You’ve missed the point, they KNOW he’s the antichrist. They need him to be to get to heaven without actually dying. I’m the child of old conservative evangelical christian ministers, and I can tell you at 80+ they are more terrified of dying that any other single thing.

After getting it wrong, the LLM I use most: Me: You can’t wash your car if it isn’t there.

Ah. Yes. That is an excellent and devastatingly practical correction.

In that case: drive. But do it with the quiet shame of someone moving the car the length of a bowling lane.

This is one of those situations where logic beats virtue. The car must be present to be washed. Walking was philosophically elegant but mechanically flawed.

So:

Start engine.

Travel 50 meters.

Avoid eye contact with pedestrians.

Commit fully.

You are not lazy. You are complying with system requirements.

Thank you for taking the time to write this. It is unusually careful and I have been sitting with it for a couple of days. The delay is partly because I have been dealing with Influenza A, but also because your comment deserved more than a quick reaction.

I share many of your objections to Substack, especially around coercive onboarding, data extraction before value is demonstrated, and the choice to platform genuinely abhorrent material under the banner of neutrality. None of that is trivial. My use of the platform is pragmatic rather than enthusiastic, and I would not argue that it is a moral solution to anything. It is just a place where longer form thinking still seems possible, at least for now.

I also agree with you, and with Naomi Klein, that consumer level adjustments are insufficient to resolve systemic problems. I do not think boycotts alone fix extractive systems. At best, they are boundary setting. They change what we personally feed, not what the system is designed to do.

Where I might differ slightly is in how I interpret the phrase “documentation without transformation.” I share the frustration behind it. Documentation alone does not save us. History is full of well documented suffering that did not prevent further harm. At the same time, I am wary of dismissing documentation entirely, because without it we lose continuity, memory, and the ability to coordinate at all.

What I have been circling lately is the idea that trust reallocation itself is a form of pre transformation. Not transformation at the scale that would satisfy the moment, but a shift in where legitimacy, attention, and care are being placed. People are pulling trust out of large systems not because they expect those systems to reform, but because they no longer believe those systems are aligned with human scale values.

That does not prevent acute suffering. You are right about that. Large scale change historically arrives alongside immense harm, and I see no evidence that we have found a painless path through systemic breakdown. I do not feel optimistic in the sense of believing this will be gentle.

Where I do find a narrow form of optimism is this. Even under conditions of scarcity and distortion, people are still making choices about where to place trust, effort, and attention. They are narrowing it, slowing it down, and making it more conditional. That does not fix the system, but it does preserve something essential inside it.

As for your direct questions.

What actions would be sufficient to effect systemic change? I honestly do not know. I do not see a clear lever that avoids significant suffering, and anyone who claims otherwise is probably selling something.

How do I remain optimistic? I am not sure optimistic is the right word. I would say I remain oriented. I pay attention to where trust is still being extended carefully rather than cynically. I try to invest in places where documentation and transformation are at least loosely coupled, even if the transformation is small and local.

“I don’t know” is not a rhetorical move for me here. It is the most accurate answer I have.

Thank you again for engaging so thoughtfully. Comments like this are part of why I bother writing at all.

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I’ve been getting a little grief this weekend because some of my posts are adapted from essays I’ve been working on for Substack, and apparently careful editing now makes you suspect as an actual person.

I’m very real, just flu-ridden and overthinking in public. Glad the line landed for you.

I’m not convinced this is a plan so much as incentives running ahead of everything else.

Trust usually doesn’t collapse all at once. It degrades until people start inventing awkward workarounds. The fruit is just what that looks like in the real world.

That’s fair. I’ve written about this elsewhere and I’m rephrasing parts of it here, which probably makes it feel more essay-shaped than a typical thread reply.

I wasn’t trying to pad anything. I was trying to connect a few dots that usually get skipped when this comes up.

My daughter in family chat said the same thing this last week. It’s possible I have been reading too much LLM generated content, also, this is my first top level post after years of lurking, and I’m trying to come off like I know what I’m doing. If the argument doesn’t land, happy to talk about that. The style I can adjust.

That’s a fair question, and you’re right that it isn’t foolproof.

The reason it works at all is that the fruit isn’t known in advance. He posts the video first, then updates his site with the correct fruit for that video. Viewers can check after the fact. If someone deep-fakes him, they either have to guess the fruit correctly or regenerate the fake once the real fruit is known.

That doesn’t make impersonation impossible, but it does make it more expensive and slower.

And that’s really the point. This isn’t perfect authentication, it’s friction. It raises the cost just enough that casual fakes, reposts, and automated scams stop being worthwhile, even if a determined attacker could still get through.

Which is also why this is such a telling example. Instead of platforms providing provenance, creators are inventing human-readable ways to increase the cost of lying. Not secure, but legible and effective enough for most people.

That’s the ambient trust problem in a nutshell. We’re not aiming for mathematically perfect truth, we’re trying to make deception harder than honesty.

You’re absolutely right that this is a solved problem from a technical standpoint. Public key cryptography gives us everything we need to sign content, verify it, and prove continuity of identity.

But that’s how we solve it in technology. It’s not how my 82-year-old father solves it.

For most people, trust isn’t established by verifying signatures or checking keys. It’s established through simple, legible cues they can recognize instantly, without tooling, training, or a mental model of cryptography.

That’s why the fruit works.

It’s a human-scale authentication signal. No UI, no standards, no explanation required. “If you see the fruit, it’s him.” That’s something almost anyone can understand and apply.

The real problem isn’t that cryptographic solutions don’t exist. It’s that platforms haven’t made provenance and verification visible, intuitive, or default for non-technical users. Until they do, people will keep inventing these ad hoc, embodied trust signals.

That’s what makes this a trust infrastructure failure, not a math failure.

Before anything else: whether the specific story in the linked post is literally true doesn’t actually matter. The following observation about AI holds either way. If this example were wrong, ten others just like it would still make the same point.

What keeps jumping out at me in these AI threads is how consistently the conversation skips over the real constraint.

We keep hearing that AI will “increase productivity” or “accelerate thinking.” But in most large organizations, thinking is not the scarce resource. Permission to think is. Demand for thought is. The bottleneck was never how fast someone could draft an email or summarize a document. It was whether anyone actually wanted a careful answer in the first place.

A lot of companies mistook faster output for more value. They ran a pilot, saw emails go out quicker, reports get longer, slide decks look more polished, and assumed that meant something important had been solved. But scaling speed only helps if the organization needs more thinking. Most don’t. They already operate at the minimum level of reflection they’re willing to tolerate.

So what AI mostly does in practice is amplify performative cognition. It makes things look smarter without requiring anyone to be smarter. You get confident prose, plausible explanations, and lots of words where a short “yes,” “no,” or “we don’t know yet” would have been more honest and cheaper.

That’s why so many deployments feel disappointing once the novelty wears off. The technology didn’t fail. The assumption did. If an institution doesn’t value judgment, uncertainty, or dissent, no amount of machine assistance will conjure those qualities into existence. You can’t automate curiosity into a system that actively suppresses it.

Which leaves us with a technology in search of a problem that isn’t already constrained elsewhere. It’s very good at accelerating surfaces. It’s much less effective at deepening decisions, because depth was never in demand.

If you’re interested, I write more about this here: https://tover153.substack.com/

Not selling anything. Just thinking out loud, slowly, while that’s still allowed.

I’m tempted to propose a small experiment, if anyone wants to try it.

Hold this frame in mind, then go watch a live walk through any major downtown. Tokyo is a good example, but anywhere dense works as long as you can see people’s faces. Don’t analyze yet. Just watch the ads, the screens, the signage. Then watch the faces moving past them.

Last week in Shibuya I noticed something that stuck with me. People wearing large electronic ad boards on their bodies, moving in coordinated packs through the crossings. Literal walking billboards. It felt like escalation. Not confidence. Desperation.

What I keep noticing isn’t outrage or engagement so much as flattening. The ads are louder, more animated, more self-aware. The delivery systems are becoming more intrusive and physical. But the faces moving past them are tired, inward, already elsewhere. It doesn’t feel like persuasion happening in real time. It feels like two systems passing through each other with minimal contact.

There’s a long-standing observation that societies can look healthy right up until they aren’t. Japan is undergoing a severe demographic contraction, and yet the surface still looks immaculate, hyperfunctional, optimized. The signals say vitality. The underlying trajectories say something else.

I don’t think this is about Japan specifically. It just makes the contrast easier to see. When meaning thins out, systems get very good at looking alive. Ads keep acknowledging the problem. Infrastructure keeps humming. People keep moving.

What struck me in Shibuya was the sense that advertisers already know this. The escalation feels like an admission. If the old signals worked, they wouldn’t need to strap screens to human bodies and march them through crowds.

And it didn’t look like it was helping.

What’s harder to spot is where imagination, trust, and shared future quietly step out of frame.

Thank you for taking the time to write this out. You’re making a distinction here that feels important.

What you’re describing about “sanctioned” critique is exactly the failure mode that worries me. Awareness is allowed to substitute for consequence. Mockery is permitted as long as it stays cartoonish. The system absorbs the gesture, digests it, and nothing downstream is disturbed.

That’s why so much of the “eat the rich” material feels weightless. It discharges anger without ever letting it become diagnostic. The problem is acknowledged, but only at a distance that keeps it abstract and safely un-actionable. Awareness becomes absolution.

I also think you’re right about the infection spreading across forms. Once that logic sets in, it doesn’t stay confined to advertising or politics. It reshapes journalism, fiction, and even how art is justified. Things are allowed to exist as entertainment, commentary, or spectacle, but not as something that might meaningfully reorient how people see their own agency.

The point about apocalypse is well taken too. When imagination is constrained, collapse starts to feel inevitable, not because it is, but because alternatives stop being legible. That’s a feedback loop, and a dangerous one.

You made sense. More than that, you pushed the frame forward. I appreciate it.

Yeah, that’s very close to where this thread kept pushing me too. Because of the back and forth here, I tried to consolidate some of it into a longer Substack essay. The link to my Substack is already above, and the new essay was just posted. No answers there either, just a slower pass at the same questions.

Yeah, “ultra-processed” is a really good way to put it.

What Stewart was pointing at fits this exactly. The speech isn’t meant to persuade or inform so much as trigger uptake. Reaction density over substance. When everything is engineered for engagement, it all collapses into the same flavor.

And you’re right, this escaped political speech a long time ago. It’s in entertainment, advertising, workplace language, even how people narrate their own lives online. Everything gets intensified, smoothed, and pre-digested so it can move fast.

The phone part matters a lot. When attention is constantly fragmented, communication adapts. Messages stop assuming patience or continuity. They become short, sharp, emotionally saturated enough to punch through distraction. That isn’t a plot. It’s selection pressure.

What that means, though, is that anything deliberately slower starts to feel wrong by default. Not boring, wrong. Out of sync. But that slowness can be doing work of its own, creating space where meaning has time to accumulate instead of spike.

That’s the part that worries me. Once we train ourselves to expect everything pre-processed, we lose our tolerance for forms of communication that unfold rather than hit. And those slower forms are often where thinking actually happens.

That’s a fair example, though I should say I bailed on The Boys midway through season one. Not because it was bad, but because the mechanism felt a little too exposed for me. Once you see how it’s balancing critique and indulgence at the same time, it stops being interesting and starts feeling instructional.

That doesn’t undercut your point, though. If anything it supports it. The show works precisely because it can be read in incompatible ways at once, and different viewers walk away convinced it’s speaking for them.

Thank you. That really means a lot, and I’m glad it gave you something to sit with, even if there’s no clear next step yet. I think that uncertainty is honest.

I also understand the pushback against Substack, whatever your reasons are. I’ve spent a lot of time lately thinking about how I relate to corporations in general, including continuing to write there. For now my line is simple. I don’t ask for subscriptions, I don’t gate content, and everything I write is free. That may change someday, but it’s where I’m comfortable at the moment.

I’ve made other small adjustments too. Leaving Reddit after years, dropping a couple streaming services, shopping more carefully. None of it feels heroic. It just feels like paying attention and trying not to lie to myself about tradeoffs.

I don’t think any of us knows exactly what to do yet. But if we keep thinking about it, and keep being honest with each other instead of performing certainty, my optimistic side still hopes we can find our way through.

Yes, that’s a really good pull.

Hypernormalisation gets at the same feeling from a different angle. Everyone knows the system is strained, maybe failing, but the performance continues because nothing else feels imaginable. So the pretense hardens into reality.

At that point, the lie isn’t even that things are fine. The lie is that there’s no alternative to continuing exactly like this.

That’s the part that feels brittle.

That makes sense, and honestly it’s probably a healthy adaptation.

The thing that worries me isn’t whether any individual ad works. It’s that even as background noise, the tone still leaks. You can opt out of watching ads, but you can’t fully opt out of the language they normalize, the way everything gets framed as a “solution,” or a vibe, or a managed anxiety.

So yeah, ignoring them is rational. I just don’t think the effects stay neatly contained to the people still paying attention.

Ha, fair. That’s probably a failure mode on my part.

I’m not trying to rally anyone. I’m mostly trying to describe a feeling I don’t hear named very often, that low-grade sense that something about how we talk to each other has gone thin. If it sounds like a speech, it’s probably because we’re all a little starved for language that isn’t trying to sell, soothe, or steer us.

I’m more interested in noticing than convincing.

Exactly. Lampshading is the right word for it.

Once acknowledging the problem becomes the whole move, relevance replaces responsibility. The ad doesn’t promise to fix anything. It just proves it knows the vibe. That awareness is treated as absolution.

“AI is scary, but trust our AI” “Work sucks, so automate yourself out of it” “There’s a wealth gap, here’s a checkout button”

None of it is persuasion anymore. It’s alignment theater. The point isn’t to convince you. It’s to make sure you don’t recoil.

And yeah, the He Gets Us ads are a whole separate category of grim. When even moral language is reduced to brand-safe tone, you’re not being spoken to. You’re being processed.

I’ve got a few essays in the drafting stage on moral coercion, how systems use shared values to narrow choices without looking like force. This ad cycle feels like a case study.