The Vid They'll Get Me For: Curated Consent

Summary

The presenter argues that widespread despair—the belief that society is too broken to fix and ordinary people cannot change anything—can serve political interests. The video’s central claim is that modern propaganda often works less by suppressing information than by selectively promoting stories and voices that steer public attention. The presenter calls this “curated consent.”

• Peter Thiel and political influence: The presenter revisits Thiel’s arguments against the compatibility of democracy and economic freedom, as well as his support for alternatives such as seasteading. The video suggests that some of Thiel’s essays also functioned as business promotion, and notes that his later political influence included funding candidates. It argues that money may matter less by directly persuading legislators to change their votes than by helping elect candidates who already share a funder’s priorities.

• Curtis Yarvin’s role: Yarvin’s online writing helped popularize anti-democratic ideas and attracted support from influential venture capitalists. However, the presenter cautions against treating him as the mastermind behind today’s politics. Powerful figures may have amplified his rhetoric because it was effective, without sharing his full ideology or intending to follow his proposals. The video argues that Yarvin’s experience writing for online audiences made him particularly adept at gaining attention.

• How engagement-based algorithms shape attention: Drawing on research, the presenter explains that social platforms generally optimize for engagement, not controversy specifically. Content combining emotional or moral language with perceived prestige and in-group relevance can attract interaction; provocative posts often do so effectively. This can make extreme views seem more common than they are. The presenter also notes that users in one cited study preferred a feed with more moderate and in-group content, while still wanting more criticism of political opponents and less criticism of their own side.

• From “manufacturing” to “curating” consent: The video contrasts the traditional “propaganda model,” associated with Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, with its proposed update for social media. Rather than relying mainly on a few media gatekeepers to filter stories out, actors can boost selected stories, creators, or talking points until they dominate people’s feeds. As an example, the presenter describes Vice President J.D. Vance amplifying Nick Shirley’s video alleging daycare fraud in Minnesota. The video then drew substantial attention while news about the Epstein files was prominent.

• Examples involving Elon Musk: The presenter says Musk responded selectively to reporting about his contacts with Jeffrey Epstein, amplifying material that cast the relationship in a less damaging light while leaving other questions unanswered. The video also examines Musk’s support for Germany’s AfD: after endorsing the party, Musk increasingly shared stories linking migrants and crime to the claim that only the AfD could save Germany. The presenter interprets this as strategic amplification, not proof that Musk shares every position of the party he promotes.

• Myanmar and Facebook: The video describes Facebook’s rapid expansion in Myanmar and the spread of anti-Rohingya hate speech on the platform. It argues that the military used Facebook to amplify hostile narratives, while the company’s responses—including anti-hate sticker prompts—were inadequate and could generate further engagement with hateful posts. The presenter connects this information environment to the later coup, arguing that the military helped cultivate public consent before seizing power. The video also cites former Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang’s reports of fake engagement campaigns by political leaders in several countries.

The presenter concludes that the power of technology companies and political operators should not be treated as unbeatable. The video urges viewers to resist political fatalism, verify claims independently, and use democratic institutions and coalitions—even with people they disagree with—to pursue shared goals. Its final message is to stop letting algorithms determine what feels important and to “curate your own consent.”

Presenter: Portable Orange (the narrator, who refers to himself as “Port”). Additional presenters or guests: None identified.