Times have changed and attention has become scarce. In the old days, there wasn’t a lot of competition, so spreading the narrative was somewhat simpler, not easy though.
There weren’t a lot of points for distribution, and seeding the networks usually worked.
Narratives got upgrades according to the needs of that particular time in history by a network of architects.
Narratives spread faster across different geographies in the network than products. Thus arrived contradiction and incoherence because one geography could be technologically behind the pioneering geography.
A more advanced narrative could challenge the identity of nodes operating from a frame of reference of an archaic version of the narrative or a different narrative. These nodes didn’t like to see their loved ones subscribe to a different perspective, as that could mean they would have fewer people to source confirmation from for their confirmation bias.
The result was an ongoing influence war because tribes sourced their code of conduct from networked narratives (and still do). Different tribes, different sources of influence.
Network architects had faced the dilemma of controlling the narrative without bloodshed since the dawn of civilization.
All eventually realised that peace was the solution, but only a few realised that the capacity for violence was necessary. Because network architecture could be hacked by a subpar architect who hadn’t researched thoroughly.
Unfortunately, these sub par architects had to be taken down by coercion or the threat of coercion.
Of course, there was another way: awareness democratization. If the majority was aware and could analyze the narratives they borrowed from the network, and the options available to them from different networks, they wouldn’t care about subscribing to one perspective and would be more open to change. Efficient market hypothesis could have been proven true if stratification economics wasn’t at play.
-#
