Facebook: Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming too prepared?
Facebook is looking out for your safety again. This time among homesteading groups, where dangerous preppers and survivalists gather to share recipes and strategies for living off the grid.
In these groups, FB is asking:
Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming too prepared?
We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.
(Confidential support on FB… sounds legit)
Apparently you can help by hearing stories from people who escaped violent extremist groups.
(**UPDATE: See comments for links that suggest that this image may not be current. My concerns about narrative-driving research stands however.)
I found this interesting because survivalism was mentioned a number of times in a recent Rutgers study I just wrote about. You can read it here:
And here’s the study:
From the abstract:
COVID-19 spawned many bogus beliefs (e.g., that it could be treated by ingesting household cleaners) and induced resistance to established facts (e.g., that it could be managed by vaccines). We tested whether transitory distress and insufficient psychosocial resources explain these maladaptive perspectives. According to the Resources and Perception Model…, distress distorts perception and judgment, but psychosocial resources (e.g., social support, self-esteem, purpose) mitigate such distortions by buffering distress. Two cross-sectional studies of COVID-19 beliefs fit within the RPM framework. General life distress was related to endorsing bogus beliefs and denying facts. COVID-specific distress was also related to bogus beliefs but not to denial of facts. Resources, in contrast, were associated with fewer bogus beliefs and with greater acceptance of facts. As per RPM, distress mediated the relation between resources and bogus beliefs. Additionally, rejection of CDC recommendations and adoption of survivalist strategies were positively associated with distress and negatively associated with resources. All results were retained even after controlling for mood and individual differences including political ideology and news sources.
This seems designed to link non-compliance and “maladaptive perspectives” to psychological issues. Importantly, this study was conducted in the spring of 2020 (before a COVID vaccine was available) and the “facts” were pre-determined and unsupported. We actually never get to see the questionnaires that were presented to participants.
Bogus beliefs were negatively related to CDC compliance and were positively related to survivalism; factual beliefs were positively related to CDC compliance and were negatively related to survivalism. Overall, these correlations indicate two distinct epistemic postures; one favoring confabulations, denialism, and “doomsday prepping” (e.g., stockpiling materiel and readying for self-sufficiency; Smith & Thomas, 2021); the other embracing factual information, resisting fabrication, and favoring collective coping. *emphasis mine
I’d actually love to get a peek at the raw data. Instead, we get glimpses of the bias that permeates this paper…
Compounding the problem of bogus beliefs was resistance to facts, such as refuting the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Collectively, these unfounded beliefs and factual denialism constituted an “infodemic” that distracted people from earnest science, weakened their compliance with medical guidelines, and aggravated social divisions (Broniatowski et al., 2020).
So, in 2020, these scientists equate refuting the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines “resistance to facts.”
Also, one wonders if Rutgers scientists considered the impact of calling people’s beliefs “bogus” when making determinations about what “aggravated social division.”
These findings suggest that in future disasters, government agencies might give greater consideration to preserving and enhancing people’s resources, for example by instituting more crisis support resources. Mental health providers might pay attention to extreme beliefs and factual denialism as signs of underlying distress.
Enter Facebook and its efforts to “prevent extremism.”
Let’s review:
Scientists (I’m using the term very loosely here) are making a link between CDC non-compliance, "factual denialism,” survivalism, “extreme beliefs” and “insufficient psychosocial resources” without allowing us to consider, or even see, the facts themselves. And then they make suggestions about how government agencies and mental health providers might proceed.
And now Facebook is issuing warnings about people who are “too prepared.”
Do you see what’s happening yet?
Ann this is excellent reporting. These little hidden gems that you unearthed are good grist for the mill. I knew about the FB BS a while back starting a “snitch” agenda… I hope this gets more coverage Perhaps send to Jeff Childers @ Covid & Coffee substack. I am sure it will get cross posted. I will link this in his comment section tomorrow. Prayers & Peace. We win when we are all connected.
Interesting post.
I prepped a lot a few years ago. I bought and stored canned goods, bought a basement freezer and filled it with meat, bought a generator, bought seeds and put them in storage, and bought extra flashlights.
Two years later, I stopped prepping. I decided if the country ever got to the point that my survival depended on a can of baked beans heated up on a propane stove, I wouldn’t want to tough it out anyway. I’m good to go. That’s not meant to sound defeatist, it’s a well thought-out choice.
I don’t want to live in a totalitarian reality. I’m old enough that I can say I’ve lived a good life, have a great family, have seen the world and have had so many good times.
I do have to say, as someone who has been awake since 1997, we have extremely hard times ahead. Probably worse than most can imagine. Everyone should be aware of that and at least be prepared in some fundamental and basic ways.