Not everything is a psyop

Sometimes there's a clearer explanation for why things gain traction.

The term psyop tends to be thrown around quite often, and in many cases one can argue it’s become an overused term similar to based, woke, or Nazi. Generally, the repeated use of a word can diminish its effectiveness, and so it’s interesting to see how often the word psyop can get thrown around, which may paradoxically cause people to be skeptical to the actual nature of these scenarios.

psyop (psychological operations, sometimes used as psy-op or PSYOP) generally comes from military practices intended to change the perception or ideas of individuals.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as the following:

military actions designed to influence the perceptions and attitudes of individuals, groups, and foreign governments

Our common, everyday use of psyop may not include the military, although it may infer some governmental or bureaucratic influence in the dissemination of information, usually with the attempt to discredit a movement with the use of plants¹.

We see this quite often when it comes to politics, and generally serves as a serious point of contention when considering if events were orchestrated and perpetuated by government agents or if they occurred naturally and unimpeded.

Recently, the sudden emergence of voices against the existence of viruses or their pathogenic nature has led quite a few people to believe that this is some sort of psy-op campaign intent on discrediting COVID vaccine critics².

The release of Died Suddenly has also raised questions as to whether these types of documentaries are also intended to discredit Team Skeptic, leading to concerns over the documentary and the group behind it being part of a broader psyop campaign as well.

Generally, I don’t like the use of psyop. It tends to serve as a heuristic; a shortcut to an otherwise nuanced situation. It can remove other facets that may provide some additional, alternative explanations to what is going on.

Sometimes things aren’t psy-ops, but just a consequence of how the online game is played that relies on its own psychological warfare.

---

Clickbait is a hell of a drug

For instance, a few people have asked why Died Suddenly has gained such a huge traction when other stories of blood clots haven’t reached that same level of views.

One problem with this assessment is looking at the views and inferring a possible government conspiracy based on how many views a video has (note: not saying that those questioning the view count are alluding to this), because for all intents and purposes, you as a viewer are not aware of what the documentary is about unless otherwise told by others.

Your sole reliance, outside of the rumor mill and gossip circles, is looking at the thumbnail image and the title of the video:

Remember that it doesn’t matter why you clicked on the video—as soon as you clicked you’re counted as a view, so we can’t quite draw connections between viewership and government influence.

But then again, why did you click on the video?

Was it the title that evoked some sense of alarmism and concern, or did the images of Calamari Clots entice you to see what the documentary was about? Or was the widespread discussion about blood clots and vaccines, usually obfuscated by the mainstream, going to be answered in this one documentary? Will we finally get the answer to the deaths that are occurring?

In any case, there had to be something that led you to watch the video, almost as if something about it baited you into clicking it. If only there was a term for that….

Remember that the online world is almost entirely dictated by the need to get you to click on something, and in order to do so one must engage in some psychological trickery, usually providing you with something outlandish or shocking with some explanation of providing not a solution but the solution.

This article from Psychology Today notes the dopamine-related itch one gets when presented with clickbait that enforces negative reinforcement behavior:

Our dopamine-reward system is involved in our motivation to learn about our world. Dopamine, a hormone, is involved in pleasure, but it has many functions. While this is certainly nuanced and can get very technical, there is a body of research suggesting that dopamine incentivizes behavior more through wanting (called incentive salience) than liking. In effect, the dopamine creates an itch that needs to be scratched.

Clickbait works, in part, because the promise of compelling information activates a particular dopamine pathway. Dopamine is released and creates that itch that can only be scratched by obtaining the promised information. Biting the hook (i.e., obtaining the information) doesn't truly give us great pleasure. What it gives us is a relief from that "itch" from not clicking the link. In this way, it can be considered a kind of negative reinforcement.

Remember that negative reinforcement isn’t the reinforcement of bad behavior, but reinforcement of behavior intended to remove or alleviate the negative effects of certain stimuli. A drug addict may experience negative reinforcement that causes him to use drugs or else experience severe withdrawal. For our sake, negative reinforcement is clicking on a link to help ease that tension and “itch” that comes with the curiosity of wanting to know what the clickbait contains.

Died Suddenly wouldn’t have had the same effect if it instead had a title akin to, “Abrupt Deaths of Individuals Likely Linked to Blood Clots caused by mRNA vaccines,” or something along those lines. I’m not sure; you all know how bad I am at making titles!

As a viewer/reader, the things you are presented with are done in a way that increases interaction and engagement. The fact that many people who viewed the video may consider it a psyop doesn’t change the fact that you still viewed the video, so what made you click in the first place?

The Psychology Today article refers to a phenomenon called “the Vegas Effect” due to the variable ratio schedules³ associated with clickbait that is also seen in gambling, and its description is rather apt:

Those clickbait headlines make us curious to see what's behind the curtain, so to speak. To quote the sagacious, Forrest Gump, who was quoting his mother, "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get." We just don't know how shocking these answers will be. Just how bad will my favorite child actor look? Who were the best rock & roll drummers of all time? I've got to know why these celebrity marriages ended so abruptly!

It's very similar to when a friend says they have some hot gossip or someone says they have a surprise for you. In part, it can also explain why we have difficulty resisting the temptation to check our phones for texts and social media updates (e.g., who liked my post and what are the comments?).

When we are put in a state of anticipation (i.e., I wonder what this might be?), dopamine is released, which incentives our seeking behavior. We have a hard time resisting the urge to scratch that itch. Many shows end in cliffhangers for this reason. To some degree, our dopamine "wanting" system is activated when we are put into a state of anticipation (e.g., Who shot J.R. from the TV show Dallas? What is behind the hatch in Lost? Who will sit on the Iron Throne in Game of Thrones?).

If all of these sound like reasons for why you clicked on Died Suddenly, then unfortunately ya got baited!

We tend to lament the fact that mainstream outlets rely on clickbait headlines and thumbnails, and yet we still tend to click, even being fully aware we are being tricked into doing so. We also aren’t as critical when independent outlets do the same, even if we don’t like the feeling of being manipulated.

From the perspective of a viewer, we tend to believe we have some agency over the things we read and watch, but there’s no doubt that we are partially beholden to the influences of clickbait and social media antics that encourage us to engage and become addicted.

At the same time we lament why things get popular, we need to consider the fact that we contribute to the popularity of viral tendencies of social media posts. Think about what you read specifically on Substack. Are you more inclined to read things that seem informative, or do you find yourself driven to click on things that are more clickbait in nature?

Unfortunately, clickbait sells, and it sells very well.

---

Again, this form of clickbait isn’t a sole implication of one individual or group, but is just part of a broader consequence that is social media, which encourages publishers to pump out clickbait and for readers to take it [the metaphorical bait, so to speak].

We as publishers on Substack are given stats on how many people view our articles, how many shares we get, and whether people clicked on any of our links (hint, hint: not many people are!).

So I know very well that my posts about pumpkins, superstitions, and witches/moldy bread don’t do as well as the ones about COVID or drugs.

But when presented with this information, I as a publisher am being directed towards what types of articles I should push out. Stick with random, seasonal posts and you’re likely to not gain many subscribers and paid members. Continue to write fear porn or clickbait articles, and you’ll be rewarded accordingly.

Personally, I’ve gone the route of writing what I like given that the financial income doesn’t incentivize me (i.e. pressure me) into going fully down the COVID route⁴. I will also say it’s been better on my mental health to not have to keep writing about COVID.

But the same may not be said for higher, more prominent Substacks that may find themselves beholden to their readers. We saw in full effect what happened when Alex Berenson dared to write criticisms about Ivermectin, although I suppose I should also argue that more context is needed than showing the discussion and agreeing with the statements made⁵. If one behaves in a way that may lose them subscribers- and paid subscribers nonetheless- then they may find themselves publishing articles and making comments in a manner that reflects a drive for further engagement and growth, again a consequence of negative reinforcement behavior.

There’s a pressure for many of us as publishers to gain traction, and doing so requires that we play the game that is THE ALGORITHM. Do things that get you noticed, and do things that make you stand out above the others. Sometimes this includes introducing novel ideas, or looking at things from a different perspective.

But sometimes going down the route of clickbait may end up proving more fruitful, and may provide an incentive to publish such articles over more nuanced and, quite frankly, boring articles at time (yes, I’m talking about myself here…).

Now, I will state that I don’t hold any animosity to this style of reporting. As I would argue with Stew Peters, using that little phrase we all heard when growing up:

Don’t hate the player, hate the game

I can’t quite get angry at people who optimize their publications based on the algorithm, and it wouldn’t be a surprise to find that many others are doing, although the overall intent to clickbait may be one worth considering.

---

Everyone likes a good bit of gossip

One last thing I will touch on is the significance of word of mouth.

I didn’t hear of Ardis and Watch the Water until Brian Mowrey wrote about it in one of his posts. It’s very likely that Watch the Water made its rounds online through the sharing and posting from other people online causing it to garner the popularity that it has.

In Died Suddenly there’s a video of Steve Kirsch interacting with cops where he makes a comment that his Substack has (likely had as the numbers have probably grown since the video was taken) over a million subscribers. It seemed like a weird flex at first, but given the context I understand what he was getting at (and good on him for those numbers!).

Several of Steve Kirsch’s recent posts have been about the documentary, and so on the surface that’s over 1 million potential viewers of Died Suddenly not taking into account the number of times the video can be shared via Substack or through the actual video on Rumble.

There’s a huge degree of multiplicity in how information gets distributed online. It’s certainly not linear, and even a few shares can get the ball rolling into making something go viral. We’ve all seen several videos which have gained tens of millions of views and ask ourselves why the hell did this become popular (Baby Shark, anyone?).

Heck, my post had around 10% of the people viewing it open the link to Died Suddenly, which is unheard of for my click rate, and that alone is an additional few hundred views.

And yet many people who may find the content of the documentary questionable may still otherwise share it, thus adding to the view count.

So it’s really no surprise that Died Suddenly has gained the traction that it has. It clicks all of the check boxes needed to essentially go viral, and even a few shares or commentary on the documentary can be enough to cause it to become popular. It shows the strength (and in some aspects the danger) of being online.

---

Psyop or something else?

So I would argue that the spread and popularity of Died Suddenly may be owed predominately to the nature of clickbait and how online engagement operates.

To that, some may then argue that this post was a long-winded explanation for something that we’re all fully aware of (long-winded is my thing!).

Instead, the argument about psyops may pertain to the content of the documentary, and to what extent the inclusion of questionable material may have been done intentionally to discredit other verifiable parts such as the prevalence of the blood clots and the accounts from coroners.

I’ll go on a little rant here, if I would be permitted.

One has to remember that there’s a general lack of an incentive to correct for mistakes. Many mainstream outlets may produce outlandish, unsubstantiated claims only to stealth edit their articles later. They already got the views they wanted, and unfortunately the actual corrections may never be seen by those who viewed the initial article. The intentions of these outlets is to get clicks first, send a correction which no one will read, and then reap the benefits while obfuscating questions of journalistic integrity for engaging in such practices.

This can also happen on YouTube and other social media platforms such as Substack, where the incentive to take a “rush to report” approach may cause bad information or ideas to be reported on. For many, this may be unintentional and the publisher may not be aware of the inaccuracies they are reporting on, but for a select few this may be done intentionally with the consequence of gaining traction, subscribers, and view counts even if the viewers are made none the wiser to the fact that they may be told bad information.

More important than inaccurate reporting is the good-faith intent to correct inaccuracies, and by all accounts this is an area that tends to be lacking, and can be rather detrimental to the discourse when falsifiable evidence and conspiracy theories may muddy the optics of otherwise good ideas.

Why corrections may not be provided is a whole different matter. Again, some may just not be aware that they are reporting on incorrect statements or ideas. Some may have done so to garner attention and would rather sacrifice journalistic integrity if it meant gaining notoriety.

Some may find that in a sea of saturation (let’s be real, everyone and their mother has a Substack…) in order to stand out one would need to be more bombastic, and more outlandish in order to be recognized. One of my suspicions to the sudden prominence of the virus skepticism crowd is that it just happens to stand out so well and can garner one instant notoriety for making such claims.

In any case, the question I propose here is a hypothetical paradigm. Given what I have outlined here and some of my concerns I would raise the following:

Is it worse that something or someone is actually a psyop, weaponized with the intent of discrediting a movement through government backing and the planting of otherwise inaccurate information to make the whole concept seem like a conspiracy.

OR

Is it worse that something or someone is actually being genuine, but is acting in a manner that sacrifices journalistic integrity and the pursuit of accurate information for clickbait, leading to inaccurate reporting if doing so means garnering attention, clout, and making a name for oneself.

I have some thoughts, but I’d rather you all hypothesize and come up with your own ideas.

---

If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists outside the mainstream.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent

1. Alas, I was unable to find any pictures of a ficus with an FBI badge. If someone does find it send it my way!

2. Although I originally intended to address a few points on the emergence of virus skepticism and denial in this article the discussion ran away from me and unfortunately was only relegated to a mere sentence near the end of the post.

3. Variable ratio schedules are a form of operant conditioning in which the number of responses needed to receive a reward are varied. It’s been argued by some child psychologists that in order to get a child to do something a variable ratio schedule is best given the fact that a child will never know when the reward will come, and therefore will do their chores with the hope that this time would be when they get the reward. Otherwise, a fixed schedule can be easily gamed by children who know to expect a reward after every chore or response. It’s a bit cruel to think about, and yet at the same time may be a fruitful endeavor to get children to do their chores. 🤷‍♂️

4. In recent months I’ve shelved some of my Anthology Series posts, due to how mentally taxing they became. Let’s just say that the time put in didn’t lead to a significant ROI, so I’ll be transparent and say that there was a bit of disincentivization going on.

5. This isn’t to say that I agree with Alex, more so that Alex would have done well to have looked at the study and evaluated it based on the merits.