Metafascism

Image: Sofi Polishchuk
Whatsapp
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Telegram

By VINÍCIO CARRILHO MARTINEZ & VINÍCIUS SCHERCH*

The Goal represents the means, the technique, the vehicle, the material base, and, with it, the goal of deepening the expansion and vocalization of digital fascism on social networks.

Under the title Metafascism we want to indicate two converging situations: it is the company Meta and the projected objective; thus, the company represents the means, the technique, the vehicle, the material base, and, with it, the goal of deepening the expansion and vocalization of digital fascism on social networks.

In a previous diagnosis, we identified that technological advances would have the potential to foster the degenerative practice of politics, that is, the appeal to fascism in a new modulation: “The growing popular affection for authoritarianism and fascism will not be unreasonable, nor incomprehensible, since the technological basis that shapes late modernity also shapes political stratification, with an impact on the prevailing legal format. We are monocratic, monothematic in the middle of the information age” (Martinez; Scherch; 2020).

Therefore, with metafascism, we symbolize the interweaving of method and objective, as regards the recalcitrant fascism of the present day. This metafascism, essentially, is just very technological, that is, it constitutes yet another metaphor since its origin in the 1920s, in Mussolini's Italy – just as necrofascism is a metaphor (Martinez, 2022).

With Meta’s decision to replace its fact-checking program with a “system” of community ratings, it is signaling a move towards a policy of superimposing freedom of expression. This means that, faced with denialism and limited access to education and effective knowledge, the “masses” will define what is real, scientific, and ethical (or not).

In this sense, analyzing the normalization of the exception – because in this Metafascism there will be an exception to the truth – we find a point of convergence for the reading of the stage of exclusion that will be made possible by the “community notes”: “If communication is the rule for humanity (since the primal scream), social networks direct us to the opposite; algorithms purposefully direct us towards similarities, towards the same discourse, as if we were continually reinforcing our own thoughts. From this point of view, social networks, notably Facebook, build interactivity from sameness, annihilate the contradictory, are abruptly, constantly, Originally, undemocratic.” (Martinez; Scherch, 2020)

The “system” will be similar to X’s and implies significant changes regarding the limits between freedom of expression and responsibility in content moderation, since the new model transfers the responsibility for providing context to the information to the users themselves, betting on a “collective wisdom” that, although pulverized in essence, can become problematic in practice. We may have the decree of the “governance of the worst” fueled by voracious algorithms – the so-called “Marçal phenomenon” in the municipal elections of the capital of São Paulo (with chair-throwing in response) may be just a harbinger. Young influencers who bet on the refusal of information are also connected to this effect; their motto is: “study and become poor”.[I] So these “contents” define the direction of the civilizing process.

This apparently broad measure – in addition to being a denier of democracy, because attacking knowledge is a fascist product – also conceals behavior aligned with disinformation, since cyberspace is understood through cyberculture. According to Pierre Lévy, cyberculture, supported by interconnection, the creation of communities and collective intelligence, provides a starting point for understanding society’s behavior in the digital environment (Lévy, 2010). Currently, the cyber environment has not reached the level of self-regulation – the civilizational maturity – sufficient for the community to be able to carry out fact-checking without professional intervention. Having “community notes” as a universal solution disregards cultural differences, levels of media literacy and the disproportionate impact that fake news can have in fragile sociopolitical contexts, worsening relations in cyberspace.

Collective intelligence, as Pierre Lévy puts it, “implies the technical, economic, legal and human valorization of an intelligence distributed everywhere, in order to trigger a positive dynamic of recognition and mobilization of skills” (Lévy, 2010). However, a regressive collective intelligence prevails in networks, created from a hive mind that makes individuals shape their behavior according to the intentions of the organizers, in order to act against the target. This target may be composed of people or groups that do not fit in with the dominant bubble or “hegemonic group of cyberpower”.

It is enough to remember that fact-checking was implemented as a response to the proliferation of misinformation during global events, such as elections and pandemics. By implementing the new “system”, Meta abandons a tool that, despite its flaws, had structured criteria based on expertise. By crediting “community ratings” as a fact-checking criterion, information would be validated based on users’ ability to offer balanced analyses, completely ignoring the risk of polarizations and ideological biases that already dominate cyberspace. Popularization, more than today, will bring about a true battle between information and misinformation.

The change, according to Meta, would be the result of an effort to mitigate accusations of censorship and foster supposed freedom of expression. But the line between promoting debate and opening the door to rampant misinformation was not considered, demonstrating a predisposition of the platforms to Donald Trump's interests.

According to Andrew Korybko, “Facebook is the portal for gathering and propaganda for the color revolution movement. It recruits supporters and allows the creation of closed groups where anti-government activists can meet and discuss their strategies virtually” (Korybko, 2018).

It is undeniable that Big Techs play a crucial role in shaping global public opinion. And by giving up a structured system for verifying information, with objective criteria and professional analysis, there is not only a risk of discrediting the platforms, but, most importantly, compromising the quality of the information consumed by billions of people.

According to Mark Zuckerberg, fact-checking was politically biased, but the proposed “system” does not guarantee impartiality and veracity of information sources. On the contrary, it places the power to verify information in the hands of a broadly diverse audience, but also susceptible to ideological influences and economic and personal interests, which could corroborate a flirtation with digital totalitarianism. This is because the “system” aligns with Elon Musk’s stance and criticism of judicial institutions, reinforcing the perception that the decision is politically motivated.

The organization of platforms – based on social interactions – allows for a diversity of thoughts, but these diversities are trapped in bubbles created by algorithms – each consumer of content or just nonsense creates their own bubble, a “self-bubble”. In this way, “social networks” (in practice, antisocial), which have potentially expanded in the last decade, although they carry accessibility to knowledge and information, also transport the real equivalents of hegemonic groups, leading to a regression to the mass state”.[ii] (Martinez; Scherch, 2020).

The information traffic mechanism ends up being directed and groups individuals with similar characteristics, causing a false sense that they are dominant in the space, making maneuverable discourses more present and, due to the lack of visibility of differences within the group, the environment becomes fertile for fascist, racist and intolerant compositions. In this way, the “collective wisdom” that instructs the “community notes” is harmed by the exercise of cyberpower and algorithmic manipulation.

Instead of privileging freedom of expression and democracy, the “system” is degenerative of the improvement of cyberspace, since “the control of the political agenda in the post-digital era can have its motto in the information – or in the misinformation – that constitutes one of the bases of cyberspace itself, since everything is datafied and, to some extent, has a relationship with data control technologies, algorithms and artificial intelligence” (Scherch, 2024).

*Vinicio Carrilho Martinez He is a professor at the Department of Education at UFSCar. Author, among other books, of Bolsonarism. Some political-legal and psychosocial aspects (APGIQ). [https://amzn.to/4aBmwH6]

*Vinícius Scherch holds a PhD in Science, Technology and Society from UFSCar.

References


DUNKER, Christian Ingo Lenz. Psychology of digital masses and analysis of the democratic subject. In: ABRANCHES, Sérgio et al.Democracy at risk? 22 essays on today's Brazil🇧🇷 São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2019.

KORYBKO, Andrew. Hybrid Wars: From Color Revolutions to Coups. Trans. Thyago Antunes. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, 2018.

LEVY, Pierre. Cyberculture. Translated by Carlos Irineu da Costa. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 34.

MARTINEZ, Vinicius Carrilho. Necrofascism: National Fascism, necropolitics, political lycanthropy, political genocide. Curitiba: Brazil Publishing, 2022.

MARTINEZ, Vinício Carrilho; SCHERCH, Vinícius Alves. The Normalization of the State of Exception in the Coronavirus Pandemic. Revista Eletrônica do Direito da UFSM Course, Santa Maria, RS, v. 15, no. 3, e48127, Sep./Dec. 2020. ISSN 1981-3694. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/1981369448127🇧🇷 Available here.

SCHERCH, Vinícius Alves. Impacts of capital on the control of the political agenda in the post-digital era. Thesis (PhD in Science, Technology and Society) – Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, 2024. Available at here.

Notes


[I] Available in stock here.

[ii] “The most typical phenomenon of this regression to the mass state is the impossibility of making oneself heard through arguments or facts, in addition to the relative irrelevance of sources. Within a discursive battle, the use of fake news, whether intentional or naive, is greatly facilitated. The interlocutors repeat monologues with increasing aggressiveness. The regression to mass functioning, with its stereotyping and dogmatic certainty, has produced an extensive feeling of social division, breaking ties and dissociating relationships.” (Dunker, 2019)


the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE

See all articles by

10 MOST READ IN THE LAST 7 DAYS

SEARCH

Search

TOPICS

NEW PUBLICATIONS