry Lineker, I’m thinking more like David Attenborough and the National Trust).
Nature abhors a vacuum and our cynicism towards traditional trusted sources of information is matched by a sharp steer towards alternative sources of ‘authority’.
We never required fact-checking before (or at least we never thought we did) because we already knew there was such a thing as lies, dammed lies and statistics – but now we have to contend with supposed fact-checking that is being wilfully polluted by those seeking to use fact-checked facts to influence our reasoning. This inevitably forces us to ask who checks the checkers?
Where a healthy skepticism once existed, it appears an ever-increasing number of us will believe any old nonsense peddled by ‘influencers’ online so we have to be doubly skeptical and interrogate claims and counter claims. (Why do so many of these influencers appear to shallow, dim and ignorant rather than worldly-wise and hardened by real life experience?)
Some of us would rather just sup a pint or quaff a fine Chateau Musar than travel down a rabbit hole that eventually brings you out somewhere in Australia’s bush. But dig we must!
The outcomes are not good. All sorts of claims appear on the web and the regiments of bots and counter-bots form their orders of battle in support, leaving us punch drunk about what to believe.
Apparently, retirement nest-eggs are being lost to crypto – or are they just old-fashioned fraudsters simply using new tools to confuse the unsuspecting, like the ‘Nigerian e-mails’ I used to receive?
As a result of disputed claims and counter claims around the efficacy and safety of Covid vaccines any trust in Big Pharma or national and international healthcare institutions like the WHO are now instantly questioned.
Whatever one thinks about the value of the Covid vaccines the handling of their introduction, the lack of rigour in testing, the mandates to take them or lose your livelihood and then the predictable suppression of damaging effects has raised significant doubt about all vaccines where it never previously existed. Some of us warned such problems with public confidence in health policies would happen, but we were ignored or shut down.
The result: falling vaccination rates for once near-obsolete childhood diseases, some of which are now making a comeback. The pushback: President Trump has taken the United States out of the WHO. (I had already formed the same view when I found how the WHO is campaigning to prevent me supping my pint or enjoying Chateau Musar.)
Health scares are particularly notable for their regularity on the internet, no doubt because we all have an interest in them (if not for ourselves then for those we care for). The consequence is a series of ill-conceived ‘health crusades’ where complexity and nuance is lost.
Artificial sweeteners are called a ‘cancer risk’ when generally the alternative is, er, refined sugar. Perennial demands are made for mass fluoridation of water when we can be free to choose fluoride in toothpaste. Alarms are raised about artificial preservatives and colourings poisoning our children’s breakfast cereals or sweeties when research studies are inconclusive and it’s often a struggle to get children to eat their breakfast and not even kids live on sweets.
Every week there’s a new product or additive thrown into the cocktail mix, fuelling a new kind of hypochondria diagnosed by sincere activists or online cranks – but how do we know which?
Food ingredients is not even a partisan issue. Some on the Left fret about the health and climate impacts of seed oils; some on the Right freak out about unavailability of unpasteurized milk – and then the positions become so blurred that ‘bully state’ laws from uni-party centrists become the new extreme.
We’ve even got the absurdity of people in the Netherlands encouraging kids to smoke cigarettes – to avoid vapes! (WHO has a lot to answer for).
If an issue is not started by X or TikTok it is most likely to be turbo-charged by them. Soon the respective bugbears of fringe minorities quickly spiral into full-blown moral panics. Such collective freakouts don’t just shape our choices and beliefs, they erode societal trust and well-being.
When I was a kid and delivered milk it was, er, just milk (Jersey, full fat or sterilised) – then we had skimmed and semi-skimmed – now there is a kaleidoscope of ‘milks’ from plants and nuts to satisfy every desire or prejudice – does adding another ‘medicated’ variety that reduces the amount of Cow farts cause a problem so long as we know about it and can choose alternatives?
In the comparative scale of health concerns questions over the risks from food dyes appears another exaggeration too far. In the US the FDA has now followed the EU and banned Red Dye No.3 from foods (it was already banned from lipstick) all the while admitting the evidence of causing cancer is not conclusive.
Risks had been reported as low, especially when consumed as part of a healthy, balanced diet – yet like other scares, activists ensure the fears never quite go away. The campaigners are coming next for Red Dye No.40, apparently mice force-fed huge amounts developed tumours. Funny, I never considered trying the Red Dye Diet – does anyone? So why should I be worried?
Often it is the incoherence and inconsistency that contributes to the cynicism. I recall when in the name of protecting our sensitivity from listing Cochineal as a food colouring (obtained from the eponymous scale insect) authorities insisted it had to be called E120 or carmine. It happened to be the red colouring of foods and drinks such as Campari – so Campari simply stopped using it rather than discourage people from falsely thinking they really were drinking Beetlejuice.
Now the same institutions are approvingly telling us we should eat insects and accept insect flour as a viable ingredient.
Is it any wonder such contradictions might leave people questioning what to believe and doubting the honesty of authorities?
I know it is not going to stop, all I ask is for letting us choose for ourselves. I want to be left to continue sucking on my Pear Drops (no pears were harmed in the process of making them), downing a glass of my (sans-Cochineal) Campari & Tonic, savouring without fear my raw steak tartare with a fresh egg yolk – and devouring my favourite Neapolitan ice creams with a Cochineal-coloured glacé cherry on top.
Social media scares won’t change me. I’ll weigh up the evidence and take a questioning view – I shan’t be bullied into abandoning my Sugar Puffs.
Established in 2006, ThinkScotland is not for profit (it makes a loss) and relies on donations to continue publishing our wide range of opinions – you can follow us on X here – like and comment on facebook here and support ThinkScotland by making a donation here.
Campari visual courtesy of Black Madre.
An earlier version of this article first appeared on Country Squire magazine which ThinkScotland is pleased to recommend.
