The larger your platform the higher your responsibility for what you communicate to your audience. Mismanaging a platform is not only wrong it can also be deadly.
Attention and Influence
What you say in a private conversation is generally not bound to affecting the perception of reality to a larger group. But let say that you put a camera or a microphone on this conversation and it gets broadcasted to a larger audience, then your comments could very well persuade many people – some you’ve never met, or never will. Yet they hear your voice, or read your words, or otherwise get your message, even if it gets “taken out of context” for one reason or the other.
That is why whenever you’re writing, saying, articulating, inferring, accusing, asserting, assuming, expressing, broadcasting, communicating, hinting, etc. something, it is important to think about if whether it is true or not. Say what you mean, mean what you say. Your style on how to do so is up to you, and with this I am not condoning any type of divisive or hate speech-type style. And understand, a valid disapproval (criticism) and hate speech are very different, although many people have trouble understanding where that very distinctive line is drawn.
In case it is not clear let me define it very quick for the purposes of this article. Because usually “debate me bros” and other “on your face” type cynics tend to gaslight people onto saying that hate speech is a protected right. It is not, you have the right to say whatever you want, sensible or not as long as it does not affect others, because otherwise you’re infringing on THEIR rights. Your rights ends where another person rights begins.
- Criticism: Nobody is perfect, and accountability that is equal under the law for all is a good thing. If you have evidence that something is wrong, and you can back up your claims for it, then it is perfectly fine to express yourself in a way that will shed light onto that blind spot. In other words, criticism, even if unadulterated is meant to help the other person realize that they are missing an important factor, method, point, etc. Criticism is based on the merits of an issue, not on the person – but the person might be cited as that individual is catalyst for perpetuating misinformation. Hence disagreements can be a good thing. They help you understand if your calculations are missing data points.
- Hate Speech: It is divisive in nature. It targets a group despite of the actual merits of the issue, it tends to cling on stereotypes and anecdotal information rather than empirical facts. If a person is being discriminated upon, dehumanized, humiliated, hazed, or worse, then it is considered hate speech. The key being on the divisiveness nature, and disenfranchising of whichever group is being attacked. Often hate speech is concealed, and it might be so “mild” that goes undetected for a while. But whatever the form it originates it does increase. First it normalizes the bizarre, then it gets more extreme from there. This process is often so gradual – like a gradient, that you won’t notice the seams on how these divisive arguments are increasing.
You know what is most insidious of all? Even honest-to-goodness otherwise well-intentioned and decent people can fall for this divisive trap. That is why a lot of people will tend to “scoff” and think that “it is ok,” or “downplay it,” or say it is “tongue in cheek,” or whatever other seemingly justifiable attribute they want to give to this gradual escalation and normalization of divisive rhetoric.
In other words, people will not be aware that they are buying into a divisive rhetoric until it is very obvious – because this gradient has evolved for quite a while. At which point either they snap out of it in disgust, or they double down on it because they have been thusly indoctrinated into thinking this hate speech is acceptable. And of course, most people think about hate speech perpetrators as some stereotypical trope of people [insert your stereotype] who fit in their minds that definition. The reality is that these divisive tactics can very well be spearheaded by very “polished” and seemingly polite folks. Not always, of course.
How does this happen?
My short answer, gradually. My longer answer this article (for starters) and a lot of the stuff that I’ve been writing for years. The end state is for an authoritarian to push divisive rhetoric into action in order for them to galvanize unilateral power. Yes, that means that somebody is steering the pot onto the most impressionable folks – usually those on the bottom tier. Meanwhile their own “team’s” elite (the authoritarians and their acolytes) enjoying this cynical spectacle.
Think of it like a sick blood-sport game, or like a cockfight. They put two opposing teams who have been privy very little information and make them angry at each other. Keep in mind that the authoritarian could very well not be in the side of either team, but pretend they are in favor of either one. While these two teams destroy each other, those running the show reap the benefits on the suffering of those who are in the arena killing one another. And if you think this is sustainable, of course it is not. But it will make a lot of money or give the authoritarians a lot of power for a short time. And once they galvanize power, then it does not matter, because they can now be overt about how they are oppressing their folks.
For example, many politicians who gained power by posing as the “populists” – while being divisive in an “us against them” rhetoric – eventually got to run the country (or whatever office under their control) with an iron fist. That fist punishes both dissenters and acolytes. They just need the useful fools to get them into power. Once they do, the gloves are off. They will punish even their most ardent supporters if they speak out of turn. This is happening already in several countries around the world.
Of course, that in the real world, the process tends to be very gradual – and the speed at which it accelerates depends primarily on the proclivity of their population to react. Less educated people will have more blind spots. Hence, controlling or attacking education is a surefire way to control their thoughts and minds – and more importantly their obedience. And obedience does not mean compliance, because sometimes you just have to abide to something you totally disagree in principle – because the punitive repercussions for speaking out will be overwhelmingly brutal. And yes, this happens around the world even as I type this. There is a reason why I am emphasizing this point.
In the USA we tend to lower our guard because the horrors that occur abroad are generally very much censored. It can be sometimes very click-bait-like on the headlines, but the actual subject matter tends to be massaged in a way to protect the often very fragile American audience sensibilities. This can create a false sense of security, because the reality of what is going on abroad then registers as preposterous in the American people minds. And yes, even those “on your face” type personalities are also often spared the gut-wrenching realities that are occurring around our world.
With this I am not saying that we should turn our airwaves into a gore-fest, alarmistic nightmare, and doomscrolling – if you got that, then you’re already a victim of being too sheltered under this level of censorship. What I am speaking about is giving proper context on a situation. Understand that there are terrible people out there, and there is suffering many people ignore or look away from it. Properly articulating the reality is a way that will help the message proportionally resonate with each audience based on facts – not sensationalism. And you can do this as a way to heighten our empathy in order to prevent those horrors from happening to us as well. And of course, be aware that this exists, and hopefully people can collectively do something to mitigate that suffering.
For every oppressed community in the world today and throughout history, there were indicators. I’ve been sounding the alarm for years, and it is extremely frustrating how it tends to fall on deaf ears. I do get a few thousand readers for what I post, but for everything I say that resonates with my audience, there are literally millions of people watching and consuming content that is deliberately misleading. And yes, that type of content is feeding into an authoritarian narrative that has been gradually expanding for decades.
The opportunists and useful fools
You might or might not be surprised to learn that politicians, public figures, influencers, and others with a platform can become useful fools for an authoritarian propagandist. The person being the talking head is disposable, what the propagandist is after is their clout. Once they have that attention, then it is easy to get rid of the talking head. The message that was first validated through their mouths is what matters. In other words, planting seeds on their audience’s minds.
The authoritarian propagandists are not seeking for a quick reward. The useful fools do. And often they do get rewarded. Why do you think is it that somebody saying something stupid such as denying the moon landing, or saying that the world is flat, or spouting another controversial falsehood gets so much following so quickly? Because those propagandists are in the lookout for those incendiary topics, and prop then if they are convenient to their narrative.
Yet, content that is actually important that will get you to think outside the box is often downplayed. People have been pushed into a level of consuming “entertainment” onto what should otherwise be a more seriously analyzed topic. For example, religion, politics, conspiracy theories. The currency is attention, and the best way nowadays to capitalize on attention is through rage. Rage is entertaining for a lot of people. That makes a person react and engage. That is why you see the video thumbnails or posts becoming more and more provocative – regardless of party affiliation.
The more views, the more exposure, the more the “algorithm” pushes your content to others – despite the fact if it has any information or value. People are so used to hear what they want to hear, that they automatically tune out or condemn anything they disagree with – and this disagreeing is often by proxy. What does that mean? It means that they are not even against a topic or person themselves, but they do hear the people they trust to be against that person, and hence – since they respect that group, they take their assertions at face value.
And that is why I always advocate to learn from the source. For example, if you like or dislike the Trump-Vance or Harris-Walz ticket. Why do you like them or dislike them? Further, have you understood their platform (both tickets) from your own perspective, or are you just hearing it from your favorite talking heads and reading it from memes in the echo-chambers you favor? Understand that every outlet has a bias that is looking for advertisement and funding.
I fortunately – personally - don’t have that problem. Nobody is paying me for writing what I am writing on this website. I do that on purpose because I don’t want my message to be controlled by somebody who has an implicit bias on my words. But that is not true for many influencers, especially if they make a living out of communicating. They have sponsors, and if their audience leaves them, then along goes their livelihoods, and their teams’ livelihoods. This is telecommunications 101, and it also can affect the independent media ecosystem. And no, this does not imply that there isn’t good and truthful content out there, I am just saying that they have a lot more to lose than I do if their content is not wide-reaching.
AUTHORITARIANISM & PROPAGANDA The Puppet Master Tools
Available worldwide on eBook and Paperback worldwide
The responsibility to the audience
I said before that any size platform is responsible for understanding that their content could resonate in different ways to the people who consume their content. The larger the platform, the higher the responsibility because it affects a larger group of people. Yes, I repeat this because it is important. Larger following or higher levels of engagement could very well lead to group thinking, and this could become very dangerous.
Many people are very judicious on what they would slap their name to. In other words, they won’t just endorse a person, a product, a company, or anything unless they truly believe without reservations that what they are endorsing is trustworthy. For example, if you endorse a soft-drink beverage, hopefully is because you’ve tasted it, and you know it is acceptable for human consumption and won’t create harm to those who consume it. Conversely if you endorse this beverage, but you don’t even like the taste or you know that it is bad for human consumption, now your name is associated with promoting this foul product.
And the sad part is that there is no shortage of people who are for sale in the sense that they will parrot or endorse anything that will give them money or exposure. This of course includes politicians. If they are spending more time into selling stuff to their base than on providing policy, then it should be pretty obvious what their main intent is. And no, it is not their constituents’ wellbeing, but rather reaching into their wallets.
I know this article is very wide spreading, and there is a reason for it. My intent is for you to think outside the box and realize that a lot of the content we consume tends to have an implicit bias. For some it will be because they want to sell you something, for others it might be because they ultimately want to control you, and there is a group of people who truly want to inform you. The latter is the one that is often downplayed and even demonized by the former two. Why do you think that is?
An authoritarian hallmark is their disdain for independent journalism (as in not-state sponsored when they are in power). Especially, they will be very much against any journalists that are critical of them. We defined criticism at the top of this article. The Authoritarian will label them as “fake news” – “corrupt press” – or any other epithet that seeks to discredit them. Yet they will fear them, in the sense that they won’t sit for an interview, or if they do, they will be very combative when a poignant question is being asked.
Poignant questions and provocations are not synonymous, a journalist is supposed to ask the tough questions. If they don’t then it is not an interview, it is an advertisement promo. Softball interviews on “friendly” networks are simply that, an advertisement for the person to say whatever they want. I don’t like those, but sadly that is often the only way your message is broadcasted to a larger audience. That is why there is a whole industry about advertising.
But if a politician is sitting for an interview is because they are asking questions about their policies, and something that the voters need this person to clarify. If a politician is afraid of factchecking, that is a red flag. Why? Because they are supposed to know what the hell they are talking about on the first place before they open their mouth. Further, if they do have to get fact checked, that is also a red flag on the fact that they were not being forthcoming either wittingly or unwittingly.
Especially for a presidential race, if a politician flees to the chance of sitting on an interview, a debate, or any other probing outlet – often outside their comfort zone, then they are showing they are weak. And for a president, they cannot be weak, and being “strong” does not mean being combative and spout insults, that is actually a weakness and a vulnerability. A person who is volatile is exploitable. A person who can hold their temperance on the face of adversity shows that they have the character and the guts to fight for what is right.
It is easy to attack a person or an entity if they cannot defend themselves. That is why those with a larger platform have to be very judicious about what they say or do. People with large platforms have to realize that their words will travel a lot farther than, let’s say, a private conversation. And if a person in a large platform requires that their audience seek “interpretation” of something ambiguous that they are saying, this can cause a lot of potential unintended consequences. There is a time and place for everything. And when you have a platform, you want your audience to understand what your true values and principles are. Mine are accountability and factual analysis.
For example, if a presidential candidate or a person already in office says something that could be considered provocative, such as saying that a minority is eating pets. The facts must match the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a claim that is unsubstantiated comes from the mouth of a prominent figure, there is a chance that their followers will take that as an empirical truth and discard any actual facts to the contrary. There is a reason why propagandist use this tactic. And yes, incendiary language can be extremely dangerous, especially if it seems condoned or mandated by a person in a prominent position.
I’ve spoken about this before, and it is worth repeating. Propagandists redact the truth. That means they are concealing the facts that will cast them in a bad light, and cherry pick points that would sound more palatable. But the fact is that is misleading. A person who cares about the facts will tell you the good, the bad, and the ugly – and that includes their own shortcomings, and by that I am not speaking about humble brags.
A telltale of a charlatan is that they claim that they are never wrong. They go on to cry foul (often in a very pedantic and vociferous manner) as though the other side is trying to discredit them if they get confronted. Yet when they have the opportunity to confront them those who criticize them head on in an objective forum – AND – answer tough follow up questions, they run away. They will be very “brave” to say anything on a court of public opinion to a friendly audience but will be very combative (if they show up at all) to an objective audience.
If for some reason a charlatan gets to a point where they are having no choice but to have a back and forth with those who objectively criticized them. The charlatan will often Gish gallop, use non sequiturs, insult, demean, act as though they are offended, etc. Anything, except actually answering objectively to the tough questions.
And notice that I said objective. There is no shortage of “news” that are camouflaged as such – that will not be objective. By the way, for a propagandist those unobjective news outlets are not “fake news” – but anybody who actually asks facts that are challenging are labeled “fake news” or the “enemy of the people.” The fact is that authoritarians are allergic to facts because objective outlets can unmask them in front of the world, and prove that the authoritarian’s game is skewed, and that these authoritarians are indeed conning their own base of obedient followers.
I’ll be speaking more about this topic – because it is a complex and dynamic matter that cannot be summarized in just one article, or even a single book for that matter. That is why I am writing this series of articles. Each day we will continue delving more into understanding how the authoritarian’s game is being played upon us all – in plain sight. Thank you for your attention, please help me share this message. I appreciate everybody reading and sharing my words. My message is about unity and accountability. HLC