Every marine conservation biologist is familiar with the term "science-based conservation", which applies to processes where conservation management actions and policy making are driven by scientific evidence. For example, the scientific way to determine the best place and shape for a marine protected area often involves conducting detailed biodiversity surveys and identifying critical habitat, such as nurseries, spawning areas, and migration corridors. On the opposite side of the spectrum is "politics-based conservation": the process by which conservation policy making is entirely driven by conflict avoidance. In this case, the decisions about where to place a marine protected area or how big it should be always starts by excluding areas that are heavily used by fishers, the oil and gas industry, tourists, etc, thus avoiding conflict. Here I will show that, contrarily to what is always portrayed by the media, every large marine protected area created over the past 10 years has followed a politics-based rather than a science-based approach. These MPAs are often centered around oceanic islands and don't include coastal protection, but rather, only open-ocean protection, and are being used to meet arbitrary international targets for conservation. Therefore, they remove the pressure for any further conservation measures without actually protecting anything, and their creation has the potential to do more harm than good to biodiversity in the long run.