This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.

There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.

Coaxing conspiracists: the extremists

In our chapter of a new book on extremism and conspiracies, my colleagues and I discuss evidence that certain extremist groups intentionally use conspiracy theories to entice adherents. They are looking for a so-called “gateway conspiracy” that will lure someone into talking to them, and then be vulnerable to radicalization. They try out multiple conspiracies to see what sticks.

Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58% were intent on incitement and radicalization.

You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy, but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”

Combative conspiracists: the disinformants

Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.

Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.

As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”

Likewise, while Chinese officials were spreading conspiracies about American roots of the coronavirus in 2020, China’s National Health Commission was circulating internal reports tracing the source to a pangolin.

Chaos conspiracists: the trolls

In general, research has found that individuals with what scholars call a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of belief. These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent. Dark personalities and dark motives are prevalent.

For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.

Commercial conspiracists: the profiteers

Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”

When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.

Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.

Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.

Common conspiracists: the attention-getters

You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity, or know it is false.

These posts are common: Friends, family and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7% to 20% of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?

Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.

Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation. They want the likes and shares. They want to “stir the pot.” Or they just like the message and want to signal to others that they share a common belief system.

For frequent sharers, it just becomes a habit.

The dangers of spreading lies

Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.

It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write — and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

Yesterday, the jury delivered a verdict in the federal trial of three of the five Memphis, Tennessee police officers responsible for the fatal beating of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols during a 2023 traffic stop. The jury spent three weeks listening to powerful testimony, including from the other two officers involved who have already pleaded guilty. The verdict was mixed. All three officers were found guilty of witness tampering, but two were acquitted of all civil rights charges and one was found guilty of a less serious civil rights violation. 

The fact that these officers will be held accountable for their actions is important and may provide some measure of comfort to the Nichols family. At the same time, individual prosecutions against police officers for misconduct are exceedingly rare, often yield mixed results, and are insufficient to honor the memory of those like Nichols who should still be alive today. To prevent the needless deaths of more Black Americans during traffic stops, we need to pursue meaningful systemic change in police traffic enforcement.

Police officers interact with the public via traffic stops more than at any other time — they make roughly 20 million of them per year. Black motorists are stopped more often and are more likely to be searched than their white counterparts, despite being less likely to possess illegal drugs or weapons. As many as half of all traffic stops are made for minor infractions unrelated to dangerous driving, and police often use these pretextual stops as an excuse to investigate other crimes — an often unsuccessful practice rife with racial profiling.

Traffic stops for minor violations are not only pervasive, ineffective and racially biased — they also put drivers’ safety at risk. Last year, nearly one-tenth of the 1,352 people killed by police in America were killed during the course of a traffic stop. Police use of force is even more common. On an annual basis, police use or threaten to use force on 1 million people, resulting in 75,000 nonfatal injuries. These dangers are more real for people of color, who experience greater risk of an encounter with police escalating into violence, and who are three times more likely than white people to be killed by police. 

No amount of money, fame or notoriety can shield Black drivers from the dangers of police traffic stops. Last month, Tyreek Hill was pulled over and physically restrained by Miami-Dade police officers while he was only a few blocks from the stadium where he would later play in the Miami Dolphins home opener. Hill — like so many others whose experiences with police violence have made the national headlines — called for the officers involved to be held accountable, and to reignite the fight for police reform that has stalled in recent years. 

Nichols’ murder also spurred lawmakers to confront the pervasion of racial injustice within police enforcement of traffic laws. The Memphis City Council made progress by passing a series of reforms, including one aimed at reducing traffic stops for minor infractions like broken tail lights. Similar driving equality policies have been implemented elsewhere, but the pushback to this public safety win in Memphis was swift. Less than a year after the bill passed, conservative lawmakers in the Tennessee state legislature preemptively overruled the will of local voters and passed a bill prohibiting local districts from enacting these types of reforms.

Tennessee’s regressive action can and should be an outlier. People with platform, influence, and policymaking authority should wield it to shine a light on the systemic changes that could mitigate some of the most harmful police traffic enforcement policies and practices in local communities. These changes include:

• Urging localities to enact driving equality laws and ordinances restricting the use of traffic stops for low-level violations that don’t endanger roadway safety, like Philadelphia and Virginia have done. 
• Encouraging local police departments to adopt policies prioritizing their resources to respond to infractions that pose an immediate threat to traffic safety over minor violations, like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Ann Arbor, Michigan have done. 
• Encouraging local prosecutors to establish policies that require the declination of cases that are based on evidence obtained during a non-safety or pretextual stop, like counties in Vermont, Michigan and Minnesota have done.
• Supporting community-focused efforts such as organizing brake-light clinics in Memphis, assessing alternatives to police traffic enforcement in Los Angeles, and improving data transparency in Connecticut. 

For too long, certain police officers have abused their power by inflicting harm on the very people they’re sworn to serve — making driving more dangerous for Black Americans and other people of color. Holding individual officers accountable for violence and misconduct is critical, but systemic change requires systemic action in partnership with the people who live this reality every day. We’re seeing successful policy strategies take hold in communities across the country, proving that it is possible to move past individualized justice and America’s legacy of racial bias, over-policing, and undue violence.