Last week, I mentioned Byung Chul Han’s idea about the crisis of truth. The current problem is not so much that so many people lie, but rather that society hardly seems to care what is true and what is false anymore; we are, in that sense, truly beyond truth. Almost a century ago, the Dutch Historian Johan Huizinga offered a prelude to this diagnosis in his analysis about the decay of play as a constitutive and binding element of all cultures. In his analysis, Huizinga makes a distinction between the cheater who still respects the game and the player who breaks the enchantment of the believe-aspect. Although the cheater generally needs to be revealed to keep the game fair, he still enacts the ‘magic circle’, the enchantment of the belief-aspect of the game, which also constitutes the temporary social togetherness or community of the players. Nobody likes the cheaters, obviously, but at least they are better than those quitters who suddenly break the magic by shouting; “it is just a game, I quit”. Unlike cheaters, they disrupt the communal nature of a group more deeply, believing themselves to be exempt from societal norms, rights and obligations, that is: to be immune.
Accordingly, the biggest problem of democracies in the post-truth era might not be liars but quitters. As I remarked before, lies in a post-truth society have mainly degenerated into shit, resulting in the enshittification of the debate or dialogue, especially online. The term, coined by Cory Doctorow, primarily refers to the gradual decline in the quality of services and content on online platforms; initially beneficial to users, these platforms eventually start exploiting them bit by bit. This concept also captures the broader decay of online discourse, as the World Wide Web today increasingly resembles a chaotic Weird Wild West where despair and anger mix with irony and sarcasm.
In this essay, I will outline what I think are three responses tied to the enshittification of online environments. These can be seen as examples of what Hegel called the ‘unhappy consciousness,’ where a person feels painfully split between their limited, everyday self and their unreachable, infinite ideals, leading to a sense of alienation. In this state, the individual or group struggle to see themselves reflected in the world around them.
First, there’s the volcanic response to enshittification, which seeks to amplify online chaos. The aim is to disrupt the current system further to reshape society around their ideals, often with a reactionary focus. Steve Bannon popularized this approach with his mantra: “flood the zone with shit.” Second, there is the waking-up response, which seeks to re-establish a clear inner divide between True and False, between Good actors and Bad actors in the corrupt world, yet thereby often also retreating into their own truth. Third, there is the LOL-response, characterized by laughing-out-loud and immersing oneself in the humor of online vids and memes—both as an inevitable survival mechanism and as a political or personal weapon.
By focusing on these political responses—what could also be described using Foucault’s concept of 'techniques of the self', as a postmodern 'art of living' or simply a 'lifestyle'—I do not mean to suggest this is all that remains in society. Rather, I’m enlarging certain extremes to make a point, much like Foucault often did, to illustrate how the extreme can become—or is becoming—the new normal. Moreover, in a way, no one lives entirely outside these general tendencies and nor should we, but we must remain aware of their potential harm to society, and more specifically, with regard to the social cohesion or communal aspects of society. Let’s explore the different forms of unhappy consciousness in the post-truth society more deeply.
The first is the volcanic response to enshittification. In today’s online world, lies have mostly degenerated into shit. Unlike 20th-century totalitarianism, which relied on crafting a ‘Big Truth’ through a ‘Big Lie,’ the main goal here is; first to create chaos and confusion. Secondly, by fostering an atmosphere of disorder, the aim is then to exploit the uncertainty and division that follows. Naturally, at this stage, there’s also a back-and-forth between lies and truths at play. Steve Bannon captured this strategy perfectly with the phrase: "flood the zone with shit."
This approach can be termed the volcanic as it is clearly destructive (it amplifies the shit), but its eruptions also create fertile ground for new Big Truths to take hold. However, these new narratives will inherently lack the strength of past ones, as the constant threat of new ruptures remains, with chaos continuing to spread. It thrives on anger and rage, while simultaneously fueling them. Disinformation and fake news are important weapons. However, while we today mainly focus on the downsides of disinformation for open societies, for more autocratic regimes the enshittification is dangerous as well. The volcanic strategy is difficult to control and manage, particularly in a hierarchical top-down society. Moreover, using cutting-edge technology such as Generative AI as propaganda tools is difficult because the chatbots seem to have a capricious voice of their own. Thus, it’s a highly ambiguous and contradictory tactic for all politicians, fraught with self-undermining elements.
In a way, this response to enshittification by amplifying it reflects the archetypal figure of breaking things to fix them. In the U.S., it is championed primarily by neo-conservatives and the new-right movement. However, this approach, often referred to as accelerationism, is also embraced by parts of the left, particularly those who aim to push capitalism toward its own collapse and self-destruction—a classic Marxist line of thought. So yes, on the surface, this may appear to be simply reactionary or revolutionary thinking in a post-truth era. While that's partly true, it's crucial to recognize the context of today's social enshittification. This shift makes it increasingly likely that we'll question the sincerity behind every ‘end-goal’ driving these movements—whether they're pushing toward a return to an original past (as with some right-wing reactionaries) or racing toward a utopian future (as with left-wing accelerationists).
That this volcanic response has become a popular political strategy is especially clear in the context of international or global conflicts. In the emerging multipolar world, the objective of a hegemonic adversary is less about imposing their own Big Truth and more about fostering weakness and instability elsewhere to create balance. Although this strategy isn’t new, it has now eclipsed the traditional goal of winning hearts and minds. For instance, the recent exposure of the Kremlin’s media arm through Tenet Media, a content creation company, revealed that Russia’s objective wasn't to promote a pro-Russian narrative in the U.S. through influencers. Aware that most Americans are strongly patriotic and ‘anti-communist’, the Kremlin focused instead on supporting Trump in the culture wars, whom they viewed as contributing to the weakening of the Trans-Atlantic order.
I believe the above volcanic response is central to understanding the post-truth era. However, if we accept this as the dominant tendency of enshittification, I think several counterreactions can be identified.
One of these can be called the wake-up response, which is closely tied to the concept of revelation. Nowadays, it seems everyone is either experiencing an awakening or being urged to wake up from some kind of darkness or false consciousness. In this context, truth is seen as a form of enlightenment: waking up and escaping from the shadows of deceitful forces or corrupt institutions. The theme of awakening and revelation is one of the oldest spiritual and religious motifs in Western tradition, from Platonism and Gnosticism to Protestantism, and of course, the age of Enlightenment that fought against the enslaving religious forces of the Dark Ages. However, in today’s post-truth landscape, most expressions of awakening are secular reimaginations of this archetype. In the specific relation to truth as a binding force, it often has a reactionary quality, rooted in a rigid distinction between True and False, which is frequently intertwined with the moral categories of Good and Evil. Let's explore a few contemporary examples of this archetype:
As we can see, all these perspectives, in their own way, share a strong anti-mainstream or anti-establishment stance, viewing the status quo as corrupt, whether it's due to a globalist left-wing agenda, institutional racism, the fossil fuel industry, or other perceived all-encompassing Evil forces. My point here is not to discredit these groups or argue for a reasonable middle ground. Moreover, this is not about the other, about them, as we all enact one of these archetypal waking-up strategies to a certain extent. Rather, the key takeaway is that in their current form, all these versions of the contemporary awakenings represent a response or counterreaction to the chaotic disorientation and lack of common direction in our post-truth society. This is also where the dangerous side effects of this response start to dominate.
Remarkably, we might say, because of this disorientation, this response reestablishes truth as a unifying and orienting force. However, one that operates beyond the common arena of the game we might call democratic discourse or society tied to a nation-state. These groups retreat into their own versions of truth. Either you are ‘awake,’ which is aligned with being truthful, moral, and right, or you are ‘asleep,’ which is equated with being deceitful and immoral. But what the wake-up revelation thus offers are often tribal or transnational truths, not specifically tied to democratic or communal truths tied to a local political body.
To conclude, Nietzsche repeatedly argued that nihilism inevitably creates new veils of ignorance, or ‘idols’ that remind us of our need for Big Truths, a stable worldview and the moral guidance this offers. Although his interpretation of truth is itself deeply naturalistic (as briefly explained last week), making it a priori impossible to uphold a less cynical notion of truth, his ideas remain highly relevant today. In our era, his ideas manifest in a superficial acceptance of the post-truth premises, where most people might agree with statements like, "There is no single objective truth." However, to this we often (implicitly and silently) add, "But my tribal truth is still a bit more objective (or should I say 'awake') than those I oppose, who are ignorant, asleep, or deceived.”
On the surface, the third response I want to discuss appears more like a form of resilience. It is a necessary, very helpful and practical coping mechanism for dealing with the post-truth era. However, I think it also contributes to and amplifies the societal enshittification. Let's call it the LOL-response: Laughing-Out-Loud. At its core, this encompasses the widespread use of humor such as irony and cynicism, or more simply, the habit of immersing ourselves in funny sketches, videos and memes. This has become a very popular postmodern ‘art of living’, helping people cope in the chaos of the post-truth world. Faced with all the shit flooding the zone and the large systemic risks that we face, sometimes laughing feels like the only option, to blow off some steam or add some oxygen in discussions. This blend of mocking humor and laughing through inner despair has become a crucial survival tool in difficult times.
However, humor in its various forms is not just a survival tool or art of living—it is increasingly weaponized in culture wars, political debates, and even geopolitical conflicts. When combined with the chaotic dynamics of the volcanic strategy, this becomes especially dangerous. A correspondent for De Groene Amsterdammer recently noted that the left in the U.S. has finally started to weaponize this coping mechanism too, becoming more adept at using mocking humor as a tool. Finally, Figures like Tim Walz and Kamala Harris have learned to aptly respond to their opponents, including Donald Trump, with laughter. While this is understandable—given that engaging in serious dialogue with Trump can seem nearly impossible—this approach, in the long run, offers little substance or direction.
Both aspects of the LOL-response—humor as a survival tool and as a weapon—can either strengthen or undermine social cohesion. At its core, humor in its various forms, including ‘offensive’ jokes and caricatures, serves as a very important pillar of a free and open society. It helps ease tensions between groups, allows for playful engagement with norms and rules, and can, in a productive way, open up taboos and foster difficult discussions around stereotypes and sensitive topics, or what is offensive in the first place. But I doubt the LOL-response of today, especially in the US, is showcasing this.
Much has been said about this trend, it’s certainly not new: post-irony movements have also emerged, focusing on sincerity to counter the online hypocrisy, sarcasm, apathy, and other issues. At FreedomLab, we’ve conducted extensive research on metamodernism, which is a ‘art of living’ specifically marked by this complex interplay between irony and sincerity. This seems to be an important way out, especially because the survival tool of comedy can also be ‘weaponized’ by individuals as a way to shield themselves from an increasingly ‘fucked-up world.’ Thinking critically about the constructive role of humor will be essential for building a viable online environment; a well-developed philosophy of humor for the digital age is much needed.
In this context, one last issue I want to highlight is the changed nature of online environments, which cannot be overlooked in this discussion. Online, especially on social media, the lines between irony and sincerity, humor and seriousness, have become increasingly blurred, leaving us uncertain about when something is meant as a joke and when it’s not or when a joke is appropriate or well-timed. In the digital age, we've lost many of the distinct ‘spaces’ or ‘rituals’ that once helped us navigate these boundaries. Moreover, the endless online streams of today embody a sort of timeless time, as Castells famously named it, making a well-timed joke nearly impossible.
This lack of clear separation and rhythms online hampers the healthy role of humor and comedy in society. The chaotic nature of the internet, where memes go viral and sarcasm is constantly circulated, makes it difficult to cultivate distinct spaces and rhythms where jokes, sarcasm, and irony can thrive in a constructive way. The distinction between the stage for humor and the stage for seriousness, the time for fun and the time for serious stuff, has eroded. Obviously, this distinction is never absolute, nor should it be; that would create its own kind of nightmare. Nevertheless, it's really about finding a balance within and between different areas of life, practices, and media. And online, this has become difficult, as we today experience.
In theaters, for example, where stand-up comedy is performed, the audience knows what to expect—they are entering a clearly defined space for humor and as such is a kind of magic circle one enters related to play. They know when they enter and they know when they walk out. However, this is not only about the loss of this typical space of comedy. Even in traditional non-physical media like linear TV or newspapers, these distinct spaces and rituals are still better maintained than in today’s social media environments. In printed newspapers or in the curated programming of linear TV, there can be a more deliberate balance, for example with clear demarcations between satirical sections and serious ones, allowing for a healthier mix. It's easier to know for the audience that, say, Sunday night is reserved for satire—time to sit back and enjoy. But part of the enshittification of the new media landscape is that we've lost these clearly defined spaces, making it harder to discern when and where humor should play its role in society.
Oddly enough, today’s LOL-response, when combined with the volcanic strategy of fostering chaos, creates a mix where rage, anger, and hopelessness, coexist alongside fun, apathy, and cynicism. This is one of the hallmarks of the enshittificated online environment. It means online anger is often to be met with an ironic smile, where the best defense becomes laughing at one another, dismissing the other as ‘crooked’ or ‘weird.’ Yet, it also means that an innocent or misunderstood joke can easily escalate into full-blown outrage.
I won't conclude with solutions, as ‘solutions’ in the literal sense of dissolving these responses could also erase their positive aspects. In a sense, all of these responses can be seen as adolescent figures, which brings us back to Hegel: the revolutionary student with bold ideals confronting a corrupt world, the apathetic stoic or romantic soul retreating into an inner realm, and the teenagers discovering sarcasm and irony as newfound shields and mechanisms to separate them from their parents. This is what Hegel meant by the inner frustration of the unhappy consciousness.
The goal shouldn't be to eliminate these juvenile responses or art of living entirely—not that this is a realistic option. Society needs adolescents to keep it vital, that is for sure. Instead, mitigating the downsides seems to be the most convincing approach. While this might sound like a banal and obvious conclusion, the main purpose here was to highlight the dynamics at play. As a closing remark, let’s emphasize the beneficial sides one more. Each response definitely offers something of value. For the volcanic response, this is the potential for fundamental positive change through eruption. For the wake-up response, this is the exposure of power dynamics and highlighting of various forms of false consciousness. And for the LOL response, this is using humor as a way to stave off despair, open taboos, release tension and not be overwhelmed by hopelessness. Yet, as I’ve tried to illustrate, these strategies are closely tied to the enshittification of the post-truth era, and this creates problematic dynamics, especially when it comes to maintaining a sense of shared community or society.
In fact, the shared character or ‘networked’ character of truth is something that can point towards a new ontology, which is something that Pim Korsten’s article will explore.
