Skip to content

Public Opinion

Formerly called public opinion, I think it is now more accurate now, to refer to as the theatre of memetic wars and infohazards. Over-saturation of news has led to a unique condition. It is not there is no ground truth anymore but rather there are too many truths, too many to the point where there is no longer any point in it.

There is no longer any basis for the application of morality. For example, some group may find a valuable strategy in manipulation and may even do bluntly. People may recognize this, but there will be no backlash and no moral case for it. With that many truths being available, that group already has the ammunition to cast whataboutisms of equal moral worth in their defense.

Additionally the accessibility of potent established memes may evoke the most cultish devotion to sides within people. I have always found the language of memetics quite palatable to describe modern ideology. In theory any special interests could employ a varieties of these to their advantage, I list:

  • The strains common to christianity (all abrahamic religions really) and leftwing thought (the lowest will rise, the meek will inherit the earth, the hare and the turtle, appealing to those in current consideration of themselves as inferior in some regard)
  • The strains common to social darwinism, aristocracy, caste systems and some other religious thought (superiority as always fated, both titillating and a great defense to those in consideration of themselves as superior in some regard)
  • Historicism (that there is a logic to history, that history repeats itself, appealing to lots)
  • Other strains common to modernity, democracy, meritocracy (the reification of abstract (although useful) ideas beyond their original utilities)
  • The strains common to identity politics, tribalism and fascism and rightwing thought (In order to win someone must lose)
  • The strains common to holism, conservation, old people (an appeal to the most apparent observable things, general superstition to change, appealing to those who are comfortable with current things)

These ideas will likely always be relevant and could be coopted without any connection to them. It seems that we are far down a death spirals of this sort of thing, and the value of integrity will continue to decline.

The most disturbing thing about this reality is the reaction as things gradually worsen, I can see things going in luddite or totalitarian direction in what would be a serious overreaction. Indeed the solution that comes naturally to this level information over-saturation is to regulate the media we see, but it depends how that is done. In a slow but nauseating creep towards the worse case scenario, totalitarian control of the internet is eventually what even good people will resort to. In a generous consideration of what is good, they could try and enforce some standard for social media under the authority of a “good” institution. I have reservations against any such entity. There is no benevolent entity trustworthy enough for the authority of unbiased media regulation.

On the other hand I like the idea of an immediate acceleration towards the very bottom of this spiral. In that situation one could expect a decentralized system of media standards to become viable. One where no singular entity alone gets to define good media is. This doesn’t have to a system in the physical sense it could simply be a new culture, a new layer of integrity, prompted by a common weariness that is imminent. I may not (and shouldn’t) just be a standard enforced against violations, it may also be a positive culture towards an aptness in reporting.