A great piece which really resonated with a lot I've been thinking about.
In particular, the emergence of the new "influencer politics" seems to coincide with what I would describe as the "deflation of expertise" online, and the online homogenization of the communication of ideas. This has invited the public to engage with the news in a much more informal and personal way that both degrades the seriousness of the underlying subject, and makes it more tribal.
The new media encourage posters/creators to adopt certain online styles in order for their content be distributed (not a new observation). So everyone from people offering dubious supplements to foreign policy reporting all tend to package their information the same way.
You see this most clearly on YouTube, where even the most sensible creators are forced to contort their faces into grotesques for video thumbnails, because that apparently is what best satiates the algorithm. But it's also on Bluesky/X, where we learn to speak Twitterese, with appropriate tones and memes.
Conversely, consumers also learn to process and respond to all content along those same terms. Snark/dunks cause us to take sides for/against the snarker or dunker, memes or jokes encourage us to join in with more memes or jokes.
The global scope of online media, and the historically higher educational level of participants in "the Discourse", lead to a situation where often esoteric and culture-specific issues are discussed in a comparative manner.
Aside from the homogenization of conversation and ideas that results from this grind, the interchangeability of participants also narrows the separation between expert and lay-people.
In a different age, the communication of ideas to the public would be primarily via books or TV programs, with publishers and producers acting as gatekeepers. To get to be on the box or have your name on a hardback conveyed a certain status to you and your ideas, suggesting you should be taken seriously.
It is harder to signal to the public that you are a learned person whose views on a particular subject should be taken seriously. And as mentioned before, in order to spread one's message, one has to adopt the same tones and style as people discussing less weighty matters.
So disputes between political factions becomes viewed with the same weight as spats between Twitch streamers, Israel-Palestine discussed with the same fury as whether it's cheaper to order takeaway than to cook.
Your piece closes with the idea that the broader left or "truth-affirming faction" should engage further in the online battle of idle chatter to persuade the public and further their political goals. I think that is part of the prescription to stop the current onslaught on democratic and liberal values -- but I can't help but feel that the resulting waves of content will lead (at least in the short-to-medium term) in a highly degraded information sphere.
Though perhaps that is the unfortunate price that must be paid.
Thanks for the comment. Lots to think about here. I suppose my overwhelming feeling is that even now, so many years down the line, we still haven’t figured out how to engage in the battle effectively.
My essential point is that I think you are right that this battle in online spaces needs to be fought, and that doing so will involve the same (or mirror versions of) the tactics that the far-right/post-truth faction use. But having effective government does at some point involve having people with expertise and experience doing work and making decisions in a way that may not be compatible with influencer politics -- see e.g. the pandemic response, or all the things DOGE is ripping apart in the US.
And that's the fundamental disadvantage that the liberal/truth-affirming faction have, and that may hold them back in effective engagement.
Many like the idle talk and ambient "vibes" of a fact-based attack on the opposing faction (see e.g. John Oliver's work on Last Week Tonight). But explaining trade-offs, complexities, and uncertainty, which require the changing of positions and arguments, is difficult and hard to rally around. One approach is to ignore the nuance and "post through it", hoping that rallying enough people around the basic principles prevents support fading once the difficulties become apparent. Another is to follow the post-truth faction and make support for a policy or idea an integral part of one's identity, so that followers reject counterpoints as simply not part of their ontology.
Sorry for another long-ish comment. But again, I appreciate your piece and will be thinking about its ramifications for a while.
Great article. However, I have a slightly different perspective on social media algorithms. There is considerable evidence that even when only reverse chronological, their negative impact is noticeable, amplifying simplistic outrage. This probably has more to do with how humans are hardwired than anything else. A good paper on this https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/6/pgae193/7689237
It's incredibly tricky. A mandatory media literacy course and exam for everyone before they can use social media? (like a driver's licence)? A mandatory AI that monitors your posts and scores them against criteria for nuance, moral outrage, etc? You can go ahead and post, but at least you know if you are part of the problem.
This is excellent, but I do think it glosses over an important feature of the influencer economy - the right has invested heavily in the ecosystem. Those who work in ways that fit the priorities of funders can get direct rewards (rather than just audience monetisation) this ranges from actual regular pay through random largesse including “gifts” and (eg) random paid spots on (eg) GB News. This is an important mechanism that helps both increase the viability of certain influencers and keeping them on track when the audience might otherwise cause them to drift.
Influencer, bottom up politics is a like.. tag witch hunt.
Who wants to live like that?
"Smart" phone tech and social media are the enabler of this pamphleteering.. but basement dwellers and poor Russian sods are the only folk likely to want to live this.
The grift sustains it... Trump is a scammer.. if he is still going he is winning the scam and as potus he pulled the biggrst heist in history.. twice. He scammed America.. he scammed the KGB..
So.. influencer politics is a grift... and we have day jobs.
A great piece which really resonated with a lot I've been thinking about.
In particular, the emergence of the new "influencer politics" seems to coincide with what I would describe as the "deflation of expertise" online, and the online homogenization of the communication of ideas. This has invited the public to engage with the news in a much more informal and personal way that both degrades the seriousness of the underlying subject, and makes it more tribal.
The new media encourage posters/creators to adopt certain online styles in order for their content be distributed (not a new observation). So everyone from people offering dubious supplements to foreign policy reporting all tend to package their information the same way.
You see this most clearly on YouTube, where even the most sensible creators are forced to contort their faces into grotesques for video thumbnails, because that apparently is what best satiates the algorithm. But it's also on Bluesky/X, where we learn to speak Twitterese, with appropriate tones and memes.
Conversely, consumers also learn to process and respond to all content along those same terms. Snark/dunks cause us to take sides for/against the snarker or dunker, memes or jokes encourage us to join in with more memes or jokes.
The global scope of online media, and the historically higher educational level of participants in "the Discourse", lead to a situation where often esoteric and culture-specific issues are discussed in a comparative manner.
Aside from the homogenization of conversation and ideas that results from this grind, the interchangeability of participants also narrows the separation between expert and lay-people.
In a different age, the communication of ideas to the public would be primarily via books or TV programs, with publishers and producers acting as gatekeepers. To get to be on the box or have your name on a hardback conveyed a certain status to you and your ideas, suggesting you should be taken seriously.
It is harder to signal to the public that you are a learned person whose views on a particular subject should be taken seriously. And as mentioned before, in order to spread one's message, one has to adopt the same tones and style as people discussing less weighty matters.
So disputes between political factions becomes viewed with the same weight as spats between Twitch streamers, Israel-Palestine discussed with the same fury as whether it's cheaper to order takeaway than to cook.
Your piece closes with the idea that the broader left or "truth-affirming faction" should engage further in the online battle of idle chatter to persuade the public and further their political goals. I think that is part of the prescription to stop the current onslaught on democratic and liberal values -- but I can't help but feel that the resulting waves of content will lead (at least in the short-to-medium term) in a highly degraded information sphere.
Though perhaps that is the unfortunate price that must be paid.
Thanks for the comment. Lots to think about here. I suppose my overwhelming feeling is that even now, so many years down the line, we still haven’t figured out how to engage in the battle effectively.
Agree -- and sorry for the long wall of text.
My essential point is that I think you are right that this battle in online spaces needs to be fought, and that doing so will involve the same (or mirror versions of) the tactics that the far-right/post-truth faction use. But having effective government does at some point involve having people with expertise and experience doing work and making decisions in a way that may not be compatible with influencer politics -- see e.g. the pandemic response, or all the things DOGE is ripping apart in the US.
And that's the fundamental disadvantage that the liberal/truth-affirming faction have, and that may hold them back in effective engagement.
Many like the idle talk and ambient "vibes" of a fact-based attack on the opposing faction (see e.g. John Oliver's work on Last Week Tonight). But explaining trade-offs, complexities, and uncertainty, which require the changing of positions and arguments, is difficult and hard to rally around. One approach is to ignore the nuance and "post through it", hoping that rallying enough people around the basic principles prevents support fading once the difficulties become apparent. Another is to follow the post-truth faction and make support for a policy or idea an integral part of one's identity, so that followers reject counterpoints as simply not part of their ontology.
Sorry for another long-ish comment. But again, I appreciate your piece and will be thinking about its ramifications for a while.
Great article. However, I have a slightly different perspective on social media algorithms. There is considerable evidence that even when only reverse chronological, their negative impact is noticeable, amplifying simplistic outrage. This probably has more to do with how humans are hardwired than anything else. A good paper on this https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/6/pgae193/7689237
That's a very interesting article. Thanks. Puts the problem on a less improvised basis.
So what would be your policy response?
It's incredibly tricky. A mandatory media literacy course and exam for everyone before they can use social media? (like a driver's licence)? A mandatory AI that monitors your posts and scores them against criteria for nuance, moral outrage, etc? You can go ahead and post, but at least you know if you are part of the problem.
Maybe a tax? I honestly feel most people would be kind of ok with less social media.
This is excellent, but I do think it glosses over an important feature of the influencer economy - the right has invested heavily in the ecosystem. Those who work in ways that fit the priorities of funders can get direct rewards (rather than just audience monetisation) this ranges from actual regular pay through random largesse including “gifts” and (eg) random paid spots on (eg) GB News. This is an important mechanism that helps both increase the viability of certain influencers and keeping them on track when the audience might otherwise cause them to drift.
Yes, important point.
Influencer, bottom up politics is a like.. tag witch hunt.
Who wants to live like that?
"Smart" phone tech and social media are the enabler of this pamphleteering.. but basement dwellers and poor Russian sods are the only folk likely to want to live this.
The grift sustains it... Trump is a scammer.. if he is still going he is winning the scam and as potus he pulled the biggrst heist in history.. twice. He scammed America.. he scammed the KGB..
So.. influencer politics is a grift... and we have day jobs.
Is like ... a tag witch hunt. Sorry.
Yeah. Grift is a massive part of it, I agree.