Social platforms promise unparalleled opportunities for connection, dialogue, and innovation. These digital arenas, heralded as the modern public square, have the potential to transform global communication by dissolving geographical boundaries and democratizing access to information. In theory, they foster inclusivity, amplify diverse voices, and cultivate a marketplace for ideas where innovation thrives. The ideal is a digital utopia—a borderless realm where collaboration and progress know no bounds.
However, this aspirational vision often clashes with a sobering reality: the dynamics of social media frequently undermine its promise. Constructive conversations are hijacked by performative influencers whose primary goal is self-promotion rather than substantive engagement. Genuine expertise, nuanced perspectives, and underrepresented voices are often marginalized and sidelined by those who wield algorithms and follower counts as their tools of dominance. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) exemplify this paradox: they empower voices across the spectrum yet allow the loudest—rather than the most knowledgeable—to define the narrative.
This phenomenon reflects what sociologist Sherry Turkle describes as the “culture of performance” in her book Alone Together. In the digital world, identity is curated, and conversations become a stage where authenticity frequently takes a backseat to spectacle. Influencers, driven by metrics such as likes, retweets, and views, often prioritize engagement over substance, creating echo chambers where performative opportunism thrives. For example, during global crises or primary societal debates, threads and posts from influential figures often go viral not because they provide insight or solutions but because they evoke strong emotional reactions or align with prevailing biases.
The structure of social media platforms exacerbates this issue. The algorithms that drive platforms like X are designed to prioritize content that maximizes engagement, which often translates to controversy, sensationalism, or oversimplification. This algorithmic bias creates an environment where complex discussions are distilled into soundbites, and genuine expertise is overshadowed by the viral appeal of polarizing or provocative statements. In such an ecosystem, critical voices—scientists, policymakers, and community leaders—struggle to compete with less-informed, fake experts and highly engaging actors’ volume and visibility.
A striking example of this dynamic is the discourse surrounding climate change on social media. Research published in Nature Climate Change (2021) revealed that misinformation about climate science spreads faster and further than verified information on platforms like X. Influencers with limited or no expertise in the subject often dominate the conversation, eclipsing scientists and environmentalists who provide rigorously researched insights. This skews public perception and undermines efforts to galvanize meaningful action.
Furthermore, the rise of “influencer culture” reshapes how individuals engage with information. Platforms reward those who can command attention, incentivizing behaviors prioritizing visibility over integrity. As philosopher Byung-Chul Han argues in The Transparency Society, social media transforms communication into a form of economic exchange, where influence is commodified and authenticity diluted.
This forces us to confront a critical question: are these platforms truly “social” in the sense of fostering meaningful human connection, or are they primarily arenas of self-promotion and tribalism? The promise of inclusivity and dialogue seems increasingly at odds with the reality of exclusion and performative engagement.
When Performative Influence Replaces Real Expertise
Picture this. A well-meaning grassroots movement sparks a vital conversation about sustainability. Experts—scientists, advocates, boots-on-the-ground policymakers—share well-researched insights and propose actionable solutions. Enter the inflated influencer, armed not with expertise but with a knack for theatrics and a craving for clout. These individuals co-opt the discussion to center their narratives, often pushing shallow, clickbait remarks into the public sphere.
Under the guise of “raising awareness,” they minimize the contributions of actual stakeholders. The result? A diluted conversation focused more on likes, shares, and personal branding than actual change. Conversations that should empower affected communities are commandeered to elevate those with social capital but little understanding of the nuances.
What makes this particularly damaging is the psychological mechanism at play. Social Identity Theory tells us that humans are wired to align with perceived leaders—even when those leaders offer little substance. Tribalism, amplified by algorithms, pulls people away from critical engagement and locks them into echo chambers.
About Last Night
Over the years, I spoke extensively about the dangers of tribalism, and last night, my audience had the opportunity to witness it firsthand. I joined a space hosted by DiligentDenizen, intrigued by the topic and eager to contribute my expertise to bridge the inflammatory divide between opposing perspectives. The host welcomed me enthusiastically and invited me to the stage. I was anticipating varied voices from all the political spectrums to join but the discussion quickly took a disappointing turn.
An influencer, clearly prioritizing profit over honesty, began berating me. For those unaware, this moment reflects a more profound history. After discovering that she and her husband had lied to me and my audience, I stopped providing information or collaborating with Millie Weaver. This decision to end our professional relationship was made to preserve any semblance of friendship I thought we had. However, once I was no longer a source of profit for them, our so-called friendship dissolved, and I was swiftly cast as the villain.
The core issue lies in their deceit. They assured me their device was made in America, but the truth was far from it. It turned out to be Chinese technology embedded with CCP software in its system—a discovery that betrayed my trust and jeopardized my integrity.
The Problem: Performative Tribalism
This was not a debate or an exchange of ideas. It was a stage for performative tribalism, where group identity and loyalty override reasoned discourse. In this context, Tribalism refers to the human tendency to prioritize allegiance to a particular group—ideological, cultural, or social—at the expense of critical thinking and mutual respect. Rather than fostering dialogue, tribalism reduces conversations to binary “us versus them” dynamics, creating echo chambers that amplify division instead of understanding.
You may not like me, but you will respect me.
Tore Maras
Performative tribalism takes this one step further. Here, participants engage not to discuss or debate but to signal loyalty to their group or ideology. The goal becomes less about truth or progress and more about garnering clout, solidifying alliances, and attacking perceived outsiders. This behavior was evident yesterday as the discussion descended into name-calling, posturing, and unproductive theatrics undermining the original topic.
The Role of the Host: Accountability and Responsibility
The host bears significant responsibility for the tone and trajectory of any such space. By curating speakers and allowing specific behaviors to go unchecked, they set the parameters of the discussion. When a host tolerates—or worse, enables—false allegations, defamation, and childish antics, they abdicate their responsibility to foster a constructive environment.
In yesterday’s case, the host allowed unqualified speakers to dominate the conversation while silencing those with valuable expertise. This deliberate choice prioritized commodified influence over intellectual honesty. The result was a toxic environment where cliques formed, insults flew freely, and meaningful discourse evaporated.
Such behavior diminishes public discourse, dragging it into the gutter where superficiality and divisiveness thrive. If the host cannot maintain the integrity of their space, they have no business moderating discussions of critical societal issues. This is not just an ethical failing—it actively undermines the potential for progress. The host should be held accountable for fostering an environment like this.
Public discourse can quickly devolve into catty, pedestrian behavior when participants prioritize personal vendettas and performative theatrics over meaningful dialogue. This is particularly evident when individuals attempt to exert undue influence by making ultimatums like :
If you let this person on, I will never come to your space.
Millie Weaver- D-list actress
Such statements reflect an inflated sense of self-importance, especially coming from individuals whose credibility is already tarnished or whose behavior has led to them being effectively blacklisted. When a host acquiesces to these demands, they reinforce the perception that their space is not a forum for genuine discourse but rather an echo chamber designed to placate egos and perpetuate tribalism. By allowing this behavior, the host undermines the integrity of the conversation and signals that critical engagement and diverse perspectives are unwelcome. A responsible host must recognize and reign in such toxic dynamics, ensuring the space remains a platform for authentic dialogue, not performative posturing.
Users should hold hosts accountable. How? The accountability should be by discontinuing to provide them with your time, efforts, and metrics.
The Consequences of Mismanagement
When spaces for public discourse prioritize spectacle over substance (or try to sell their crypto or CCP boxes under the guise of discussions), they erode the quality of societal dialogue. Participants and listeners are left with empty soundbites and emotional outbursts, none contributing to understanding or solutions. This dynamic actively discourages informed individuals from participating, further skewing the conversation toward superficiality.
Worse still, tolerating defamatory statements and unsubstantiated claims has real-world consequences. It normalizes a culture of irresponsibility, where accusations can be flung without evidence and expertise is devalued. This damages reputations and sows distrust in public discourse as a whole.
The Path Forward: Rethinking Engagement
Reclaiming digital spaces’ potential as hubs for meaningful discourse requires a seismic shift in accountability—both for those who host these platforms and for the participants who populate them. Central to this transformation is the role of the host, whose responsibilities extend far beyond merely offering a stage for dialogue. They must emerge as strategic stewards, shaping discussions with intention and vigilance.
Take, for instance, the curation of speakers. The emphasis cannot simply be on individuals who generate attention or controversy. Instead, platforms must actively prioritize expertise, authenticity, and credentialed voices to form the backbone of discussions. A scientist with decades of research experience should not have to compete for airtime with a pundit whose primary claim to authority lies in social media virality. To elevate the dialogue, the foundation must rest on integrity and depth.
Once the stage is set, active moderation becomes non-negotiable. Moderators must stand ready to guide conversations and intervene when discussions devolve into defamation, ad hominem attacks, or shallow theatrics designed for shock value. Enforcing evidence-based reasoning requires vigilance and swift action, turning the conversation from a chaotic spectacle into a structured examination of ideas. When misinformation surfaces, is it instantly corrected? If no such protocol exists, the host fails their most crucial mandate.
Fostering inclusivity must go beyond mere checklist compliance. True inclusivity amplifies perspectives backed by empirical research or lived expertise, especially when these voices would otherwise be drowned out amidst performative outrage or tribalistic echo chambers. The mission is to disrupt platforms that are dependent on spectacle and recalibrate them to substance.
However, the work does not rest solely with individual hosts. Platforms themselves are central actors in this ecosystem. Their algorithms must evolve and be programmed to reward substantive contributions over click-driven conflict. The current incentive systems—designed to amplify the loudest voices regardless of legitimacy—must be inverted to prioritize value-driven input. Imagine an algorithm where thoughtful, constructive comments naturally rise to prominence over incendiary, polarizing soundbites. This is how limited hangouts, tribalism, and fake news are targeted.
Platforms can engage directly with users to improve digital literacy, arming them with analytical tools to evaluate the difference between genuine engagement and performative hostility. A user fluent in distinguishing credible sources from bad-faith rhetoric withdraws attention—one of the most powerful currencies in digital spaces—from toxic environments.
MASS PREMIUM REMOVALS (Blue Checkmark Removal)
Last night, following the incident, there was a coincidental update to X’s system, suggesting a fascinating alignment between my observations and the platform’s algorithmic adjustments. X frequently fine-tunes its algorithm to amplify constructive conversations, often seeking feedback from its premium accounts. However, what I demonstrated last night is a troubling reality: even premium accounts can be tied to bot networks and organizations that engage in behaviors that directly violate the Terms of Service.
Here is what Grok had to say:
“The exact outcome for each affiliate would likely depend on their individual behavior, compliance with platform rules, and whether their monetization was tied directly to the organization’s status.” ~Grok
If Organizations and Influencers use bot networks to promote – spam or silence others’ voices and artificially amplify theirs, there should be no place for them on public discourse channels. No one said everyone has to agree, BUT :
YOU DON’T HAVE TO LIKE OTHERS, BUT YOU MUST RESPECT THEM.
Conservative OG’s recent controversies aren’t just a story about one organization—they reflect deeper tensions shaping the digital public square. From account verification revocations to allegations of platform manipulation, this saga reveals the evolving dynamics of influence, visibility, and control on social media.
Initially holding verified gold badge status on X (formerly Twitter), Conservative OG leveraged its organizational clout to amplify affiliate accounts and advocate for high-stakes political outcomes, such as Bill Pulte’s rumored HUD Secretary nomination. However, the abrupt loss of verification has triggered cascading consequences, not just for its affiliates—who also lost their blue check marks—but for what verification represents in the broader ecosystem of platform visibility and monetization. Does the lack of a badge expose accounts to diminished reach? Or does it challenge the presumed correlation between verification and credibility?
The organization’s polarizing methods, accused of fueling racial polarization and even engaging in doxxing, underscore a critical question: At what point does influence cross into manipulation? While evidence surrounding these allegations remains inconclusive, the digital era opens unprecedented opportunities for shaping public opinion. Conservative OG’s tactics highlight a pivotal dilemma—where do we draw the line between leveraging a platform for advocacy and undermining its principles of constructive discourse?
This isn’t just about Conservative OG; it’s about collectively reckoning with how platforms grant, manage, and revoke influence. It questions whether verification systems hinder or empower free speech—and whether affiliations in professionalized organizations bolster collaboration or suffocate individual agencies.
I’m cautious of organizations that wield large sums of money to buy influence, particularly when they emerge after an election cycle (The PAC’s registration date (11/20/2024)) with officers whose identities are unclear or unverifiable. That said, I did listen to the account they presented, and I found it both polarizing and somewhat troll-like. It left me questioning: How have they amassed so much money and influence? And, most intriguingly, who is James Murray? Does he even exist?
Performative Tribalism and Artificial Engagements to Skew Perception of the Masses
It’s not just leftists partaking in coordinated attacks – it’s also the right.
Blowing my candle out will not make yours shine brighter.
Tore Maras
Elon Musk’s stewardship of X (formerly Twitter) has sparked a debate fraught with contradictions, forcing us to confront fundamental questions about digital governance. Critics label Musk a “tech oligarch,” pointing to his enforcement of platform rules—such as crackdowns on doxxing, fraudulent activities, and coordinated harassment—as evidence of authoritarian tendencies because he disagrees with one side or another. Supporters, however, contend that these measures are essential to safeguard the platform’s integrity and protect its users from harm. I tend to lean to the latter because Musk is a centrist and as a centrist myself I recognize it. President Trump is also a centrist – meeting in the middle is always best.
Cyberoligarch, I coined that phrase, and those wishing to apply it here are just disinformed or tribalistic posturers. ~Tore Maras
IEvidently this debate transcends Musk himself, delving into the larger tensions between free expression and regulatory control in the digital age. Are platforms like X neutral public squares obligated to prioritize unfettered discourse, or are they private entities with the right to enforce their own standards of governance? Musk in his role of owning X further promotes a conflation element, with detractors accusing him of wielding his influence selectively, while proponents argue he is a pragmatic steward, navigating an inherently chaotic landscape.
Should platforms focus on neutrality above all else, or does their viability depend on decisive moderation? Is Musk a convenient scapegoat for the complexities of digital governance, or does his outsized presence distort what should be a more systemic discussion? These questions compel us to critically examine the balance between free speech and accountability, the power dynamics of “private-public” digital spaces, and the evolving responsibilities of tech leaders in a deeply polarized online world.
What we have been observing are entanglements that are more than procedural. They expose emergent patterns at the heart of modern platform governance. How do platforms like X mitigate polarization while fostering diverse discourse? And can they balance the competing priorities of monetization and ethical responsibility? One thing is clear—Conservative OG’s experience is less an isolated incident and more a symptom of the intricate, high-stakes battle for visibility and narrative control in today’s digital ecosystem.
Constructive Approaches for Resolution
Proposing solutions is a vital component of analyzing any issue. Without actionable ideas, discussions risk devolving into mere criticism, perpetuating the very problems they aim to address. Solutions demonstrate a commitment to progress and empower readers or participants in online conversations to envision pathways for change. By integrating solutions into an analysis, we not only identify what’s wrong but also lay the groundwork for improvement, fostering constructive dialogue and tangible impact. In this article, I have raised several points to underscore this approach, aiming to move beyond highlighting issues toward creating meaningful strategies for resolution.
One potential solution to mitigate the toxic environment on social media platforms is introducing journalist badges for verified users who consistently uphold journalistic standards of fairness, integrity, and evidence-based reporting. I wrote about this in the latter part of this article:
AI ETHICS SERIES| Bystander Apathy in a Connected World: How X Is Building Subtle Guardrails
These badges would signify that the holder adheres to ethical guidelines, making them trustworthy sources of information as voted by the people and reliable moderators for public discussions. By recognizing and rewarding such profiles, platforms can promote spaces where constructive dialogue takes precedence over sensationalism and tribalism.
As per X Spaces balanced profiles—those that consistently engage with diverse perspectives and foster meaningful conversations—could be prioritized for increased visibility in Spaces. These profiles would stand out not only for their track record of respectful engagement and transparency but also for their openness to self-report the nature of their content. This self-reporting mechanism would give hosts the ability to categorize their Spaces as public discussions, private huddles, or specified conversations focused on particular topics. For example, a Space labeled “public” would be expected to maintain a balanced and inclusive dialogue, while a Space marked as “private huddle” might focus on niche or sensitive discussions. Conversations dedicated to selling services, crypto, or other products would be required to clearly identify themselves as “sales-focused,” ensuring transparency for all participants.
This approach would help users better navigate Spaces by setting clear expectations for the type of content and interactions they might encounter. It would also act as a safeguard against deceptive practices, such as alleged organizations creating echo chambers to attract followers under the guise of open dialogue, only to push cryptocurrency or other products. By requiring transparency and providing tools for self-reporting, platforms can foster a more authentic environment and empower users to make informed decisions about the Spaces they join. This would shift the focus from manipulation and exploitation to meaningful engagement and genuine conversation.
The toxic environment cultivated by social media influencers and perceived leaders continues to have profound consequences, shaping digital spaces into arenas of exclusion, bullying, and manipulation. By permitting—and at times rewarding—tribalistic behavior, these figures reinforce divisions and amplify hostility, undermining the potential for genuine dialogue and connection. Understanding and addressing these dynamics is essential for fostering healthier online interactions and cultivating a more inclusive, respectful digital community.
We are living in the era of information, standing at the tail end of digital expansion following the seismic shifts of the digital revolution. In this transformative period, tech bros—the often-derided archetype of ambitious, tech-driven entrepreneurs and innovators—have emerged as dominant figures, much like the industrialists of the 19th century or the finance magnates of the late 20th century. While criticisms of “tech bro culture” abound, this discourse often reflects not just frustration with their influence but a deeper societal unease about the rapid pace of change in an increasingly digital world.
To understand this phenomenon, consider how previous eras handled their trailblazers. The industrial revolution brought figures like Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford, whose innovations reshaped industries and disrupted traditional ways of life. Similarly, the financial boom of the 1980s elevated figures like Michael Milken and Gordon Gekko (albeit fictional), who symbolized the complexities of unbridled capitalism. Today, tech bros occupy this space, embodying the digital disruption that has upended traditional business models, redefined social interaction, and created new avenues of wealth and influence. From Elon Musk’s ventures in electric vehicles and space exploration to Mark Zuckerberg’s relentless expansion and exploitation of the metaverse, these individuals represent both the promise and the pitfalls of the digital age.
Yet, the rhetoric surrounding tech bros reveals more than skepticism of their outsized power. At its core, it underscores a collective anxiety about societal transformation and the inability of some to reconcile with the speed at which the world is evolving. The digital era has brought with it a relentless firehose of information, accelerated by innovations in artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things. For many, this torrent of change is overwhelming, leaving those unable to adapt feeling alienated and disoriented in a world they no longer recognize.
Generational adaptability plays a crucial role in how people navigate these shifts. Generation X, often characterized as adaptable and resourceful, is likely to integrate more easily into this new paradigm. Having grown up witnessing the transition from analog to digital, Gen X has already mastered the art of navigating change. In contrast, Millennials, despite being digital natives, may face greater challenges in acclimating to the next wave of innovation. Their formative years were defined by the promise of social media and the gig economy, systems now being upended by automation, artificial intelligence, and rapid decentralization. Millennials are entering a phase where the rules of engagement in work, communication, and commerce are shifting once again—this time, at a pace that even their tech-savviness might struggle to match.
What lies ahead is undeniable: the digital era is here to stay, and there is no turning back. Nothing can stop what is coming. The change ushered in by this age of information is like the water bearer—an unstoppable force, delivering transformation with the intensity of a firehose. Those who embrace and adapt to this relentless flow will find opportunities to thrive, while those who resist or fail to keep pace will struggle to integrate into this new reality.
In an upcoming article on Digital Ethics, we’ll delve deeper into the concept of performative tribalism—how it perpetuates division, silences dissent, and commodifies conflict for personal gain. Also, we will delve deeper into why Millennials—often seen as the bridge generation between the analog past and the digital present—also a major contributor to Performative Tribalism — may find themselves uniquely challenged by the rapid advancements of this era. As a think tank, we have been closely analyzing the current landscape and are dedicated to developing actionable solutions to dismantle these destructive patterns. To rebuild the foundations of constructive discourse, fostering healthier and more productive interactions is necessary and we will continue explore strategies for easing this transition into the next phase of our digital evolution.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack or on X. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
