[Thread] If you're wondering how conspiracy theories spread and eventually reach critical mass... crisp, memorable language plays a big role. There were other people dressed like idiots. Why did this *particular* idiot make so many headlines? A memorable, repeatable title.

Just after the attack, people found Jake Angeli's social accounts, where -- among other things -- he listed himself as a shaman.

A few people tweeted about his links to the q-word. And a nickname was born. Here's how he's described himself...

All of a sudden, "Q*** Shaman" was in headlines. It's memorable, doesn't require many characters, it rhymes, it's ridiculous.

And now, there is a second cycle in progress on social media... everyone talking about him instead of other people in that violent mob.

It's worth thinking about digital communication as cyclical, rather than linear. The memorable "Q*** Shaman" nickname sticks, so the more everyone talks about him, the more fascination grows, bad ideas get legitimized, and we move further away from the actual problems at hand.

We've always preferred shorthand over details -- that explains how we got here.

Seems like this is a good moment to reflect on how we're communicating events. And the negative consequences that may become clear in the future.

</>