That's a very good point.
Politicians live in the same information ecosystem that we all do, and one of the very best examples of it, I think—and I'm sorry I keep pointing to the United States, and my colleague has done the same, but there are just so many good examples emanating from that jurisdiction—was the misinformation we saw with the immigrants eating dogs and cats. That came from the community. It started on social media and then was adopted by politicians, J.D. Vance and Donald Trump.
By the way, a very recent report came out that found that over 80% of Americans have heard that misinformation and it plays to the illusory truth phenomenon, which my colleague spoke to. If you hear it enough, it starts to feel real, especially if the misinformation plays to your preconceived notions, plays to your ideological leanings. The confirmation bias kicks in and you believe it.
There has been some very interesting research that's come out by people like Stephen Lewandowsky and his colleagues that talks about the difference between belief speaking and truth speaking. This is this evolution of the notion of truth. Fact speaking is from the old school, in that it's rooted in evidence. Belief speaking is if you just say something earnestly enough—if you say something with enough conviction and it plays to your ideological beliefs—people will adopt it because they believe the gist of the point, even if they know in their hearts it's not literally true.
I think that's what's happening increasingly, unfortunately, in politics, and that's what's happened with that horrible example in the United States of the idea of immigrants eating cats and dogs. It becomes part of a political agenda, and that community adopts it, despite the fallacy that underlies the belief—and by the way, this happens across the ideological spectrum.