Once upon a time, a citizen voted and a politician gave a speech. The politician was the seller, and the voter was the buyer. The political product was a commodity. The market was formed during the elections. That's how it used to be, I say.
Today, the voter is a more active variety. The political product is created on both sides. The one who used to be a consumer of political content, now is prosumer. So, a participant in creation that is still controlled from above, but the question is how precisely.
Here is an example. In the elections in Podgorica, Ivan Vuković wore a white shirt, the party had a blue campaign, and the rallies resembled Mormon gatherings. None of that new aesthetic, which obviously avoided the coat of arms and the party name, spilled over into the red sea that Internet agitators were swimming in. No matter how much Vuković tried to charm grandmothers with communal care and green spaces, the powerful army of DPS believers on the Internet returned the matter to the factory, i.e. referendum, settings.
If the DPS campaign in Podgorica tried to drop the ball on local topics, the angry warriors on the networks did not allow it. Vuković did not deal with the "Church of Serbia" or Aco Vučić, but the army of those who supported him spewed belvedere fire and dreamed of their historical payment in Ivan's victory.
I return to the initial question - does a party like DPS manage the public discourse, especially in the campaign, when heaven boils and every third tiktoker becomes a small schizoid antenna for the dissemination of infernal propaganda and national paranoia.
A serious party keeps a good part of Bot activity under control. But despite all the plans and paid sandwiches, does the network by its very nature create an army of volunteers, so the campaign forms itself?
I don't know how things work, I'm just asking if the parties have more ways to react precisely in an IT environment that is so fast and decentralized.
Technology has never been a source of greater political power - the other day, Obama's former adviser spoke with horror about Elon Musk, as a beast of the new order in which politics turns into chaos and an unprecedented circus, where the main point is no longer played by a politician but by a techno-mogul.
Translated into the language of our peoples and nationalities, when I started doing this hellish job, the spokesperson of the DPS was Comrade Kovačević from Pljevlja, and whatever that classy person said was the public opinion of the party, of course, filtered through several phone sessions and SMS guideline.
Today, a spokesperson can throw a spica, but what will happen on the web and which spin will prevail depends not only on the complex procedure of the algorithm and the will of the party, but also on the confusing action of more and more crazy people and creative pests.
The party is reflected in its supporters, and the supporters in their phones. The pressure is from below. One would say democracy. But what the heck - the Internet is trapped in a binary code of quarrels and collisions between fanatical parties that maintain it status quo. The algorithm loves that and promotes the worst.
How then can a poor party send a message when it has thousands of spokesmen, hundreds of Kovačević comrades, and each one shouts as if he has tried a new synthetic drug, each one yells at his own group, inflates his personal web bubble in which he reigns and thinks that he has dragged Milo himself to the wall .
Difficult questions... The democratic dream came true like a nightmare. No one can say that society is closed anymore, but what to do with so much openness to stupidity? Where politics is going on the web in its catharsis and prolonged orgasm, no one can see anymore except maybe Ljubo Filipović while pointing his finger at Moscow.
To make the story a little more serious - is there a way to get political messages through paramedia glib and mean something again? Can society get out of trouble with this many maniacally capable bots who may work well for pay, but even better when the moon is full.
Excessive life on the social network is a form of compulsion, which means that the janissary who rants on Twitter is actually running away from real problems. Even psychology textbooks explain the compulsive actions and dictates of addicts. Instead of incorporating free will into political thought and attitude, the tweeter from our alley forcibly participates in masking his fears and thus becomes susceptible to ideological hoaxes and conspiracy theories.
In wonderful freedom, the same boundaries are formed again, giving birth to old blackmails and suppressing thought. There is no dialogue, only monologues take turns, and the Internet listens, like a silent evil god who uses politics as fertilizer, so that the government can grow better from it.
Bonus video:
