True, that's something to consider. I see your point about the limits of stimulation and being desensitized after overstimulation.
I think that's something they manipulate intentionally; they've probably measured through marketing studies how many reviews it takes for a person to trust a product. Same with events that few people directly observe. Probably only takes three or four sources crying wolf to convince someone there's a wolf. Some platforms are like echo chambers, or the algorithm is the echo chamber. And just in general the news can be sensational and overblown. That's part of the pattern of coercion I see, and desensitizing could be a desired side effect of more ambitious ideological campaigns.
Lately people will say one newsworthy event is a coverup for a different news event they prioritize focus on. While that might be true sometimes, the events often deserve their own attention, and I think it's careless when people write them off as merely fabricated distractions. But I suppose those excuses get justified when someone is overstimulated.
For example the extradition of Nicolas Maduro was written off as being a distraction from the Epstein files; not a big deal; or if it did raise concerns, they're absolved because he's a bad guy that deserved it. All short sighted in my opinion, but I'm not sure if that's obvious unless you're reading between the lines. (Mods if this is too political please delete this paragraph because it's not my intention to start a political debate)
It seems too the gap between info and fact is widening with the sheer amount of information. I believe in dead internet theory, where one day it could become impossible to confidently know anything with the sheer amount of misinformation getting pumped out, intentionally or not. I think modern tools like AI are efficient strategies to condense research, but it could just be the love-bombing early stages of a long con to migrate people away from open information platforms. An authoritarian government could stop supporting the world wide web as we know it, in favor for a more controlled, unified information stream.
Free speech is tricky cuz you want to silence the misinformation, but the collective frustration over that could be used against people by convincing them to give up the right for everyone to say their piece. I'm undecided, because in the wrong hands that system could be even more manipulated than free speech. But without regulation, the corporations and big brother have overt and covert influence.
I think that's something they manipulate intentionally; they've probably measured through marketing studies how many reviews it takes for a person to trust a product. Same with events that few people directly observe. Probably only takes three or four sources crying wolf to convince someone there's a wolf. Some platforms are like echo chambers, or the algorithm is the echo chamber. And just in general the news can be sensational and overblown. That's part of the pattern of coercion I see, and desensitizing could be a desired side effect of more ambitious ideological campaigns.
Lately people will say one newsworthy event is a coverup for a different news event they prioritize focus on. While that might be true sometimes, the events often deserve their own attention, and I think it's careless when people write them off as merely fabricated distractions. But I suppose those excuses get justified when someone is overstimulated.
For example the extradition of Nicolas Maduro was written off as being a distraction from the Epstein files; not a big deal; or if it did raise concerns, they're absolved because he's a bad guy that deserved it. All short sighted in my opinion, but I'm not sure if that's obvious unless you're reading between the lines. (Mods if this is too political please delete this paragraph because it's not my intention to start a political debate)
It seems too the gap between info and fact is widening with the sheer amount of information. I believe in dead internet theory, where one day it could become impossible to confidently know anything with the sheer amount of misinformation getting pumped out, intentionally or not. I think modern tools like AI are efficient strategies to condense research, but it could just be the love-bombing early stages of a long con to migrate people away from open information platforms. An authoritarian government could stop supporting the world wide web as we know it, in favor for a more controlled, unified information stream.
Free speech is tricky cuz you want to silence the misinformation, but the collective frustration over that could be used against people by convincing them to give up the right for everyone to say their piece. I'm undecided, because in the wrong hands that system could be even more manipulated than free speech. But without regulation, the corporations and big brother have overt and covert influence.
Last edited:
