Having spent the last twenty five years embroiled in the moral soup that is the Internet, I am by no means an expert, but I do have some observations on why there are so many untrue statements here, why social media is so fertile for the wrong kind of crop.

A falsehood is quick and convenient, the truth takes time to research. Thus the fabricator can be onto their third tale while the respondent is still googling the first. Thus its a quick and easy path to win the admiration of others, especially in a small social group. There are also acceptable group tropes that go unchallenged; what I have come to call “sewer groups” accept without verification that the Wasaga beach council is somehow evil and corrupt. It is accepted as fact and not needing proof. Thus even the most outrageous invention is accepted, praised and echoed back. In such places you are safe and welcome as long as you agree with the trope.

This same dissemble can also be a comfort when times seem bad. The shared fiction that “right” will win the day is often a tale people tell themselves or use to comfort each other. Next election, next year, eventually they will be “led away in handcuffs” is a myth repeated enough to be a holy mantra.

We learn as children that deceit has consequences, that they will be found out and reprisal will come back at us. The modern internet however is safe and anonymous. Mendacity only has consequences in that they degrade the trustworthiness of your identity and as we know identities can be faked. There is no punishment. The Facebook algorithm doesn’t fact check and it’s only when you touch certain well defined areas like antivax or conspiracy that veracity is flagged.

The internet is also largely faceless. We don’t hear their voices, don’t see their faces when people use deceit. Face to face makes it difficult to misguide. There are micro expressions and common tells that make it difficult to dissemble. In addition creating a fiction at speaking speed is a lot harder than typing. Unless someone is practised face to face, deliberate bull is tough.

There are maybe a dozen reasons to use fiction, ways that an individual benefits from these concoctions. Here however are what I believe to be the three main ones used in social media;

1. To obtain a reward not otherwise readily obtainable.

2. To win the admiration of others.

1. To exercise power over others by controlling the information the target has.

The first is of course a political one. By maligning your “opposition”, you gain traction for your group or candidate. This is also seen where a political candidate needs to swiftly acquire recognition and kudos. An example may be promoting charity but ensuring that you and your charitable deeds are the focus. This stretch of the truth is seen before an election when the halo is taken out and dusted off in the months leading up. Another example would be using “exaggeration” of your business skills, say in making a big splash with an event when the reality is sadly much more mundane.

Of course the biggest example of a whopper may be the promoting of an event associated with your name and the financial gain with associated community kudos from selling tickets when there is in fact no event.

This of course leads into the “winning of admiration from others”. The fundamental motivation in democracy. It is almost expected for prospective politicians to overdraw the truth, to promise what they have no intention or ability to providing, but there is a darker side that we see in our town too: the use of fabrication and distortion to attack either a candidate or their supporters. The use of rumour and innuendo to blacken without fact or evidence the reputation of a political opponent.

An example is of course the threat of a “forensic audit” when the “defamer” making the statement gets elected. Thus they imply without evidence that there is something that would be discovered by this terribly expensive search. (See”led away in handcuffs”). Some experienced politicians make a good living on this technique.

The last motivation is possibly the worst. To control others by controlling what they see. When you create a group or social circle, and you make membership conditional on agreeing to certain “truths”, you create a situation where free though and open discussion is controlled. In much the same way as a religious sect, you are cut off from friends and family when you hold true to information that they know is false.

In the end untruths are about taking away your freedom to chase based on the truth. It is a way of controlling people, whether it is about getting another chocolate cookie from mommy or getting your vote in an election. By knowingly spreading deceit you are showing massive contempt for your audience, you are merely using them for your own selfish agenda.