[brippalcharrid]

If we had reason to expect that certain people would have concerns about developments like this, then it might be best for us to address any reasonable concerns that they might have about these technologies (as much as that is possible at this stage) rather than proactively attempting to discredit them personally and marginalizing them, or else we risk providing further justification for their concerns and convincing other people that they have merit.

[toss1]

>>then it might be best for us to address any reasonable concerns that they might have about these technologies

That sounds lovely, but this literally does not work in the anti-vaxxer camps. They fall into two categories, the leaders who are deliberately fabricating and spreading disinformation, and the followers who are willfully remaining ignorant. They are both literally immune to facts and reason. Same for the flat-earthers, chemtrailers, 5G-causes-COVID, Bill-Gates-puts-microchips-into-vaccines, etc...and every other conspiracy theory. There are a number of papers about it I don't have the time to lookup now, but they're easy to find.

Of course, we should still disperse as widely as possible the accurate information, in detail at the outset. But we shouldn't delude ourselves to think that no conspiracy theory will arise. If it sounds technological, some arse is going to fabricate a conspiracy theory, and find followers.

[brippalcharrid]

> That sounds lovely, but this literally does not work in the anti-vaxxer camps. They fall into two categories, the leaders who are deliberately fabricating and spreading disinformation, and the followers who are willfully remaining ignorant. They are both literally immune to facts and reason. Same for the flat-earthers, chemtrailers, 5G-causes-COVID, Bill-Gates-puts-microchips-into-vaccines, etc...and every other conspiracy theory. There are a number of papers about it I don't have the time to lookup now, but they're easy to find.

Even worse would be to imagine that a group of people would have concerns about the use of a new technology (and to think that concerns about the use of a technology would necessarily put a person in that category of people), and to then straw-man what their supposed objections might be. I'd definitely advise against that, if our objective was to communicate in good faith and to build trust, rather than to attack, mislead, coerce and marginalize.

If there were no grounds for concern about a new technology that was currently being researched, then we might want to talk about why that is (we could write some papers on the subject for instance, I'm sure there would be some funding on offer). Or we could say "...because I said so." or cast doubt on their motivations, their capacity for critical thinking, or their scientific credentials, but arguing from authority to a skeptical audience might well be counterproductive.

We might need to admit that there may be the potential for legitimate concerns, and that we may not yet know enough about a new technology to rule them out. But the last thing we would want to do is to try to steam-roll over people's objections and drown them out (and to mislead them or misrepresent them) - that would just make people think that we're lying to them and that we have something to hide, that we're perhaps driven by a hidden motive or an over-riding ideological commitment.

> Of course, we should still disperse as widely as possible the accurate information, in detail at the outset. But we shouldn't delude ourselves to think that no conspiracy theory will arise. If it sounds technological, some arse is going to fabricate a conspiracy theory, and find followers.

There will always be conspiracy theories, nearly all of them will be harmless, and some (many, even) of them will end up being true! By their nature, governments will never stop having the temptation to misrepresent or disproportionately emphasize scientific information for political purposes, but we must do our utmost to avoid spreading official information through authoritative channels that subsequently turns out to have been knowingly inaccurate or presented in a such a way as would be likely to mislead people in serious ways, because that is a number one surefire way of destroying trust between the apparatus of the state and the population.