Over the last week or so in the news, I have seen the name "Andrew Tate" come up, as one of these people who young men look up to, based on their "controversial" comments. The one I have seen cited as his views is where he says women should take partial responsibility if raped.
I have no idea who this clown is. And the reason people like him say these controversial things is for attention and then money, because the media laps it up, they get more fans through polarization and societal dysfunction and people unable to control their emotions, or their own behaviors to get what they want. Drama is the fastest way to monetization.
And I am not going to argue anything based on that view. However, have you ever read those stories where people go biking into a country like Tajikistan and end up getting killed by ISIS members? Definitely not right, but should they take some responsibility for where they put themselves?
If I was robbed or murdered while walking through the barrios of Brazil, the border towns of Mexico or the Ghettos of LA at night, would anyone say, "perhaps he should have used some common sense and not been there"? It doesn't take away from the legal fact that I shouldn't be robbed or murdered in any of these places, but legal fact and reality of risk are two different things.
Is that controversial?
However, this is what actually caught my eye, because essentially, this guy "lost" five million followers overnight, as Facebook and Instagram (both Meta companies) banned him from their platforms. He had already been banned from Twitter and supposedly has a presence on TikTok, but has no formal account there.
See how it works? These people are made. They are not controversial at all, they are products of the machine, algorithmically enabled to build a presence, supported by the platforms to generate views and click-throughs for advertising and encouraged to compete for attention in a sea of various clones, all doubling-down on drama in order to make a name and monetize themselves.
And people lap it up.
Especially the naïve, talentless and disenfranchised.
Much of this is because people want to feel part of a movement, they want to belong to a group, they want to feel that they are "okay" in a world that they feel largely disconnected from. And, they want it given to them easily.
In the past, organized religion filled this gap, effectively telling people what to do to be "right and wrong" which means that there was a gateway to salvation and the development of a common enemy, the non-believers, or believers of another set of "right and wrong". It brought people together under one banner, to fight against other banners, like any sporting competition. And, like an NFL, NBA or football franchise, key players made a mint, as did the business of the organization.
The move away from religion hasn't actually moved people away from all of the components that attracted them to religion in the first place, it just shifted the priests to personalities, the organization to the media. Ultimately, it is still leveraging the same behaviors, still creating the "rulebook" of right and wrong. And, both sides, the "influencer and the follower" are acting on incentive.
The influencer is motivated and incentivized to monetize, the follower is motivated and incentivized to feel better about their lot in life, their conditions, the thoughts in their head, the disappointment they experience as their expectations go unmet. And of course, the feeding of their sense of entitlement. Each thinks they deserve a certain kind of outcome.
The term was supposedly first coined in the 90s.
But apparently, around 2019, got "meme-ified".
This is social movements today. It has very little to do with anything, other than media-driven trends, where the algorithmic spread of information will drive ideas straight into the multiple feeds of the people who are most likely going to be influenced by them. It is like forcing alcohol down the throat of someone with a high predilection to become an alcoholic. All a marking company has to do is work out what "genes" a person has and then, target them.
Tequila!
And, when it comes to "ideological genes", the digital fingerprints we leave all over our online activity is perfect for grouping, sorting, designing for and then has all the mechanisms in-built for distribution to influence. A person who knows they are a potential alcoholic might choose to not go into bars, or closely watch their consumption behaviors, but a person prone to certain ideas is far less likely to be able to do so and this is even harder when those ideas "feel right" and resonate with the person.
For the most part, we are not encouraged to investigate our feelings or control them and if anything, we have been pushed to do the opposite. The reason is that out of control people will be followers, easily influenced by those in control. We aren't pushed to critically think, we are pushed to consume. And while the focus is often on the consumption of material things, it is the consumption of ideas that drives our behaviors the most, as that is what shifts our opinions and belief systems.
And, we are inherently lazy.
So, while our laziness of the material will keep us sitting on the couch or buying robot vacuum cleaners to save us time so we can sit on the couch more, it also becomes a hurdle in the way we filter and disseminate information - which is largely thoughtlessly and based on how we feel about it, whether it is "right or wrong" based on our preferences.
And this can be monetized.
Think about all the ridiculous people who send money to TV evangelists and the billions they make and then realize, they are the same kinds of people who send money to Alex Jones, subscribe to Andrew Tate or buy a Manchester United shirt. They are fans. The reasoning might be different, as to is the target activity, but they are all the same, they want to feel part of a group, they want to compete, they want to have their dreams and expectations met - whether that is to get into heaven, get a championship, or pickup women.
We all have tendencies.
We all have insecurities and desires too. And at least from what all of this indicates to me is, when we are unable to meet our own needs, whether through laziness, inability or opportunity, we will look to those who promise to help us get there or, will make us feel better for being impotent for not being able to help ourselves.
And then there are the bans.
Banning does very little, other than legitimizing the "influencer" in the eyes of the fans and making the detractors feel like they are doing something. Rather than taking the hard path of actually educating people well through improving society and opportunity, the easy (but ineffectual) path is taken, exacerbating the problem as not only does it do little to curb behavior, it does nothing to change the breeding ground of the circumstances where people feel they have to turn to fools and prophets.
In the name of the Profit.
But, this doesn't mean all are at a loss, because while the influencers will come and go, created, used and spat out by the media platforms, the platforms themselves will keep generating them for monetized interactions, making money on all sides of the argument, no matter what the conversation is. This is the "beauty" of the business model, because the media don't have to create anything to generate demand, all they need to do is take what we are already demanding, polarize it and spread it wide.
We will do the rest of the work for them, because we feel it is the right thing to do.
Never trust controversy, or those who rely on it for their income.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]