Part 1 Part 2

I took a break from reading and watching the news. For the past week I do not know what happened in the world and what dystopias are waiting for us in the shadows. I do not know anything about America, the financial markets, the EU, the Hindu right-wing or about the virus. I do not know the new drama that Twitter wants to diffuse into me or the outrage that Reddit forces me to consider. The pangs of boredom that make me want to consume more of the Guardian and the Washington Post are yet to find a new home, but the media terror of discourse building is suddenly absent.

News media operates like a terror organization, as ideologues who push forward their narrative through capturing attention. The content behind the news does not mean as much as the attention power it generates. Generating content 24/7 is not an easy task but considering the low shelf life of most news, the need to invent is continual.

I consume news for the same reasons I consume alcohol, as a social lubricant, as a means of getting through with the world, as a relaxant and in a corny hope that it makes me wiser. What started as an occasional 9 p.m. news bulletin evolved into reading a newspaper everyday to constantly being surrounded by the news. This leads to a chatter of information and sure, it helps one keep track of the malfeasance of power. But is it really a medium of change? If I did the same with alcohol I would end up with a serious case of alcoholism and a cirrhosis of the liver.

The status-quo heavily benefits the news organization and change orchestrated by it would never be in the interests that are outside its workings. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube operate on a different level, where the conventional news cycle is broken down further. The driving force here is hidden inside an algorithm, not a kooky Australian billionaire. We cannot even decode a person behind a phone screen, what about the machine behind them? These companies operate in secrecy and but whitewash their existence through ideals of openness and connectivity.

What the media organization thrives from is discontent and disconnection. Good news is bad news for a media organization because good news warrants no further discussion. Bad news however creates engagement and engagement creates more revenue. This translates into fraught societies that are connected and fragmented at the same time, one does not need to look further than Facebook or Fox News for the destabilization they have done to the global thinking order in the past decade.

“People who are addicted to Twitter, are like all addicts—on the one hand miserable, and on the other hand very defensive about it and unwilling to blame Twitter.” – Jaron Lanier

Coming down from by bingeing of news, I find more calm for people and my surroundings. The people on the streets and on public transport appear more as people than blurs, there's a distinct sense of belonging without adherence to a particular cause or reason. I do not have the urge to debate over global topics, which I am removed from anyway because of powerlessness I embody. When I look around this powerlessness is more visible but the cacophony of the media narratives makes us believe that we are more important than we are. A deeper look of our collective dissatisfaction and wants, untainted by a mediator or an algorithm is a good place to counter existing narratives and to hope for something new.

Subscribe to the a.nihil newsletter

#media #facebook #democracy

Follow @anihil3

Engage

Demand an elaborate, time-consuming comparison / analysis between your position and theirs.

Entangle

Insist that the Liberal put their posts in their own words. That will consume the most time and effort for the Liberal poster.

They will be unable to spread numerous points on numerous blogs if you have them occupied. Allowing a Liberal to post a web link is too quick and efficient for them. Tie them up. We are going for delay of game here.

Demoralize

Dismiss their narrative as rubbish immediately.

Do not even read it. Once the Liberal goes through the trouble to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative your job is to discredit it. Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the Liberal poster.

It will make them unwilling to expend the effort again, and for us, that is a net win.

Attack

Attack the source. Any Liberal website or information source must be marginalized, trivialized and discounted. Discredit Liberal sources of information whenever possible.

Confuse

Challenge the Liberal position with questions, always questions. The questions need not be relevant. The goal is to knock the Liberal poster off their game, and seize control of the narrative.

Once you have control you can direct the narrative to where you want it to go, which is always away from letting the Liberal make their point. Conversely, do not respond to their leading questions. Don't rise to their bait.

Contain

Your job is to prevent the presentation and spread of Liberal viewpoints.

Do anything you must do to prevent a Liberal poster from presenting a well-reasoned argument or starting a civil discussion.

Don't allow a Liberal to present their dogma unchallenged EVER.

Intimidate

Taunt the Liberals. If you find yourself in a debate with a Liberal where you are losing a fact-based argument then call them a name to derail their diatribe. Remember your goal is to prevent a meaningful exchange of views and ideas which may portray Liberalism in a positive light.

Your goal as a conservative blogger is to stop the spread and advance of the Liberal agenda. Play upon any identifiable idiosyncrasies, character flaws, physical traits, names, to their disadvantage. Monitor other posts for vulnerabilities you can exploit. Stay on the offensive with Liberal wimps. Don't let up.

Insult their Movement

Assign as many character and moral flaws to Liberals as you can. You must portray Liberals as weak, vacillating, indecisive, amoral, baby killers, unpatriotic, effete snobs, elitists, Leftists, Commies, sense of entitlement, promiscuous, union lovers, tax raisers, Welfare Queens, Socialists, lazy, sex-obsessed, druggies, moochers, troop hater,.etc. Always use these negative epithets when referring to, or describing Liberals.

Deceive

Identify yourself as a moderate, centrist or independent. It will also cause Liberals to lower their guard a bit, which gives you an effective opening. This may also have the effect of aligning conservative viewpoints with the real moderates we are attempting to reach.

It may serve to influence some moderates over to the Conservative side.

Patriotism

Always claim the high ground of pro-military, low taxes, strong defense, morality and religion. We own those virtues. Learn how to exploit them when debating.

Demean

Always refer to the other side as Liberals, Lefty Liberals, Libbies, Librandus. Never assign them the status of a bona-fide political party. Hang Liberalism around their neck like a burning tire. Make Liberalism appear as a moral turpitude or a character flaw. They are NEVER, NEVER to be referred to with their party affliation. Never assign them respect.

Opportunity

Be alert for ways to insert our catch phrases into your narrative. You will receive your daily list of talking points and topics that we want you to cover. Consistent, persistent repetition and inculcation will drive our talking points home and so will neuro-linguistic programming. Stick with it and our talking points will become truth. If they debunk your talking point, ignore it, and move on as if you didn't hear it.

#propaganda #fascism #media #democracy

Credit: u/BouncyBunnyBuddy

Follow @anihil3

Part one

This is a reddit comment by u/enteirush that I found interesting. Reddit, like any other media and social media platform has its share of discourse maintenance by foreign actors that vary from country to country. China, the US, Russia, Turkey and to an extent every other country tries to curate and maintain a public image as they wish. To see a whole collective of people under respective brand names – Chinese, Maltans, Sudanese.., 1 billion people that fit into a simple category because of a country name.

The conversations are about us and we form identities we want to inhabit, our professions, our street and our countries. The doctors are our heroes and so are the bus drivers. These are labels given to individuals who share a profession, a collective will. We identify with and imagine people while living indoors, hooked to screens, this is heroin awash into every waking minute. Heroin, that's transmitted through screens connected with invisible tubes and wires, the internet. Our societies are now built in our minds, where there is no resistance to what we are confronted with. These are the manipulations we allow.

我在这个问题下稍微写一点最近在YouTube和Reddit上带节奏的经验心得。我不是键政侠，也不打LOL没有直接和老美巨魔过，但是跟老美交流还是有点经验

I'm here to share some of my experiences baiting people on YouTube and Reddit. I'm not a keyboard warrior, I don't play LoL and I haven't overtly trolled Americans before, but I still have some experience conversing with them.

要点一：不要明确站中国，用户名也不能一眼看过去是中国人

这不是懦弱或者不自信，而是一个基本操作问题。设想一个印度人要（正当地）批评中国房价过高人民住不起房，网上大多数人第一反应估计是“先把你10亿低种姓贫民百姓的住房解决了再腆着脸来说吧”。然后对方无论说什么我们都不会认真辩论。同理我们要是想在美帝的版块里带节奏（注意是带节奏而不是巨魔），第一不要表明自己的中国人身份。

Requirement #1: Don't explicitly show you're on China's side / Your username shouldn't make it obvious you're Chinese

This doesn't make you seem cowardly or insecure, rather, it's a simple manipulation tactic. [blah blah some rant about Indians being poor] Likewise, we need to hide our identities when baiting (remember: baiting, not trolling [?]) Americans.

要点二：话语范围要和美国人一致

他说美国抗疫比瑞典好，你说中国10天建医院；他说美国测试不如韩国，你说中国医护装备好——这都属于话语不一致。想让对方接受你的观点就要在对方的话语体系里骂美国，按照美国人的方式来骂他们。如果一个印度人来批评中国开口就是中国没有种姓制度不利于形成稳定的社会结构，你肯定觉得他脑子有问题。同样我们不应该过多地考虑我们想让他们接受什么，而是他们能接受哪些话题上的辩论，然后尽力把话题往有利于我们的方向上引。

Requirement #2: Your style of discourse must align with those of Americans

If they say the America's coronavirus strategy is better than Sweden's and you say China built a hospital in 10 days... if they say America's testing is worse than South Korea's and you say Chinese doctors are well-equipped... there's no real discussion taking place. If you want the other side to accept your attacks on America, you need to imitate the way Americans argue amongst themselves. [blah blah cut some other rant about the Indian caste system] Similarly, we shouldn't overthink what views we want to implant in their heads. Rather, we should base our arguments around views that they are willing to consider, and then bait them further in our direction.

比如我最近在Reddit上比较成功的论调之一就是揭示了“美国政客根本不关心人命，只在乎选举”“社会各界上层人士为了他们的利益而撒谎让平民买单”，得到了不少积极回应。这些是他们可以认同的东西。政治上，你怎么喷都是可以的，喷川统，喷科莫，怎么合适怎么来。

Some topics that I've used to success on Reddit:

“The US government doesn't care about lives, only elections”

“The elites lie to the middle class to protect their profits”

I got a lot of replies saying these things because they identify with these viewpoints. Anything goes when it comes to politics – attack Trump, attack Cuomo, just use whatever works.

要点三：在互相辩论的氛围内假装站美国的台

而且这样站台一定要有不合理性——其实找到这种不合理性很容易，但你如果直接在一个问题上指责美国某一点，对方会潜意识地反驳你；如果你支持这一点，对方会找出合适的逻辑来反驳你的立场而达到你带节奏的目的。假如一个印度人跑来跟你说，我觉得你们中国高考招生制度不行，各省招生不公平，我们多数人估计也是先辩护再说；但如果他说我觉得我们（注意第一条）高考招生制度很好，北京的教育资源就应该向北京户口倾斜，那就轮到你来说高教资源分配不公了。

Requirement #3: Pretend to be on America's side in your discussions

Importantly, you need to be somewhat illogical – it's actually really easy to do this. If you directly accuse the US of something, people will rebuke you; instead, if you pretend to support the opposite view, people will use mental gymnastics to argue in favor of your actual position. [Wow, this CCP lemming just discovered the power of reverse psychology! ...and cut some other contrived example of an “Indian” criticizing China's school admissions system]

比如在一个“加州州长下令医院做回溯尸检，检查截止到去年12月的死亡中是否有新冠肺炎死亡病例”的帖子下，有一条回复是“为什么只检查到12月？”我直接回复：“因为再往前就可能会暴露美国才是新冠发源地，这对我们在国际上的声誉影响太大了。一定要坚持中国是第一个报道病例的国家。”对此我得到的回应是“抱歉，查清事实比要面子更重要。”

For example, under a post titled “Gov. Newsom Orders All California Counties To Review Autopsies Dating Back To December”, someone asked, “why stop at December?”

My response: “Obviously they don't want to push it too far back as to suggest the virus started in the United States. I'm not being sarcastic here but if we ended up being the first country having Corona virus we would look really bad in the international community. Keeping China the first country to have reported the virus is necessary.”

Note: Found the comment chain here and pasted it word-for-word

我也不是什么大V，没有一呼百应的能力，但是如果能帮一些看到这个回答的人在美国网站带节奏的话就很好了。

I'm not a big V [something like the blue tick on Twitter] and I can't summon an army of followers, but I'll be happy if can spread the word with this post and help others troll American websites.

—————————————

This block of text explains the US political system and how to sow divisions between the left and right.

I won't translate everything but I'll highlight a few snippets.

居然有人看，感觉我不多写一点对不起观众啊……我就补一点美国政治基础，和我针对美国不同人群的对线策略。

美国的联邦制保证了每个州都是独立主权，其主权和联邦政府高度对立。很多民主党州的民选官员都以和联邦政府对立作为拉选票的卖点。比如明尼苏达的总检察长Keith Ellison说起自己对联邦政府提起了多少诉讼，和多少州的总检察长联合起诉联邦政府的时候，语气满是自豪。这和密苏里总检察长起诉武汉一样，都是他们拉拢选票的政治手段，不需要做过多的解读。然而这种分裂的现状我们完全可以利用。

首先要明确我们带节奏的目的是什么。要想扭转中国在国际上的舆论劣势可以说是不可能做到的，毕竟这么多年的洗脑和宣传，我们的舆论势力根本不在一个层面上。我个人认为最好的做法是继续分化美国人，把他们的注意力从中国身上拿开，让他们重点关注美国的负面信息、对美国政治愤怒就行。川统的甩锅是转移矛盾，我们如果没有实力和他们正面硬甩，那就尽量把他们的注意力转移回美国内务，增加他们对美国国内事务的愤怒和失望情绪。

... the West has brainwashed and spread propaganda for so long that we can't change our perception on the world stage. Instead, we should incite division within America to distract them from China, and make them hate their government...

对于民主党选民，有好几种矛盾可以激化。一是民主党内部腐败和无能问题，挑拨拜登和桑德斯的支持者：对拜登支持者就嘲讽拜登不会说话，没有魅力，对付川普必死；对桑德斯支持者就嘲讽他不是真民主党人，无法团结民主党对抗川普，失败活该。二是挑拨联邦和民主党州之间的矛盾，不断重复联邦根本不在乎蓝州疫情，克扣蓝州医疗物资，放任蓝州人民死亡，以至于蓝州需要大量私下行动自保（比如伊利诺伊州长绕过联邦偷偷从中国进口大量物资，因为怕被联邦截胡；加州州长掏加州的钱帮其他蓝州购买物资，因为联邦给的缺斤少两），把仇恨转移回联邦政府上。三是挑拨红蓝州之间的矛盾，这个涉及到政治正确，对程度的把握有点难。注意的是蓝州选民已经很痛恨川普了，没有必要引导他们针对川普；最好是引导他们痛恨整个联邦政府，从政府结构上摧毁他们的信心。

Ways to sow further divisions in the Democratic Party: Say that the Democratic establishment is corrupt and useless, and then inflame Biden and Sanders supporters: Say Biden has trouble speaking and has no charisma, and that's he'll lose against Trump. Say Sanders isn't a real Democrat and he can't form a coalition to beat Trump, and that he deserves what's coming.

Next, exaggerate the conflict between the federal and state governments. Constantly mention that the federal government doesn't care about blue states, that they're confiscating medical supplies and leaving people out to die. [paraphrases some recent news headlines] Direct their hatred towards the federal government.

Third, inflame the divisions between red and blue states... remember that blue states already hate Trump so there's no reason to bait them into targeting him. Instead, you should make them hate the entire federal government and destroy their trust in the system.

对于共和党选民，一是尽量放大共和党人和川普之间的矛盾。比如放大Rand Paul和川普不对付的报道，放大Romney和川普的矛盾。最近佐治亚州长跟着川普说要重开经济结果反被川普泼冷水，也可以拿来做文章。二是从基督教角度去攻击，往哪个方向都可以，反正目的是激化政府和教会的矛盾。你可以搬出牧师不遵守居家令组织礼拜被罚款的新闻来骂政府干预教会，也可以搬出牧师举行礼拜结果染病挂掉的新闻来嘲讽牧师。总之就是把注意力转移到他们自己的矛盾来，不要关注中国就行。

For the Republican Party: Emphasize conflicts between the GOP and Trump himself. Emphasize news reports about Rand Paul and Romney disagreeing with Trump. Highlight how Trump turned his back on the governor of Georgia when he announced the state would reopen. Attack them using a Christian perspective, inflame the divisions between church and state. [gives example of pastors ignoring stay-at-home orders]

对于中间选民，把川普自我矛盾、川普和政府内科学家的矛盾摆出来就行。这个不展开说了，国内的文章写了很多

最后如果有人有其他想法欢迎在评论里补充～过两天我如果有闲心再补写一下对美国选举政治的解析

For moderates/swing voters: Post about Trump's self-contradictions and disagreements between him and his own cabinet. You can use examples from our own [Chinese] news sources about this. Post your thoughts in the comments below~

——————————————

更新一个最近刚得到一些积极回复的帖子。我把全部的回复都附带翻译截出来了，并没有刻意筛选。

这主贴是个新闻：芝加哥一个护士几周前告诉她朋友说她吓得要命。现在她和她孩子都死于新冠肺炎，她丈夫勉强活了下来。

截图的回帖串是回复一个主回帖：母亲是护士，我非常担心她。我尽量不来这里看帖子，不然我后半天都会心惊胆战。我的截图就是回复这个主回帖的整串帖子。

有人直接来给中国网站打广告我倒是从来没想到过( • ̀ω•́ )✧

Posted a screenshot of this thread which he considers a successful bait operation

#propaganda #internet #media

Discourse is immediate — instant replies, instant comebacks and instant information. Our attention spans are small when it comes to keeping tabs on complex information systems and perhaps this design flaw makes us want easily digestible responses and narrative to things that are happening and have happened. This where the right biased media or propaganda have an upper hand, their narrative is simplified and easy to digest. The facts are appealing and for the lazy mind after day's work it seems the most appropriate reasoning. Who has time to read a longform article or a thorough research to make a point on a subject when the discourse is about being involved in a thousand subjects at once. Coronavirus, anti-immigrant troubles in Italy, Brexit, Trump, fascism in India, Hekmatyar, a space probe closest to the Sun. These are all happenings I have to know something about, each fractured in their space and narrative, yet I am an authority that sits in the center processing them, to what point?

This is where the idea of being liberal and open falters, there is simply too much information to process and an acute sensitivity to be open to which the world doesn't offer much weight. An ordinary day demands that I fit well within the means of the system and say yes to the narratives of every day. Going to work, paying taxes, engaging in a healthy relationship. These acts need a certain conformation and simplification narrative, the soft operational spot of the right wing bias. Though a large degree of responsibility should be laid on the thought process of a fascist, one has to agree that the means of the fabricating mechanisms should also be accountable. The problems exist in a specific world, while we battle with the problems we should not forget to look at the world itself.

#fascism #media

Read the first part in this series here

The media is self-referential and exists in its own bubble. It is not a scientific establishment where peer reviewing articles and sources is a thing. Scientific process is slow and cumbersome because of the consequences of putting an unfinished thought/product/theory into the world can have disastrous consequences. However, the media does not bear the same weight of scrutiny. The media has to be nimble and ever-changing because of the nature of our reality and information. Things have to move quick otherwise you lose your audience to another source. This means a piece of information once it gains attention in a legitimate, audience filled podium, it will be referenced over and over without thought being given to if the first fact is true or not. This is at least the case of the fast moving media anyway, longform articles and books might come after the media cycle has finished covering a particular topic but that does nothing as the dopamine charged media consumers have moved a thousand stories forward.

Considering that the media only exists within the framework of capitalism, it cannot produce any means of dissent against the existing system because that would mean suicide. And all modern nation-states also exist within the same ecosystem which makes the relationship symbiotic and self-serving. That is why it would make sense if the media works to preserve the status quo than to break it. Considering that the media produces only what the lowest factor in a society can understand since alienating the masses is not a good sign for a balance sheet, it makes content that appeals to this lowest factor in a democracy. This would mean simplistic renditions of events, the idea that truth has two sides and that one doesn't need to think but just believe.

That would be the only explanation why people who work in thankless jobs keep functioning in them and perpetuate their lives forward. It is not that they do not know that their existence is trivial but because they do not know of any other existence that would be any different from the one they are living. The media hands out to them that there are people elsewhere that your life is worth sacrificing for, say a soldier at the frontier or a farmer slaving his time in the field. The soldier and the farmer also receive programming that their work and actions have a greater meaning for these people in thankless jobs – they all work for this fictional entity called the Nation, but who does the Nation really belong to? The people? It does seem like the Nation belongs to the people on paper but the reality is far different – the soldier does not have a say whether he wants to fight or not, nor does the thankless worker or the farmer. They should just accept things as they are and make the country proud. Proud for whom? In India that would mean for the businesses that operate internationally, the tourists and the politicians seeking international legitimacy but these population subsets are miniscule compared to the whole of Indian population. The media works for this subset rather than the whole, pretending to be a part of the masses but a cleverly disguised medium manipulation in our midst.

Now whatsapp, facebook and youtube have completely taken over traditional forms of news where the choices become more and more limited as prescribed to a certain kind of news consumption – echo chambers out of which there is no certain escape. Neither should not following the news be an option because being informed is a critical process of participation and if one removes oneself from the information loop then one becomes zombie citizen who exists just to consume but exert no real change. The way the current system of media concentration can be challenged is to draft laws that no big businesses or politicians can hold media companies and existing media houses be nationalized under strict guidelines for what can and cannot be reported. This is again easier said than done because if the nation does not evoke any kind of confidence then neither does the nationalized entity.

Competing against deep pockets needs deeper pockets and in this case to dismantle the media mechanism is not an easy task as private capital would be hard to come by. Grassroots activism via blogs, websites and social media channels by alternative media is possible but the limits to their access to information will be minimal. The internet had a capacity to do what traditional media couldn't but with the centralization of the internet it has become the new norm. The breaking of this hegemony needs a crew of academics, thinkers, strategists and politicians who believe that a real change is possible. Change in this context is not a utopian ideal but the betterment of a deeply flawed society with no incentives to better itself.

There should be a secondary constitution written on which this group of thinkers operate, a legitimate ideology connecting the members. The constitution should involve the developed values of today along with a strong scientific backing and minimal religious or emotional value. This doctrine should become the locus of interaction rather than the loosely bound ideas of a Nation and this entity should also choose to function outside the commercial universe, relying on itself for its growth, no matter how small. Upon fostering for such a community for a period of time one can start negotiating for a better future from the inside out, giving no chance to the existing elements that rule our society.

#media #democracy #dissent

Our time and our attention and hopefully in the well oiled gearboxes of capitalism, our money.

I have a very short attention span when it comes to passively immersing myself into advertisements but sometimes, it is inevitable. I have all the blocks to keep myself from constant programming, I have de-googled and de-facebooked my life to a large extent, I have an employ of privacy features on my devices and I even pay for services that we have otherwise taken for granted but still, I am being advertised to and I am influenced by media propaganda just as much as anyone else.

I walk down the streets and see advertisements for hipster brands on bus stops and on buses, there advertisements for things I don't care about on walls, doors, hanging from supermarket ceilings and worse still, embedded into media pretending to be genuine content but nudging me to do something I do not want nonetheless. Though I have become insulated against this general messaging what I am not insulated against is in feeling one with the others, being a part of the herd even when I am not thinking the same things as the herd. I might hear about a stabbing on the London bridge or a rape in Hyderabad, I might or might not have feelings for these incidents but still, my mind is hijacked by these subjects in a way I do not have any control over them, or do I?

At what point does it become obvious that a particular news story is not worth my attention or when do I know that a certain subject needs my complete focus and thought, so that I can apply my knowledge and make the world 'a better place'? Making the world a better place is not why I think of things. I think of things because it is almost an ambient, natural response to events, my frame of reference to the things that happen around and inside me. In this sense there is no objective truth I am essentially pursuing even though I know that there are facts, but those facts exists because I understand them. Otherwise I could be a flat-earther talking about how vaccines are bad and how the Jews are the Illuminati and the Nazis are playing football on the moon.

Making the world a better place is not the objective but thinking about the world I live in is. Being human also puts me square in the hive mind of things, eventually I consume what all the others do, no matter how high and snooty I wish to be. In some analyst's computer right now I am a blip who has spent the same amount on average on a Coke product than the nose-picking Joe Guy sitting next to me on the Metro and I do not even know it. Saying which, does talking about an issue that is the center of focus of media attention mean that I am swayed by the media machine that demands my eye balls and my brain cells? Mass media tells me things without me even paying for them, social media is just like this essay, throwing words about topics I did not even subscribe to but being human I am held sway by what people talk and since I want to belong, I participate first by listening and then by talking. The in-between stages is by the meta-talking and meta-listening I do by injecting ideas in interpersonal conversations, which are again narratives over which I have no control over after the initial ignition.

This personal stages of opinion forming is what the media does for me, it is thinking outsourced to a well branded agency that I am told I must trust. The media talks about itself in a self-flagellating sense of entitlement, projecting itself as the upholder of value, virtue and the truth. The truth it is, as the media sees it or the people holding control of the cameras and the people holding control of the people holding the cameras. The media also has the responsibility to be relevant and keep its business model alive so each moment there is a new ping of information, bread crumbs for the wagging dog.

What the media does for reporting is what we do for our lives itself. We are confronted with a complex world where there are thousands of narratives building themselves around us in a single moment but we do not have the necessary brain power to process and make sense of what is unfolding in the immediate reality before us, so we have to satisfy ourselves with simplistic narratives that help us focus on other aspects of living – mainly work. This is also a deliberate function of a highly industrialized and capitalistic world where people are mere economic actors and their role in the political process is reduced to a number that votes to their particular smidgen of colour.

There was a time a decade ago with the nascency of the internet was taking over the world there was a talk of decentralized citizen journalists revolutionizing media itself. What these commentators in newspapers and other traditional media did not expect was social media and the subsequent boom. What they imagined as a decentralized reporting apparatus has instead become a walled garden of algorithms deciding who hears what without telling why such a conclusion has been made in the first place. This obfuscation of the rules underlying communication puts consumers in a space of not understanding the bias of the media they are consuming. As it happens, most media ownership is now controlled by a few handful of people across the planet and that is not a good sign, to have the future of the world shaped by the gentle nudge of a few.

The ultimate product of the media is not the content but us, it lulls us into comfortable anger, confuses us with information overload, distracts us and in the end makes us be what it intended in the first place, docile humans who will work and live, maintaining the status quo. The media makes us complacent in having voice, making sure that we have just the right amount, not more and not less. When we choose to vote with our eyeballs and keystrokes we are pandering to this opinion forming machine. So what does the media really want? In short, nothing less than your soul.

#media #democracy #dissent