06/10/2025
“I think the only way to stop the megalomaniac is to cut off a supply of social media. Everybody has the freedom of speech, but it’s not a God-given right to use my microphone.” So I said to chat GPT.
AND HERES HOW TO DO IT
You’ve hit on something important—freedom of speech and freedom of amplification are not the same thing. The First Amendment (at least in the U.S.) protects people from government censorship, but it doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to broadcast on someone else’s platform. That’s why newspapers, TV stations, and now social media companies all retain editorial control.
The “microphone” metaphor is useful: if I own the stage, I don’t have to hand the mic to someone who will use it to spread lies, incite violence, or monopolize the conversation. The tension comes from the fact that modern “microphones” like Facebook, Twitter/X, or TikTok are so massive that they feel like public squares. Cutting someone off isn’t just denying them your equipment—it can effectively silence their reach to millions.
Some thinkers argue that the solution isn’t necessarily to cut people off entirely, but to limit the way algorithms supercharge certain voices. For instance:
• Downranking disinformation instead of outright banning speech.
• Rate-limiting amplification, so megalomaniacs can still rant, but not endlessly dominate feeds.
• Platform neutrality vs. platform responsibility debates—should social media act like a utility (anyone can plug in) or like a publisher (curating what gets promoted)?
Your phrasing—“it’s not a God-given right to use my microphone”—captures the crux: society needs to decide whether these platforms are closer to public infrastructure or private megaphones. Right now, legally, they’re private megaphones.
If you want to read further, here are some good places to dig in:
• Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants – how platforms commodify attention.
• Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism – on algorithmic amplification and power.
• Kate Klonick’s law review articles on “The New Governors” – how social media moderates speech.
• Cathy O’Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction – algorithms as amplifiers of harm.
Would you like me to sketch out what a practical “cutting off the supply” strategy might look like—e.g., regulatory moves, algorithmic throttling, or even community-driven deplatforming?
“Yes please”
Alright—if the goal is to stop a megalomaniac from riding an endless wave of algorithmic attention, there are a few different pressure points where the “supply” can be cut off. Let’s walk through them in layers, from systemic to grassroots.
⸻
1. Regulatory Moves
Governments can change the rules of the game:
• Transparency laws: Require platforms to disclose how their algorithms amplify certain voices, so harmful manipulation becomes visible.
• Algorithmic throttling mandates: Limit how often content can be auto-boosted or force platforms to provide “chronological feed” options (already tried in the EU under the Digital Services Act).
• Breaking up monopolies: If one person can dominate discourse on just a handful of platforms, antitrust interventions (splitting up Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, etc.) could diversify the “microphones.”
• Penalties for incitement or disinformation: Not for speech itself, but for deliberate amplification of dangerous falsehoods. Think: advertising standards applied to political speech.
⸻
2. Platform-Level Actions
Even without laws, platforms themselves can reduce supply:
• Deplatforming: As with Alex Jones (Infowars) or Andrew Tate—just shutting down accounts. Controversial, but effective at shrinking reach.
• Demonetization: Cut off the financial incentives. No ads, no subscriptions, no merch integration = less reason to keep pumping out content.
• Rate limits: Cap how many posts/videos someone can release per day, or how much can be promoted algorithmically.
• Quarantine models: Reddit did this with r/The_Donald—content wasn’t deleted, but stripped of algorithmic exposure.
⸻
3. Community and Civil Society
Ordinary people can also choke supply:
• Counter-speech campaigns: Flooding harmful narratives with fact-checks, satire, or ridicule that robs the megalomaniac of mystique.
• No-platform movements: Pressure advertisers and streaming services to cut ties (“Stop Hate for Profit” against Facebook).
• Algorithm jamming: Coordinated reporting or downvoting to break the feedback loops that push their content.
⸻
4. Personal & Cultural Shifts
The deepest cut isn’t technical—it’s cultural:
• Digital hygiene: Choosing where you spend attention. If people treat platforms like junk food (fun, but not a diet), then megalomaniacs starve.
• Media literacy: Teaching people how amplification works (“going viral” isn’t organic—it’s engineered).
• Normalizing disengagement: Recognizing that “not everything deserves a response” deprives a narcissist of oxygen.
⸻
📚 Further Reading:
• Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet – moderation and platform governance.
• Zeynep Tufekci, Twitter and Tear Gas – how movements rise and fall on social media.
• Renee DiResta’s work on disinformation campaigns and amplification networks (great essays online).
⸻
So the options range from surgical cuts (platform bans, demonetization) to structural reforms (algorithm regulation, antitrust), all the way to grassroots starvation (users pulling away their attention).
👉 The trade-off is always between preserving expression and preventing amplification abuse.
Do you want me to sketch this out as a kind of “playbook” (like: Step 1—demonetize, Step 2—algorithm throttle, Step 3—cultural inoculation)? That could give you a clearer “supply chain disruption” picture.
“ "
Exactly. is the cleanest cut of all—it’s like yanking the plug on their amplifier.
Megalomaniacs thrive on three currencies:
1. Attention – even outrage feeds the beast.
2. Amplification – shares, retweets, stitches.
3. Ad dollars – all downstream from the first two.
When you unfollow, you starve all three. One person’s unfollow is small, but multiplied across millions, it collapses the supply chain. That’s why so many “influencers” panic when the algorithm dips—they’re addicted to the dopamine of constant attention.
It also flips the power dynamic: instead of waiting for platforms or governments to act, users collectively vote with their eyeballs. A quiet, almost invisible rebellion.
If you wanted, you could think of as both:
• a personal act of resistance, and
• a movement slogan that reframes attention as a choice, not a duty.
Exactly. is the cleanest cut of all—it’s like yanking the plug on their amplifier.
Megalomaniacs thrive on three currencies:
1. Attention – even outrage feeds the beast.
2. Amplification – shares, retweets, stitches.
3. Ad dollars – all downstream from the first two.
When you unfollow, you starve all three. One person’s unfollow is small, but multiplied across millions, it collapses the supply chain. That’s why so many “influencers” panic when the algorithm dips—they’re addicted to the dopamine of constant attention.
It also flips the power dynamic: instead of waiting for platforms or governments to act, users collectively vote with their eyeballs. A quiet, almost invisible rebellion.
If you wanted, you could think of as both:
• a personal act of resistance, and
• a movement slogan that reframes attention as a choice, not a duty.
Would you like me to draft a kind of “ manifesto”—short, sharp, something that could stand as a rallying cry?
I want you to write something that I can post one place in social media that will spread amongst those who need to hear this message, anyone who could want to make a change “use the algorithm”. Be the algorithm. Execute operation “Save the world”
Got it. You want something crisp, bold, and a little viral-ready—something that feels like both a call to arms and a meme that people can grab and repost. Here’s a draft that balances that tone:
⸻
🌍 OPERATION: SAVE THE WORLD 🌍
The algorithm isn’t neutral—it feeds what we feed it.
Every like, every follow, every share is fuel.
Megalomaniacs don’t rise because they’re strong.
They rise because we hand them our attention.
We make them trend. We give them reach.
Here’s the counterstrike: .
• Don’t share their words.
• Don’t boost their anger.
• Don’t feed the fire.
Instead: BE the algorithm.
• Share wisdom.
• Amplify compassion.
• Spread ideas that heal instead of divide.
Attention is the currency.
Let’s bankrupt the tyrants.
Let’s bankroll the builders.
⚡ Execute Operation: Save the World.
⸻
Would you like me to shape this more like a poster-style graphic script (shorter lines, punchier cadence), so people screenshot it and pass it around? That tends to travel even further on social platforms.
Perfect—so the poster shouldn’t even name or hint at “him.” No shadows, no indirect clout. Just a bright, defiant alternative path people can feel part of. Here’s a draft text written in that clean, poster-ready cadence:
⸻
🌍 OPERATION: SAVE THE WORLD 🌍
The future belongs to what we amplify.
Every click is a vote.
Every share is a seed.
Every follow is fuel.
We don’t need to fight noise with more noise.
We can simply starve it.
✨ The alternative path:
• Ignore the chaos.
• Unfollow the toxic.
• Share what builds, heals, and connects.
Be the algorithm.
Spread light.
Amplify courage.
Grow compassion.
⚡ Together we write the feed.
⚡ Together we save the world.
⸻
This would look sharp as a bold black-and-white graphic with one accent color (maybe green or blue for hope/renewal). Simple, striking typography—like a protest placard meets a motivational poster.
Want me to actually design a poster-style image version of this (something you can post as a visual rather than just text)?
