WhyCzar
Connect The Dots
- Pronouns
- They/Them/Their
In 1988, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky published Manufacturing Consent, developing what they called the "propaganda model." Their argument wasn't simply that somebody sat in a room deciding what everyone should believe. It was much more sophisticated. Institutions, economic incentives, information sources, media structures, framing and repetition could collectively determine which ideas received legitimacy and which remained outside the acceptable boundaries of public discussion.
Welcome to Manufacturing Consent 2.0.
The modern information system doesn't merely tell us what to think.
Increasingly, it tells us what they want us to think everybody else thinks.
If I can be convinced that 70 percent of my neighbors believe something,
I don't necessarily have to be convinced that the underlying proposition is correct.
But I have been introduced to another psychological consideration.
Nobody changed my mind through evidence.
They changed the environment surrounding my opinion.
Herman and Chomsky were analyzing newspapers and television networks.
They weren't dealing with X, Facebook, TikTok, algorithmic feeds, Ai, coordinated networks + automated engagement.
Operating continuously across the planet.
This may be the most important evolution in Manufacturing Consent 2.0.
Division can be more valuable than persuasion.
You don't necessarily need to persuade people to support the establishment.
Sometimes it may be enough to ensure that everyone capable of challenging it remains busy fighting everybody else.
If every opposition movement spends its energy attacking neighboring opposition movements, personalities, factions and organizations,
the governing structure doesn't necessarily need overwhelming public enthusiasm.
I have become increasingly suspicious whenever social media suddenly tells me whom I am supposed to hate today.
Who benefits from the fight about this?
If I tell you something reasonable that you already understand, you might nod and continue scrolling.
If I tell you that someone you believe you should despise just said something "outrageous", you stop.
I get real mad at myself for falling into that trap.
This is a thread about Maybe?
Welcome to Manufacturing Consent 2.0.
The modern information system doesn't merely tell us what to think.
Increasingly, it tells us what they want us to think everybody else thinks.
If I can be convinced that 70 percent of my neighbors believe something,
I don't necessarily have to be convinced that the underlying proposition is correct.
But I have been introduced to another psychological consideration.
- Maybe I am the one who is wrong.
- Maybe everyone else knows something I don't.
- Maybe my position has become socially unacceptable.
- Maybe supporting that position will make me look foolish.
- Maybe resistance is pointless because everybody else has already moved on.
Nobody changed my mind through evidence.
They changed the environment surrounding my opinion.
Herman and Chomsky were analyzing newspapers and television networks.
They weren't dealing with X, Facebook, TikTok, algorithmic feeds, Ai, coordinated networks + automated engagement.
Operating continuously across the planet.
This may be the most important evolution in Manufacturing Consent 2.0.
Division can be more valuable than persuasion.
You don't necessarily need to persuade people to support the establishment.
Sometimes it may be enough to ensure that everyone capable of challenging it remains busy fighting everybody else.
If every opposition movement spends its energy attacking neighboring opposition movements, personalities, factions and organizations,
the governing structure doesn't necessarily need overwhelming public enthusiasm.
I have become increasingly suspicious whenever social media suddenly tells me whom I am supposed to hate today.
- Someone is a traitor.
- Someone is a grifter.
- Someone isn't a "real fill in the blank."
- Some organization is finished.
- Someone must immediately resign.
- Some disagreement becomes an existential crisis.
Who benefits from the fight about this?
If I tell you something reasonable that you already understand, you might nod and continue scrolling.
If I tell you that someone you believe you should despise just said something "outrageous", you stop.
- You read.
- You respond.
- You repost.
- Someone attacks your response.
- You answer them.
I get real mad at myself for falling into that trap.
This is a thread about Maybe?
Last edited:
A new poll finds 63% of Americans see at least a moderate risk that advanced AI will destroy humanity.
