13/03/2025
By Agnesa Bytyqi
Conspiracy theories thrive where facts are incomplete, emotions run high, and distrust of institutions intensifies. In these spaces, even the most rational voices risk being drowned out by rumors and speculation. The internet, with its boundless reach and no boundaries, has undoubtedly accelerated the spread of questionable claims and half-truths. In this volatile climate, SMIDGE project’s Database featuring key characteristics of online videos associated with extremist (SMIDGE Database) is a potentially important tool. It not only gathers evidence-based content but also archives extremist or misleading materials, giving researchers and everyday users a structured way to explore and understand how conspiracy theories grow—and why they are so tenacious.
Yet, to comprehend the importance of a platform like SMIDGE Database, we must first examine the environments where falsehoods flourish. One such environment formed in the wake of the September 11th attacks and the subsequent invasion of Iraq. In the months and years after 9/11, a narrative took shape that involved both legitimate security concerns and broad policy debates. While it later became clear that Saddam Hussein’s regime did not possess the active weapons of mass destruction once believed, there were genuine international worries about his history of human rights abuses and reported attempts to develop illicit weapons in the past. These complexities revealed the fine line between founded suspicion and overly aggressive policy decisions, setting the stage for a public relations battle that shaped American and global opinion.
It was within this climate of anxiety, uncertainty, and mourning that the U.S. government sought to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Citing intelligence reports, historical hostilities, and the perceived threat of Hussein’s regime, officials argued that intervention was necessary to uphold global security. Some Americans saw this as a just cause—rooted in the traumatic memory of 9/11 and in a broader desire to protect the country from future attacks. Others, at home and abroad, raised legitimate questions about the veracity of claims regarding weapons of mass destruction. Over time, these competing perspectives created room for alternative explanations, some of which crossed the boundary into conspiratorial territory.
One of the most prominent conspiracy theories that emerged proposed that the U.S. government had orchestrated or permitted the 9/11 attacks to happen, purportedly as a pretext for invading Iraq. While most experts—and even mainstream critics of the Bush administration—disputed this theory, it nevertheless developed a dedicated following online. Internet message boards, some of them obscure and others relatively mainstream, became fertile ground for ideas that resonated with people’s fears and frustrations. A major factor behind this theory’s spread was the emotional trauma that followed the attacks; people wanted answers, and for some, official explanations seemed inadequate or cloaked in secrecy. Rather than offer closure, the official narrative convinced some skeptics that there had to be a hidden scheme or conspiracy at work.
These sorts of unsubstantiated claims can sometimes appear deceptively plausible by capitalizing on real incidents of government disinformation or misinterpretation. Indeed, in the early 2000s, the intelligence community’s assessments about Iraq’s capabilities were in dispute, creating confusion and skepticism that lingered for years. Discrepancies in official explanations, changing narratives about the war’s aims, and the ultimately incorrect assumption about active weapons of mass destruction all contributed to public doubt. Against this backdrop, conspiracy theories provided what some perceived as clearer narratives—albeit ones lacking in verifiable evidence.
This is where SMIDGE Database demonstrates its potential value. By functioning as a curated archive of digital materials (albeit not comprehensive), SMIDGE allows users to find evidence-based sources alongside the sorts of problematic or extremist content that often fuels conspiracy theories. For researchers, the platform can serve as an analytical goldmine. Instead of combing through random corners of the internet in an attempt to piece together how certain ideas spread, they can consult SMIDGE for cataloged entries that specify the date of publication, the intended audience, any changes or deletions, and the broader context surrounding each piece of content.
Such systematic organization is crucial in understanding the life cycle of online misinformation—especially during moments of high tension, like the early years of the Iraq War. Platforms like SMIDGE can reveal how specific conspiracy theories mutate over time, whether they gain momentum through social media amplification, or if they tend to fizzle out once certain claims are debunked.
Importantly, SMIDGE Database can also track how extremist ideologies piggyback on conspiracy theories to recruit individuals. For instance, a conspiracy theory about government corruption could segue into broader conspiracies about Jewish, Muslim, or other minority communities if it fits a group’s hateful worldview. By storing and categorizing these narratives, SMIDGE provides a way to see the subtle shifts in tone or targets that can mark the difference between fringe gossip and extremist propaganda.
Additionally, journalists and media outlets stand to gain by using SMIDGE Database. They can investigate the origins of certain viral rumors and cite verified primary sources when reporting on the spread of conspiracy theories. Rather than simply stating that “rumors exist,” they can show precisely which platforms hosted them, how they were phrased, and whether they were promoted by influential users or bots. This deeper insight into the mechanics of conspiracy propagation equips journalists to produce more nuanced coverage. It also helps the public grasp the potential real-world impact of ideas that might otherwise be brushed off as internet chatter.
Of course, discussing these platforms raises broader questions: What responsibility do we have to counter conspiracy theories? Who should regulate the spread of misinformation—and to what extent? These are complex issues requiring cooperation among tech companies, government agencies, academic researchers, and civil society. SMIDGE’s role here is not to single handedly police the internet or shut down free discourse; rather, its aim is to help ensure that discussions about sensitive, potentially polarizing topics are grounded in verifiable data.
It is also vital to consider the audience most susceptible to conspiratorial thinking. Young people, in particular, spend a significant amount of time online and often rely on social media for news and information. They can come across sensational claims that feed off existing biases or grievances. By archiving and labeling such content, SMIDGE allows educators and parents to demonstrate how misinformation circulates and why discernment is so critical. Even adult audiences benefit from seeing a clearer picture of how conspiracy theories evolve and multiply, especially when tensions run high.
Ultimately, the case of the Iraq War and its surrounding conspiracy theories underscores a broader truth: whenever there is a gap between public knowledge and government action, speculation tends to fill the void. In times of tragedy or conflict, fear and uncertainty can open the door to rumors that oversimplify or distort complex events. While people have every right to question authority—indeed, rigorous scrutiny is essential in a democracy—this skepticism can also veer into the realm of the extreme when bad information is weaponized.
Platforms like SMIDGE Database featuring key characteristics of online videos associated with extremists cannot solve these problems on their own, but they can help us navigate the misinformation landscape with a clearer perspective. By cataloging content, analyzing trends, and shining a light on how conspiratorial ideas spread, SMIDGE enables both professional and casual researchers to tackle the problem at its roots. This method of engagement preserves the vital balance between free inquiry and factual accuracy, ensuring that even those who question official narratives have the tools to sort genuine concerns from baseless claims.
In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms and viral sharing, resources like SMIDGE offer a guided path through the informational chaos. As we collectively work toward more transparent communication and responsible data-sharing, such platforms serve as reminders that truth may be elusive, but it is still worth pursuing with intellectual rigor. By focusing on verifiable evidence, critical thinking, and an understanding of how conspiracies gain momentum, we can hope to mitigate the damage of false narratives and foster a healthier, more informed public sphere.
