When it comes to spreading disinformation about climate change or the risks of smoking, I can clearly see how it protects economic interests (e.g. the value of the assets of the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry). I therefore understand that these lies are (have been) regularly pushed by people who do not necessarily believe in them.
But what are the strategic considerations behind the active spread of anti-vax theories? Who gains from this? Is it just an effective topic to rile up a political base? Because it hits people right in the feels? Is it just a way to bring people together on one topic, in order to use that political base for other purposes?
Or is anti-vax disinformation really only pushed by people who believe it?
I guess what remains interesting though, is that at least in the US we are seeing new forms selective anti-authoritarianism, where (state) governments simultaneously play the anti-authoritarian card regarding (e.g.) Covid policies and vaccines, but simultaneously go out of their way to dictate what books can be read in schools.
We’re not simply dealing with libertarians who just want unrestrained private capital to be free of any government intervention.
In that sense this starts to sound a bit more plausible. In the sense that its not so much about a smaller government but about a different government.