There was a time when a photograph meant proof. A video meant truth. A face meant presence.
That time is gone.
We now live in the post-verification era—where seeing isn’t believing, and believing might be the most dangerous thing you can do online. Deepfakes have poisoned the well of perception. AI voice clones whisper lies in perfect pitch. Generative avatars offer synthetic seduction with flawless skin and flawless intent.
But beneath the algorithmic shimmer, something unexpected is happening. Trust is going analog again. And that shift may define the next cultural revolution.
The Death of Digital Trust
The deepfake era didn’t arrive with a bang—it slithered in, undetected, until nothing could be trusted. Not the tearful apology from a politician. Not the leaked phone call from a CEO. Not even your mother’s voice telling you she needs help wiring money.
Every screen is now a potential hallucination. Every voice might be machine-stitched. Truth has been dismembered and deep-learned.
In a world of infinite replication, truth is no longer visual—it must be visceral.
The damage is not technological. It’s spiritual. We’re seeing the emergence of a post-truth fatigue, where certainty feels unreachable and skepticism becomes self-defense.
What’s real when anyone can look like you, talk like you, be you—without ever having existed?
The Return to Analog
The reaction? Flesh. Proximity. Presence.
The deeper the digital deception, the stronger the pull toward the undigitizable: – In-person verification networks – Handwritten signatures – IRL-only creative salons – “Proof-of-human” meetups where you must show up to belong
Startups are now offering analog ID stamps. Vinyl sales are surging. Flip phones are returning.
Because when everything can be generated, only what resists generation feels sacred.
Authenticity as a New Form of Wealth
In 2025, authenticity isn’t free—it’s currency. It’s status. It’s luxury.
The unfiltered selfie? Now a flex. The unedited voice memo? Now intimacy. The physical meetup? Now a miracle.
As AI floods every inbox and interface, humans are learning to crave the unmistakably real. We want flaws. We want friction. We want the discomfort of spontaneity.
Being real is the new premium feature.
Soon, we’ll see: – Verified-human dating apps – Handwritten CVs for creative jobs – Anti-AI content labels: “This post was made by a real person, in real time, with no edits.”
Reality becomes rebellion.
IRL Becomes the New Firewall
The next generation isn’t fleeing the internet—they’re building new firewalls with their bodies.
No one wants to live in a simulation where truth has no texture. So people are opting out.
Because when the machine can fake intimacy, only physical risk guarantees emotional truth. Eye contact becomes encryption. Touch becomes testimony. Silence becomes signal.
The deepest layer of identity is now: “I was there.”
Presence as the Final Proof
We are entering a new metaphysics of trust. Digital is no longer neutral—it’s suspect. What’s sacred now is the unrecordable. The unreplicable. The unfakeable.
Presence is the new protocol.
Not presence as avatar. Presence as breath. Not “going live.” But being alive—in a room, in a moment, with witnesses who bleed and blink and break.
This isn’t Luddite regression. It’s evolution. The human soul is adapting to synthetic mimicry by demanding embodied meaning.
Because when truth dies online, it is reborn in the body.
We once believed technology would make us omnipresent. Instead, it made us doubt everything—including ourselves.
But now, at the edge of the synthetic abyss, we are reaching back. Back to what can’t be downloaded. Back to what trembles. Back to what can look you in the eyes and say:
It’s not “best performance.” It’s “who’s playing nice with the Western order.”
The Real Costume Is Conformity
That dramatic ballad about suffering? Approved. That flamboyant drag act? Celebrated—but only if it feels safe. That quirky rebellion anthem? Cool—as long as it doesn’t shake actual power.
You can be radical—but only on schedule. You can be queer—but keep it exportable. You can talk politics—but only if the room agrees.
Eurovision lets you say anything— as long as it sounds like belonging.
What We’re Really Watching
Eurovision is a moodboard for modern Western values: Peace, but photogenic. Progress, but polished. Identity, but Instagrammable.
And beneath it all? A quiet reminder:
“If you want to be seen, sound like us.”
So Let’s Call It What It Is
Eurovision is NATO in drag. It’s a velvet-wrapped loyalty test. A post-war pact turned pop pageant. Where the winner isn’t the voice—it’s the vibe.
And if you don’t match it? You don’t make the finals.
Maybe the real performance isn’t on stage—it’s us clapping, thinking it’s just a show!
Imagine this: A woman in her late 60s, a retired teacher, is scrolling through her favourite news app. She sees ads for anti-ageing creams, cruise holidays, and mobility aids. Each one screams a single, monotonous message: “You’re old, and this is all you need.” She closes the app, feeling unseen for who she truly is—a vibrant, tech-savvy individual with a lifetime of experiences, passions, and untapped potential.
Or think of a young man with a disability, bombarded by charity ads that portray people like him as objects of pity rather than participants in everyday life. He uses cutting-edge tech, travels the world, and runs his own business, but in the advertising world, he’s invisible unless he’s a symbol of “inspiration.”
These are just two of the millions of consumers who fall outside advertising’s narrow spotlight. It’s not just an oversight—it’s a cultural blind spot with massive consequences.
Who Are the Invisible Consumers?
Advertising tells us who matters. But who does it leave out?
1. Older Adults: The Forgotten Spenders
Older adults hold more wealth than any other demographic, yet their ad representation is abysmal. When they do appear, they’re either portrayed as frail and dependent or as unrealistically youthful, dancing through retirement as if ageing were a myth.
But older adults today are running marathons, launching startups, and embracing technology at record rates. Why does advertising refuse to reflect this reality? Ignoring them perpetuates ageism and sends a clear message: “You’re not relevant unless you look or act young.”
2. People with Disabilities: Stereotyped or Silent
Over a billion people worldwide live with some form of disability. They represent a diverse, dynamic consumer base, yet they’re either absent from ads or pigeonholed into narrow roles—the brave hero overcoming adversity or the charity case seeking pity.
Brands often miss the mark entirely, failing to normalize disability as an everyday part of life. Imagine seeing an ad where a person with a disability is simply buying groceries or going to a concert, without their disability being the focus. That’s the kind of representation that’s still shockingly rare.
3. Low-Income Communities: Erased or Exploited
Advertising largely ignores low-income consumers, except when pushing payday loans, fast food, or discount retailers. The underlying narrative? These individuals aren’t aspirational enough for mainstream brands.
This not only alienates a significant portion of the population but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes. Low-income consumers are as diverse and aspirational as anyone else—they want access to quality products and services that respect their dignity, not exploit their circumstances.
The Cost of Ignoring Diversity
The exclusion of these groups isn’t just morally wrong—it’s economically foolish. Together, these “invisible consumers” represent billions in untapped purchasing power. By ignoring them, brands leave money on the table and risk alienating a significant portion of their potential audience.
But the real cost is cultural. Advertising doesn’t just reflect society; it shapes it. When entire groups are erased or misrepresented, it reinforces harmful biases and perpetuates inequality. Ageism, ableism, and classism become ingrained in the cultural fabric, shaping how we view ourselves and others.
Real-World Failures and Successes
Failure: A notable example is the 2018 ad campaign titled “Dear Young People, Don’t Vote,” sponsored by the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Acronym. This advertisement depicted older individuals as selfish, uncaring, and out-of-touch, suggesting they were responsible for ruining the future due to their lack of concern for younger generations. While the campaign aimed to encourage young people to vote, its portrayal of older adults was divisive and derogatory, reinforcing negative stereotypes about aging.
Success: On the flip side, Tommy Hilfiger’s adaptive clothing line is a masterclass in inclusion. Designed for people with disabilities, it’s marketed without fanfare, simply showing real people living their lives. It’s a powerful reminder that inclusivity doesn’t need to be performative—it can be seamless and authentic.
For older adults, this means feeling pressured to fight aging rather than embracing it. For people with disabilities, it means being seen as exceptional only when they fit an “inspirational” mold. For low-income communities, it means internalizing the idea that they don’t deserve quality or aspirational products.
Breaking the Cycle: What Needs to Change
Authentic Representation Ads must reflect the full spectrum of human experience. Older adults, people with disabilities, and low-income individuals need to be shown not as outliers or exceptions but as everyday consumers with diverse interests and lifestyles.
Inclusive Storytelling Move beyond tokenism. Show older adults as tech innovators, people with disabilities as fashion-forward consumers, and low-income individuals as empowered decision-makers. Normalize diversity without making it the story.
Community Collaboration Work directly with underrepresented groups to ensure authenticity. Co-create campaigns that resonate with their lived experiences rather than relying on outdated stereotypes.
Data-Driven Inclusion Brands need to stop underestimating these audiences. Leverage data to understand their behaviors and preferences, recognizing them as valuable consumers, not fringe markets.
Accountability and Metrics Just as diversity is measured in workplaces, it should be tracked in advertising. Brands should set goals for inclusive representation and hold themselves accountable for meeting them.
Imagine a world where advertising reflects all of us
A world where older adults see themselves as vibrant contributors, people with disabilities are shown in every aspect of life, and low-income communities are respected and celebrated. This isn’t just a dream; it’s a necessity in the current world we all living
The invisible consumer deserves to be seen. They deserve to be valued. And it’s time for the advertising industry to step up.
In 1928, Edward Bernays argued that shaping public opinion was not only inevitable but essential in a democratic society. His groundbreaking work,Propaganda, laid the foundation for modern public relations, casting persuasion as a neutral tool.
Fast forward to 2019, and Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism paints a far darker picture: a world where personal data is weaponized, and human behavior is engineered for profit. Together, their perspectives offer a powerful lens through which to examine today’s Propaganda 2.0—a digital phenomenon that manipulates minds invisibly, blurring the line between persuasion and control.
The Dual Nature of Propaganda
Bernays saw propaganda as a means of organizing public opinion in an increasingly complex world. “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society,” he wrote. For him, propaganda could rally a nation during wartime, promote public health initiatives, or drive social change.
But even Bernays acknowledged the potential for abuse. Today’s digital propaganda takes his vision to an extreme. Unlike the overt messaging of his era, Propaganda 2.0 operates stealthily. Algorithms track every click, every pause, every scroll, tailoring messages to exploit our emotional triggers. This isn’t just persuasion—it’s manipulation, designed to bypass rational thought and tap directly into our subconscious.
The Surveillance Machine
Here, Zuboff’s critique comes into sharp focus. Surveillance capitalism, as she describes it, turns human experience into raw material for behavioral prediction and modification. The personal data harvested by tech giants fuels micro-targeted ads that don’t just persuade—they shape behavior in real-time, often without the user’s awareness.
Take the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where data from millions of Facebook users was weaponized to influence political outcomes. These “dark ads” exploited psychological vulnerabilities, crafting personalized messages that nudged voters toward specific candidates or policies. The result was a seismic shift in political landscapes, achieved through invisible, unaccountable means.
“This is not just about marketing,” Zuboff warns. “It’s about power—the power to shape human behavior at scale.”
The Ethical Quagmire of Corporate Activism
It’s not just political campaigns leveraging these tactics. Brands, too, have embraced Propaganda 2.0, often under the guise of social responsibility. Following the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, corporations flooded social media with messages of solidarity. Yet behind closed doors, some of these same companies were funding political actions or policies that contradicted their public stances.
This performative activism raises a critical question: Are brands genuinely committed to the causes they champion, or are they simply exploiting societal issues to build consumer loyalty? Bernays might argue that such campaigns can unify and inspire, but Zuboff would likely see them as another layer of manipulation, reinforcing surveillance capitalism’s grip on society.
The Feedback Loop of Polarization
One of the most insidious effects of Propaganda 2.0 is its role in deepening societal divisions. Algorithms prioritize content that maximizes engagement, which often means amplifying the most emotionally charged and polarizing messages. Over time, this creates echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to information that reinforces their existing beliefs, further entrenching political and cultural divides.
Consider the events surrounding the 2020 U.S. presidential election. In the months leading up to the vote, false narratives about election fraud spread rapidly on social media, fueled by targeted misinformation campaigns. These messages weren’t random—they were designed to sow doubt about the integrity of the election and erode trust in democratic institutions. The result was a deeply divided electorate and, ultimately, the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Bernays and Zuboff offer complementary solutions to this crisis
Bernays would advocate for professional codes of ethics, urging advertisers and political strategists to use their tools responsibly. He believed in the power of persuasion to educate and unite, provided it was wielded with integrity.
Zuboff, on the other hand, demands systemic reform. She calls for stricter regulations on data collection and use, greater transparency from tech platforms, and robust public education to equip individuals with the critical thinking skills needed to resist manipulation. “We must fight for a future where the digital world serves humanity, not the other way around,” she insists.
The stakes in this fight couldn’t be higher
In an era where information is both ubiquitous and weaponized, the battle for public opinion is a battle for democracy itself. Propaganda 2.0 offers unparalleled power to influence—but with that power comes a profound responsibility. By combining Bernays’ emphasis on ethical persuasion with Zuboff’s call for systemic accountability, we can envision a future where advertising and political messaging inform and inspire without undermining autonomy. The health of our democracy depends on it.
The 2024 election has unveiled two distinctly different campaign styles in the face off between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. This battle for the presidency has become a powerful study of how contrasting messaging tactics can be both persuasive and effective, depending on the audience. Here’s a breakdown of the strategies each candidate uses, and an analysis of which campaign might have the edge.
Kamala Harris’s Campaign: A Message of Unity and Progress
1. Emphasizing Freedom and Unity Harris’s campaign delivers a message of inclusivity, freedom, and economic opportunity. Her inaugural video, set to Beyoncé’s empowering anthem Freedom, visually and sonically highlights her values of resilience and optimism (People). Harris presents herself as the voice of unity against what she frames as the chaos associated with the previous administration, aiming to inspire a vision of America rooted in stability and collective progress.
2. Targeted Outreach to Key Demographics Harris’s team has strategically targeted key voter demographics, focusing on communities that could make a difference in swing states. For example, a campaign ad specifically designed for young Black men in Pennsylvania showcases her awareness of potential gaps in voter support within these communities (CBS News). This targeted outreach allows her to address the concerns of often underrepresented groups, emphasizing inclusivity.
3. Issue-Based Advertising on Economic Policies Harris’s ads also concentrate on specific policies, such as a proposal to build 3 million new homes over the next four years to help tackle the housing crisis and reduce inflation (AP News). This policy-centric focus positions Harris as a leader actively working toward solutions for economic challenges, an approach that could be particularly persuasive to voters directly impacted by these issues.
Effectiveness: Harris’s campaign messaging is persuasive for voters who value a positive, inclusive vision of the future, and it could be particularly effective in appealing to undecided voters or those who prioritize unity and economic progress. However, it may lack impact with those seeking a more assertive leadership style.
Donald Trump’s Campaign: Fear, Identity, and Cultural Division
1. Fear-Based Messaging on National Decline Trump’s advertising strategy leans heavily on fear-based messaging, portraying the nation as being in decline and in need of a strong, decisive leader. One of his prominent ads from March 2024 paints a picture of societal deterioration under the current administration, urging voters to return him to office as the solution to restore order (YouTube). This appeal to fear is highly persuasive to those who feel economically or socially insecure, making it effective in rallying his existing supporters.
2. Cultural and Identity Politics Trump’s campaign has made cultural issues central, particularly focusing on opposition to transgender rights. By framing these issues as threats to traditional values, Trump taps into the beliefs of socially conservative voters (AP News). This identity-focused approach reinforces a sense of belonging among his base, making it particularly persuasive for those who feel alienated by shifting social norms.
3. Controversial and Misleading Content Some of Trump’s ads have been criticized for using selectively edited news clips to misrepresent Harris’s policies (Politifact). While controversial, these ads are likely effective among his core supporters who distrust mainstream narratives, even though they may raise ethical concerns for undecided or moderate voters.
Effectiveness: Trump’s campaign strategy is powerful in energizing his base. His direct, sometimes divisive approach may resonate strongly with those who value assertiveness and a return to traditional values. However, it risks alienating moderate voters or those wary of cultural polarization.
Comparative Analysis: Which Campaign is More Persuasive?
1. Targeting Success
Harris has cast a wider net, aiming for a broad coalition by appealing to diverse demographics and using inclusive, issue-focused ads. This approach could help her attract a larger group of undecided voters.
Trump is more concentrated on energizing his base with a clear cultural stance, reinforcing loyalty among core supporters but potentially limiting broader appeal.
2. Messaging Approach
Harris’s positivity and policy-oriented content offer a more optimistic image, which could appeal to those looking for stability and unity.
Trump’s fear-based strategy is highly mobilizing and effective at generating turnout among loyal supporters, particularly through culturally resonant messaging.
3. Ethical Considerations
Trump’s use of misleading information in some ads has sparked ethical concerns and could damage his appeal among undecided voters, whereas Harris’s straightforward messaging might engender greater trust.
Conclusion: Whose Campaign is Winning the Persuasion Game?
Both campaigns have tailored their approaches to resonate with their unique audiences:
Harris’s inclusive strategy appeals broadly, and it may gain traction with voters seeking a message of hope and unity backed by policy details.
Trump’s culturally charged and fear-driven messaging reinforces his connection to his base, effectively galvanizing those who feel left behind by recent social changes.
Ultimately, Harris’s campaign could draw support from a diverse voter base by appealing to positive change, while Trump’s approach, though polarizing, is highly effective at solidifying and mobilizing his base. The effectiveness of each strategy will only become clear as the election unfolds, with voter turnout and demographics playing a critical role in deciding which campaign resonates more powerfully.
A castaway finds himself washed ashore a beach at the foot of a towering city. His curiosity draws him into the urban expanse he finds before him. Whilst in the city he tries to get in touch with the society. However the characters he meets are strange, superficial and snippy, and after a series of unfortunate events he finds himself a castaway once more. Created by Jonas Ott
