Re: You Can’t Post Your Way Out of Fascism

Permalink

Follow me via:

---

Text-to-speech support required

This post is in response to a post made by Janus Rose over at 404 Media. A website I mostly respect, and like to see every so often. But, when writers and journalists start talking about social media, and opposition to fascism, you have to take into account their own view of the world, and the internet, in order to begin to dissect what they’re saying. Like many, a lot of people know social media as the corporate algorithm farms that Twitter, Threads, and Instagram are, and it’s through this lens that I believe, “You Can’t Post Your Way Out of Fascism,” was written.

Never-the-less, I’d like to dissect it.

If there’s one thing I’d hoped people had learned going into the next four years of Donald Trump as president, it’s that spending lots of time online posting about what people in power are saying and doing is not going to accomplish anything. If anything, it’s exactly what they want.

Trump’s second presidential term has arrived amidst a new golden age for internet grifters, propagandists, and bad-faith hucksters of all stripes. The contours of this era of untruth have been flashing like neon signs for the past decade, constantly enticing us to engage with its impenetrable nonsense. Whether it’s gaslighting everyone who saw Elon Musk give two Nazi salutes during the inauguration or blaming the Los Angeles wildfires on the racist dog whistle of “DEI,” lies and absurdities now regularly flood our senses, having long outpaced the media’s capacity to filter them.

This is kind of what I mean, when I say, that I believe the author’s personal experience with social media and being online, is exclusive to that of the aforementioned platforms. Those that use algorithms to harness endless attention and views. That is, after-all, how all of this works, and how misinformation and propaganda spreads. Taking all of that into account, it’s perfectly reasonable to think, or say, that “you can’t post your way out of fascism.”

But, a piece of the puzzle is missing, like it always is.

Many of my journalist colleagues have attempted to beat back the tide under banners like “fighting disinformation” and “accountability.” While these efforts are admirable, the past few years have changed my own internal calculus. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Hannah Arendt warned us that the point of this deluge is not to persuade, but to overwhelm and paralyze our capacity to act. More recently, researchers have found that the viral outrage disseminated on social media in response to these ridiculous claims actually reduces the effectiveness of collective action. The result is a media environment that keeps us in a state of debilitating fear and anger, endlessly reacting to our oppressors instead of organizing against them.

To that end, the age of corporate social media has been a roaring success.

“The reality is you are oxygenating the things these people are saying even as you purport to debunk them,” Katherine Cross, a sociologist and author of Log Off: Why Posting and Politics (Almost) Never Mix, told 404 Media. “Whether it’s [New York Times columnist] Ross Douthat providing a sane-washing gloss on Trump’s mania or people on social media vehemently disagreeing and dunking on it, they’re legitimizing it as part of the discourse.”

Okay, so we cement the idea now, that the author is specifically referring to corporate social media, because, and unfortunately, this is a lot of people’s experience with being online. And, you probably already know, my answer to every single bit of this, is ActivityPub, and building your own website. But wait! I want to talk about the rest of this.

This second set of paragraphs continues to diverge into the idea of an algorithm controlling everything, wherein it keeps you in a constant, circular state of never-ending doom. And, for all intents and purposes, that is why most social media is bad!

But, also, these arguments that have been presented so far, that purport themselves to be socially-more-aware-than-thou, like always, are completely ignoring disabled people, whose, for some, entire lives are online. Which, obviously, specifically restricts them to only being able to take action via social media. And when you continue to frame the idea of social media around this faux pas that Twitter and Threads are the only choices, you’re doing yourself, and disabled people, a huge disservice.

Cross’ book contains a meticulous catalog of social media sins which many people who follow and care about current events are probably guilty of—myself very much included. She documents how tech platforms encourage us, through their design affordances, to post and seethe and doomscroll into the void, always reacting and never acting.

But perhaps the greatest of these sins is convincing ourselves that posting is a form of political activism, when it is at best a coping mechanism—an individualist solution to problems that can only be solved by collective action. This, says Cross, is the primary way tech platforms atomize and alienate us, creating “a solipsism that says you are the main protagonist in a sea of NPCs.”

“Everything on social media is designed to make you think like that,” said Cross. “It’s all about you—your feed, your network, your friends.”

Now we get into the slightly-more-offensive bits of this article, where we continue to go on and on about the dangers of algorithms, continue to spout off about “collective action,” as if we don’t all live in a system that aggressively encourages individualism to the point that, if you don’t first deconstruct yourself of this ideal, none of this matters at all. That is why people go online in places like Twitter and Threads, and speak to others, the world, and the void, as if they’re the “main character” in a sea of NPCs.

Because we live in a system, that literally conditions you to think that way. We live in a system that celebrates narcissistic behavior.

Tech platforms harnessing that, are part of the disease, but not the main cause of it.

In the days since the inauguration, I’ve watched people on Bluesky and Instagram fall into these same old traps. My timeline is full of reactive hot takes and gotchas by people who still seem to think they can quote-dunk their way out of fascism—or who know they can’t, but simply can’t resist taking the bait. The media is more than willing to work up their appetites. Legacy news outlets cynically chase clicks (and ad dollars) by disseminating whatever sensational nonsense those in power are spewing.

This in turn fuels yet another round of online outrage, edgy takes, and screenshots exposing the “hypocrisy” of people who never cared about being seen as hypocrites, because that’s not the point. Even violent fantasies about putting billionaires to the guillotine are rendered inept in these online spaces—just another pressure release valve to harmlessly dissipate our rage instead of compelling ourselves to organize and act.

This is the opposite of what media, social or otherwise, is supposed to do. Of course it’s important to stay informed, and journalists can still provide the valuable information we need to take action. But this process has been short-circuited by tech platforms and a media environment built around seeking reaction for its own sake. Many Twitter refugees made a good choice in migrating from Musk’s X to Bluesky, carving out a new online space that is inhospitable to bigoted debate bros and time-wasting trolls. But in their enemies’ absence, many of these Left-leaning posters have just reverted to dunking on each other, preferring the catharsis of sectarian conflict over the hard work of organizing.

Now we’re finally mentioning Bluesky, and this is a point I want to touch on, because Bluesky is, unfortunately, just about as bad as the other platforms. You can see that in the author’s writing here. Janus knows that Bluesky is just another setup for the fascist oligarchs, but that’s about as far as the thought process goes.

First of all, a lot of people go online to vent. That’s just how it is. In 2025, most of our friends and most of our social interactions are online, so, it would make sense that if something is stressing us out, we’re probably going to express that in whatever space we happen to inhabit. That’s not the problem, or a problem.

Left-leaning people dunking on each other and generally creating an atmosphere of harassment and abuse is absolutely something that I’ve experienced multiple times on Bluesky, but that’s because this type of behavior is a symptom of Twitter, coming from people who refuse to deconstruct their behavior, and their own ideas about the people around them, and how they should be treated. But, this just goes back to what was previously mentioned about systems we live in, and the narcissism it encourages.

But, I’d like to address one other piece of this snippet, in that it’s apparently believed that our enemies are “absent” from Bluesky, or that Bluesky makes itself inhospitable to bigots.

That’s not true. If you haven’t been living under a rock, you’re probably already aware of the Jesse Singal disaster, from multiple sources that wrote about it.

And this is entirely the biggest problem with Bluesky: Is that it is a centralized platform (not decentralized even in the slightest), with VC investors skyrocketing into hundreds of millions of dollars in backing funds … And this is partially why its moderators would hesitate to silence bigotry and violence–Because its backers, such as Blockchain Capital, are part of the abusive manosphere people are trying to escape by joining Bluesky.

But we’re wondering why the platform kinda sorta seems to be no better than the Bad Places?

“But, but, on Mastodon, or other ActivityPub things, there’s just NERDS.”

Hold on, I’ll address you in a minute.

Under this status quo, everything becomes a myopic contest of who can best exploit peoples’ anxieties to command their attention and energy. If we don’t learn how to extract ourselves from this loop, none of the information we gain will manifest as tangible action—and the people in charge prefer it that way.

It’s no surprise that tech billionaires like Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg have rushed to kiss the ring of the twice-ascendent Trump. The marriage of big tech and Trumpworld should make clear that Silicon Valley and authoritarians share the same goal: to crush dissent by keeping their would-be opponents spinning on an endless hamster wheel of reactive anger. And just like in the classic 1983 thriller WarGames, the only winning move is not to play.

That can be a tough pill to swallow when the internet is our main window into the world, and that world seems to be rapidly falling apart. We gaze into our phone-portals, paralyzed by the trance of the doomscroll, reacting and swiping from one news article and hot take to another. Authoritarians issue frightening proclamations that may or may not be legally enforceable, seizing our attention and energy and ensuring that the process will repeat, ad infinitum.

So what is the alternative? If we log off, what exactly are we supposed to do instead? How are we supposed to get information without constantly raising our antennae into the noxious cumulonimbus cloud of social media?

It isn’t quite as simple as “touch grass,” but it also sort of is.

I’m starting to blockquote mass amounts of text here, because this article is much longer than it needs to be, and mostly because the author keeps talking about the same thing, over, and over again.

The world that the author paints here is something that I can’t really relate to. I don’t log on to read bad news and doomscroll forever. Of course, I do read about what’s going on in the world, but as an active participant in ActivityPub, I curate my feeds and my timelines to be mostly absent of the constant deluge of panic-politics.

I used to be part of the techno-fascism complex’s algorithm, but then I started having panic attacks and issues with anxiety. So, I stopped.

The author asks, “What is the alternative?”

I mean, telling people to “touch grass” is exactly the mindset of the toxic, abusive people who quote-dunk on a daily basis in left-leaning spaces against other left-leaning people, thinking that this changes things, or has any social impact at all, outside of onlookers deciding that you’re a gigantic asshole.

But, I mean, you should go outside. It’s good for you.

But: With a Vengeance, the alternative, if you feel like you want to be on social media, and you need a space to express yourself, and your thoughts, has always been … ActivityPub.

“It’s hard” isn’t a valid excuse. “There’s just nerds there” isn’t a valid excuse. “There’s abusive people there,” is just a reflection of an issue with all social media. Bastards go everywhere, and it’s up to your admins, moderators, and also yourself to curate your environment, and timelines to be absent of the garbage.

That’s just how it is.

And, also, “I can’t find anyone but nerds on Mastodon!”

Hey, maybe, think for a second here: If yourself, and your friends, and the thousands of people who all believe the same exact things, don’t like the current population on ActivityPub, or what you perceive the population to be, how can we fix this?

Oh … by … joining? And participating?

Well, shit.

ActivityPub is maintained by the people, for the people. By volunteers, by donations. No corporations, no billionaires, no algorithm, no technological mechanisms for abuse.

Just people.

But, I’ve said all of this before, over, and over.

So, let’s continue.

Trusted information networks have existed since long before the internet and mass media. These networks are in every town and city, and at their core are real relationships between neighbors—not their online, parasocial simulacra.

Here in New York City, in the week since the inauguration, I’ve seen large groups mobilize to defend migrants from anticipated ICE raids and provide warm food and winter clothes for the unhoused after the city closed shelters and abandoned people in sub-freezing temperatures. Similar efforts are underway in Chicago, where ICE reportedly arrested more than 100 people, and in other cities where ICE has planned or attempted raids, with volunteers assigned to keep watch over key locations where migrants are most vulnerable.

A few weeks earlier, residents created ad-hoc mutual aid distros in Los Angeles to provide food and essentials for those displaced by the wildfires. The coordinated efforts gave Angelenos a lifeline during the crisis, cutting through the false claims spreading on social media about looting and out-of-state fire trucks being stopped for “emissions testing.” Many mutual aid groups in Los Angeles have not just been helping people affected by the fires but have also focused on distributing information about how to learn about and resist ICE raids in Los Angeles. It is no surprise that some of the largest and most coordinated protests in the early days of Trump’s term have happened in Los Angeles, where thousands of anti-ICE protesters shut down the 101 highway and several streets in downtown Los Angeles Sunday.

I’m just going to say it: I believe the author thinks that if you’re posting online, you’re not able to be out there doing these things. But, I guarantee, most of the people responsible for all of the action referenced here, are probably also participants in social media. And they’re probably also not posting about the actions they’re taking, because that can be dangerous when you live beneath authoritarian rule.

I’m going to side-track for a second, because it’s important to know, that if you are organizing these kinds of efforts, it is extremely important not to speak about it online. Furthermore, if you have to, you should only be using encrypted channels. No, that doesn’t mean Telegram or Whatsapp, obviously.

But, the author does address this …

Some of these efforts were coordinated online over Discord and secure messaging apps, but all of them arose from existing networks of neighbors and community organizers, some of whom have been organizing for decades.

“For most people, social media gives you this sense that unless you care about everything, you care about nothing. You must try to swallow the world while it’s on fire,” said Cross. “But we didn’t evolve to be able to absorb this much info. It makes you devalue the work you can do in your community.”

It’s not that social media is fundamentally evil or bereft of any good qualities. Some of my best post-Twitter moments have been spent goofing around with mutuals on Bluesky, or waxing romantic about the joys of human creativity and art-making in an increasingly AI-infested world. But when it comes to addressing the problems we face, no amount of posting or passive info consumption is going to substitute the hard, unsexy work of organizing.

You should absolutely not be using Discord to organize protests and protective actions against natural disasters. What the heck. DON’T DO THIS. Discord is run by some of the most incompetent people in tech I’ve ever witnessed. Ever. And I come from the nineties, in an age where it was still believed to be a scary thing to put your full name in your aol instant messenger bio, when tech was not only not developed, but entirely missing, for these sorts of things.

But, again, here we are, writing as if disabled people don’t exist, and positioning those who post things online, and those who are out and about in the world doing things, are mutually exclusive concepts.

A logical problem that I personally think stems from spending too much time on Tumblr in 2014.

It’s a lesson the Extremely Online Left still hasn’t fully learned, failing where its political enemies succeed. Reactionary right-wing groups like the homophobic and transphobic Moms for Liberty—which seeks to ban books from LGBTQ and BIPOC authors under the guise of “parental rights”—have claimed political victories by seizing power one public school board and small town at a time. Other reactionaries have similarly managed to take their pet grievances about diversity and wokeness to the national level by moving from online outrage to on-the-ground community organizing.

You can d­iscourse and quote-dunk and fact-check until you’re blue in the face, but at a certain point, you have to stop and decide what truth you believe in. The internet has conditioned us to constantly seek new information, as if becoming a sponge of bad news will eventually yield the final piece of a puzzle. But there is also such a thing as having enough information. As the internet continues to enshittify, maybe what we really need is to start trusting each other and our own collective sense of what is true and good.

We don’t need any more irony-poisoned hot takes or cathartic, irreverent snark. We need to collectively decide what kind of world we actually do want, and what we’re willing to do to achieve it.

Right off the bat, we’re deciding to end our article on the evils of algorithms, and corporate social media where we omit the real alternative, and also disabled people, by using exactly the same language that left-leaning quote-dunk harassers use, on a daily basis.

“Extremely Online Left.”

Maybe I’m only speaking from personal experience, but every single person I’ve ever witnessed online using this phrase, has been someone so insufferable that simply being in their digital presence has given me flashbacks to routine abuse piled upon me by jerks online, who didn’t appreciate a trans woman existing in their spaces.

“The internet has conditioned us to constantly seek new information, as if becoming a sponge of bad news will eventually yield the final piece of the puzzle.”

I wish, when people wrote like this, they didn’t just assume that everyone does exactly the same things.

Like I said, I don’t go online to soak up panic-politics, or doomscroll, or to allow an algorithm to dictate what I see, and what I think, and what I do.

But it’s strange, a little further down, to use the phrase, “enshitify” while you constantly prop up a platform that is in immediate danger of enshitification. A phrase coined by Cory Doctorow, who is one of the largest accounts on Mastodon.

And then signing off with, “We don’t need any more irony-poisoned hot takes or cathartic, irreverent snark. We need to collectively decide what kind of world we actually do want, and what we’re willing to do to achieve it.”

I say, we do need irony-poisoned hot takes or cathartic, irreverent snark. Because, and I can’t stress this enough: Posting things online and organizing offline, are not mutually exclusive concepts. People can do two things at once.

My conclusion, is that this article is written by someone whose world-view and experience is confined to that of algorithmic hell, who has either never heard of ActivityPub, or is in league with the same journalists who’ve written off the platform for the past decade … for no verifiable reason.

Meanwhile, millions of people populate ActivityPub. Millions of people share, and grow, and express themselves, and organize, and so on, and so forth, all over Mastodon, Pleroma, Misskey, Akkoma, Lemmy, and Pixelfed, day-in-and-day-out, all without the influence of abusive people, algorithms, or billionaires.

Imagine that.

The thing we really need to stop doing, is writing this holier-than-thou trash that positions one person over another based on how much they’ve done, or want to do, while continually erasing those who can’t, positioning them as less important, or less impactful. Or, at worst, contributors and collaborators to the evils we identify.

You don’t have to be on Twitter, Threads, or Bluesky. You don’t have to subject yourself to enshitification, or a platform that will enshitify. You can log off and go do what you think needs to be done. But, you can also stop erasing millions of people that aren’t convenient to your fragile narrative.