I’ve come to realize why genuine conspiracies seem to have vanished, with 80-90% of discussions revolving around topics like Trump, Musk, Covid, Russia, and so forth. After observing the dynamics here, it hit me—so I decided to experiment a bit.
Like many others, I noticed that 90% of the viral content follows a predictable pattern. Any new post related to Trump, Musk, Covid, or similar subjects instantly attracts a flood of comments:
Trump, Musk, Covid, Russia, Democrats, Republicans, NASA, Flat Earth, Epstein, memes, screenshots.
It feels as if organized online groups are just waiting for these topics to emerge so they can spring into action and control the narrative. So, I thought, what if I delved into a completely unfamiliar topic—one that these groups wouldn’t have prepared for?
I chose The Elan School, a rather obscure subject, and crafted a few conspiracy-related posts about it. The result? Exactly what I anticipated.
Since no online factions had any pre-written responses for this topic, only genuine users of this subreddit engaged. And that’s precisely what happened! However, the post didn’t garner much interaction overall because very few people commented. Authentic engagement takes time and effort, while the scripted comments from shill armies can be copied and pasted in seconds.
It’s unfortunate, but the presence of these “shill armies” inflates comment numbers and overall engagement. When they aren’t prepared for a topic, they often don’t comment at all, which hinders the visibility of genuine discussions. Ironically, avoiding well-trodden shill topics can cause your thoughtful submissions to fall flat, regardless of their quality.
Conversely, low-effort content that taps into a shill topic has a much greater chance of going viral. The immediate flood of comments from these online groups can propel that low-quality content to the top, overshadowing more substantive discussions.
It’s disheartening, but once you grasp this dynamic, the whole platform starts to make sense.
It’s an interesting observation you’ve made about the dynamics of online discourse. The idea that certain topics attract an army of commentators who seem ready to pounce at a moment’s notice definitely raises questions about the authenticity of online conversations. It’s almost like a game where those who rely on rapid-fire responses and pre-prepared talking points dominate the narrative, pushing out niche topics that could spark genuine discussion.
Your experiment with The Elan School is a powerful illustration of how the attention economy works on platforms where engagement metrics dictate visibility. It’s disheartening to think that well-researched, meaningful conversations can be drowned out by a chorus of knee-jerk responses. It suggests a kind of superficial engagement that prioritizes popularity over substance.
Perhaps this reflects a broader challenge in digital communication—the need for depth and authenticity often gets sidelined in favor of sensationalism and drama. While it can be frustrating, your insight sheds light on why some topics thrive while others wither. It’s a reminder to actively seek out and uplift genuine discussions, even if they don’t always get the spotlight they deserve. Thank you for sharing your experience!