Anne Applebaum’s concept of the ”new obscurantism” encapsulates the current political climate, marked by a deliberate rejection of reason, scientific inquiry, and individual liberties – the very principles the Enlightenment sought to champion. This resurgence of anti-intellectualism manifests in various forms, from vaccine hesitancy and conspiracy theories to the alarming pronouncements of political figures echoing the superstitious fervor of bygone eras. Applebaum highlights Călin Georgescu’s denial of basic scientific facts, drawing parallels to the irrationality that permeated Russia at the turn of the 20th century. Similarly, the rhetoric of figures like Tucker Carlson, with their claims of demonic encounters, evokes the mystical and often dangerous influence of figures like Rasputin in Tsarist Russia. This rejection of reason isn’t simply a matter of individual eccentricity; it represents a broader societal shift with potentially profound consequences.
The tension between reason and emotion has long been a defining characteristic of human history. Periods of rationalism are often followed by eras where emotions hold sway, a cyclical pattern observed across cultures and time. This dichotomy has also been exploited to reinforce social hierarchies. Throughout history, marginalized groups, including women and people of color, have been unfairly labeled as less rational, thereby justifying their exclusion from positions of power and influence. In this context, Meta’s recent decision to discontinue fact-checking on its platforms, coupled with Mark Zuckerberg’s call for more ”masculine energy,” raises significant questions. Does this suggest a new paradigm where emotion is valorized, particularly in men, while the pursuit of truth and accuracy is dismissed as a feminine preoccupation? Importantly, this shift hasn’t altered the existing power dynamics; those at the top retain their influence regardless of their embrace of emotional appeals.
The role of the internet and social media in this evolving landscape cannot be overstated. Meta’s initial implementation of fact-checking mechanisms followed intense criticism regarding the spread of misinformation on Facebook during the 2016 US presidential election. Zuckerberg’s rationale for abandoning these efforts centers on claims of bias, alleging that fact-checkers disproportionately targeted right-leaning content. While it’s true that right-leaning accounts have faced more suspensions and content removals, research indicates a higher propensity among these accounts to disseminate information from questionable sources, often originating from bots or troll accounts. Recent studies analyzing the Twitter activity of politicians across 26 countries, including Sweden, further corroborate this trend. Disinformation isn’t a pervasive issue among all online politicians; rather, it appears to be a strategic tool employed primarily by the populist radical right.
The business models of social media platforms are central to understanding the proliferation of disinformation. These platforms operate on an ”attention economy,” where users and their engagement are the commodities sold to advertisers. The more time users spend interacting with content, the more advertising they are exposed to, and the more data they generate, enabling targeted advertising. This creates a powerful incentive to prioritize content that elicits strong emotional responses, keeping users engaged and generating valuable data. Negative emotions, such as anger and fear, prove particularly effective in this regard. While positive content might generate fleeting engagement, negative content tends to provoke more sustained interaction, prompting users to share, comment, and dwell on the material.
Consequently, the platforms profit from maintaining a climate of fear and outrage. This ”affecteconomy” is further amplified when the constraints of truth are loosened. Fabricated or grossly exaggerated narratives about perceived threats – whether they involve dangerous strangers, mysterious vehicles, or unfounded accusations – become potent tools for stoking fear and resentment. It is well-established that fear, regardless of its basis in reality, renders individuals more susceptible to authoritarian rhetoric and policies. This convergence of the platforms’ financial interests and the agendas of authoritarian politicians creates a dangerous synergy. While the primary objective of social media companies isn’t necessarily to empower the far-right, their profit-driven algorithms inadvertently create an environment that favors the spread of misinformation and fear-mongering, tilting the political playing field in favor of those who exploit these tactics.
The support and dissemination of extremist content by figures like Elon Musk represents a concerning, albeit secondary, issue. However, the recent alignment of Zuckerberg and other tech billionaires with Donald Trump stems from a more pragmatic motivation. The European Union has implemented regulations aimed at holding social media companies accountable for the spread of disinformation and restricting the use and sale of user data. Meta, having faced substantial fines for violating these regulations, seeks Trump’s assistance in thwarting these ”meddlesome Brussels bureaucrats” and safeguarding their lucrative business model. Trump, whose political project thrives on the unrestricted dissemination of falsehoods and fear-mongering, is naturally eager to collaborate. This alliance presents a bleak outlook for those who value societies grounded in knowledge, reason, and equitable rules. The unchecked spread of disinformation and the erosion of trust in established institutions pose a significant threat to the foundations of democratic discourse and governance.
