Flood The Zone With Truth
from the the-age-of-chaos-needs-truth dept
The collapse of our democratic institutions isn’t unstoppable. Saving them requires understanding what we’re fighting for—and how human freedom actually works in our technological age.
Truth isn’t complicated. It lives in simple principles we all understand: People deserve a voice in decisions that shape their lives. Our ability to think and choose depends on accurate information. Democratic institutions aren’t optional—they’re how we solve problems and build futures together.
When we say, “technology isn’t destiny”—or telos, for the philosophically inclined—we mean this: The tools we’ve created don’t dictate their own outcomes. Social media, smartphones, and AI systems aren’t fixed by nature. We can shape them to serve human needs, not undermine them. Just as we need roads and bridges to navigate the physical world, we need robust democratic institutions and information systems to navigate reality together.
How do you understand what’s happening in your community? You talk to neighbors, read local news, attend meetings. These aren’t just niceties—they’re the foundation of how humans make sense of the world together. When these systems fail, our ability to make meaningful choices about our future collapses.
This is human freedom: not just being left alone, but having the tools and networks to think, decide, and act together. A healthy society works like a healthy brain. Just as neurons connect to create thought, communication networks let us collectively process reality. When disinformation scrambles those networks, society stops thinking clearly.
Every conversation, every article shared, every meeting attended is part of this miraculous process: humans working together to understand their world. It’s how we figure out what’s true, what’s possible, and what’s next.
The enemies of democracy understand this. They flood the zone with shit—deliberately overwhelming us with confusion to make truth seem impossible. But here’s the good news: Truth can spread just as powerfully as lies. Every time we share facts, support quality journalism, or demand transparency, we strengthen the networks that let humans sense the world.
Democratic institutions are more than policy tools—they’re vital infrastructure. Just as we need power grids and highways to function as a society, we need information systems that allow us to deliberate and decide together. Without them, freedom erodes.
The Cold War was fought with missiles. Cold War 2 is fought with memes and algorithms. The battlefield is our shared understanding of reality itself.
When we say 2 + 2 = 4, we’re asserting something foundational: Objective reality exists, and humans can understand it together. That’s not just math—it’s the basis for all human cooperation. Once we agree that some things are true, we can argue about priorities, policies, and visions for the future. But without shared reality, there’s nothing to build on.
The soldiers in this war for truth aren’t just journalists or fact-checkers. They’re teachers who teach students how to think critically. Citizens who insist on reality in the face of chaos. Technologists who build systems to enhance understanding rather than distort it. And yes—they’re you.
The beauty of simple truths is their power to cut through confusion. When officials bypass democratic processes, obscure their actions, or lie with reckless abandon, they’re not just making policy choices. They’re attacking the foundation of democracy itself.
Let’s name it what it is: lies. Not mistakes. Not opinions. Lies. And lies, repeated enough, undermine our ability to think clearly and choose freely. Without truth, there’s no accountability. Without accountability, there’s no democracy.
What’s happening now is unethical, illegal, and unconstitutional. But the path forward is clear. Share what you know to be true. Support those documenting reality. Demand transparency. Call out lies.
What do we do? Start with the basics:
- If actions are illegal, challenge them in court.
- If officials lie, hold them accountable.
- If processes are unconstitutional, stop them in the streets if necessary.
These aren’t radical positions. They’re the bedrock of democratic governance.
Throughout history, truth-tellers have risen to meet moments of crisis. Resistance fighters distributed underground newspapers to counter Nazi propaganda. Civil Rights activists documented brutality in the face of denials. Soviet dissidents preserved reality through samizdat. Each time, the simple act of recording and sharing truth became a powerful form of resistance.
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four wasn’t just a novel. It was a warning: When systems of power make truth impossible, freedom dies. Orwell showed us how confusion and lies can shatter the ability to think clearly. When the Party says 2 + 2 = 5, it’s not just propaganda—it’s an attack on the very idea of reality.
That’s why Winston Smith’s rebellion begins with a simple act: writing a diary. In a world designed to erase the truth, recording what you know becomes an act of defiance.
The tools for truth-telling are in our hands. Social media, smartphones, and networks—the same technologies that spread confusion can spread clarity. Every post, every conversation, every insistence on truth strengthens the foundation of democracy.
Human freedom depends not just on knowing the truth but on saying it—again and again and again.
“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone—to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink—greetings!” — George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.
Filed Under: coup, donald trump, elon musk, flood the zone, lies, truth
Comments on “Flood The Zone With Truth”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The “truth” is that this administration is running roughshod over Democratic Norms and Institutions and there’s very little we can do about it except hunker down and try not to get hurt too badly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
stop with the defeatist shit
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
your not gonna demoralize us troll
Re: Re:
“Mental health experts are seeing an increase in patients, largely Democrats, citing burnout and despair in part to the energy required to keep up with Trump’s rapid-fire policies.”
Re:
Or, alternatively, people could just refuse to comply with illegal orders.
This is the time for a massive, civil disobedience. If the people appointed to positions of authority are going to ignore the law, the people are moral obliged to resist and refuse, not comply in advance.
Re: Re:
Including the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza that Trump wants.
The sad thing is that there are people who want, support, and depend on a shared reality, but simultaneously support the notion that we have to let the 2 + 2 = 5 crowd continue to flood the zone with shit. Claiming that if the 2 + 2 = 5 crowd doesn’t have the freedom and right to continue to drag the discussion and debate back to square one, it’s the same thing as dictatorship and tyranny. Giving people the “freedom” to continually wear down institutions and experts, forcing those institutions and experts to pull double-duty they don’t have the time and energy for. It’s not sustainable.
Re:
What do you want those people to do, take away the First Amendment rights of the disinformation crowd? Start using violence against them? Like, what the fuck do you want done here that, in the hands of an administration like Trump’s, would absolutely be used against you to restrict or revoke your civil rights?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
That’s why we should continue to do nothing except complain to others who are completely powerless to do anything about it instead of even considering what other options there are.
It’ll work THIS time!
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve pushed for contacting government representatives as part of an approach to defying the Trump administration. That I don’t know of every last website that can give you resources on, say, mutual aid and community building—which have always been important and will remain so going forward—doesn’t mean those resources don’t exist.
And by the by: You can stop trying to peg me as a “you have to let them kill you or you’re morally heinous” pacifist. I advocate for the use of violence to protect yourself or others from immediate violent harm. But using violence for political ends, no matter how noble the cause for which one fights, always runs the risk of that violence being labeled “terrorism” and used as a means to scapegoat that cause and those who believe in it. That is the kind of violence I will never endorse and all the negging, insults, threats, and other such bullshit won’t make me endorse it. You hating the fact that my principles that won’t bend the way you want them won’t make me break those principles so I’ll get the respect of some dipshit anon who’s probably a right-wing provocateur anyway.
The work that must be done isn’t “pick up an AR-15 and do something that’ll get you a life sentence at best”. It’s the work going on across the country that is largely invisible because it’s not as flashy as you want it to be. Mutual aid and community building aren’t supposed to grab headlines; if a headline is all you want, go make one yourself.
Re: Re: Re:2
“We go high” has worked so well for you so far hasn’t it? No really it has. You get to feel good about how morally superior you are by announcing how “concerned” you are and never have to actually risk anything. But your only actual concern is how self-righteous you can make yourselves feel while the situation deteriorates because you have the luxury of not being one of those targeted yet.
People have already been victims of physical violence, and yet your kind have been doing nothing except saying how awful it is, and how it should have never happened. There are people out there who are taking protecting themselves seriously right now, but your kind only BSAB them. You have and always will be self-indulgent performance artists. You’re complicit in this and if it ever does come down to the worst case scenario, it’s obvious which side you’ll take because one threatens your comforts.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’ve always felt that Stephen lives in the bluest of blue cities in a blue state where he can be sheltered from the worst that’s to come. It’s the only way that I can rationalize how suicidally cemented he is in his principles.
Re: Re: Re:4
Handling the comment you replied to first, try to keep up.
Where in my comments have I ever said “go high”? I mean, I’m not the kind of guy to blackmail or extort or leak state secrets, but if someone thinks that’s how to take down the Trump administration, I can be convinced to look the other way while it happens.
Seems like your only actual concern is getting me, some literal nobody who comments way too much on a tech blog, to endorse political violence for…I dunno, really. What the fuck do you think my endorsement would even do beyond making me betray my own principles? Anyway, my position on violence remains the same as it ever has: I believe it should only be used to defend one’s self or others from harm from immediate violence.
As I implied above, I’m all for people defending themselves and others from imminent violent harm. But you’re trying to convince me that doing shit like killing lawmakers or blowing up government buildings is “what really needs to be done”, and you have been doing it for months. (If not you alone, then others like you have tried—but this feels like a particular-to-one-person itch you’ve been trying to scratch.) I’m not going to endorse that approach and you can’t make me endorse that approach, not even at gunpoint (which I’m sure you’re more than ready to make happen).
As for “both sides are bad”-sing here: My point about political violence has never been that. My point has been about how political violence can, has, and always will be propagandized against the cause for which that violence was perpetrated. Consider how anyone who supports Palestinians, their right of self-determination, and the right of Gaza to be free from Israeli occupation/violence can be labeled a “terrorist sympathizer” due to Hamas and its use of violence for the cause of Palestinian/Gazan liberation. The cause is, at its core, noble and just—but the violence used by Hamas in pursuit of that cause has been used to demonize Palestinians and those outside of Gaza who support the cause (but don’t support Hamas).
As I’ve said (multiple times), I don’t endorse political violence. I wholeheartedly condemn the Hamas attack that led to the current shitshow in Gaza. That condemnation is about both the senseless and lethal violence—the murdering of innocent people—and how that violence ultimately made the cause for which it was committed that much harder to support or be seen supporting.
I’ll take the side that doesn’t comply with fascism, even if that means I have to go to jail—or the grave.
Now, let’s get to the comment I’m replying to…
I live in the South. And while I am sheltered in a sense, I’m not going to escape the worst if and when it comes. I mean, I’m a queer atheist; the only reason I wouldn’t be higher up on right-wing hitlists is because I’m white.
Principles that I can give up in a time of crisis aren’t principles—they’re positions of convenience. The principles I hold aren’t about being popular or being seen as virtuous, but about living by a personal code of conduct that helps me sleep at night. My refusal to endorse (or commit) political violence is about refusing to hurt a cause for which I stand, yes—but it’s also about refusing to hurt people unless violence is the absolutely last resort for keeping me and my family safe. I’ll kill someone who tries to kill me through direct action, but I’m not gonna go try to blow up my state’s Capitol building and kill a bunch of innocent people in the process if my state’s legislature passes anti-queer legislation. And like the poster above you, nothing you’ve said has convinced me that such a “solution” should be the first, best, and/or only option in dealing with fascists. You want my principles to break, but you aren’t offering anything but insults to change my mind. Try harder or get lost, but at least stop bringing this weak-ass bullshit here.
Re: Re: Re:5
Starting right off by revealing you think everyone who doesn’t buy your “I’m so moral and above it all” attitude and platitudes is all the same person really proves my point about you only being in this to for the sense of self-righteousness.
I’d like to see something other than the same meaningless platitudes that your types always have ready to go. Something resembling something other than “Just trust the system, don’t rock the boat!” But of course you’re incapable of it because your only real goal is making yourself feel good about “saying something.”
You’re welcome to quote me where I’ve said outright killing is the goal. Implicit counter-threats worked fairly well for the civil rights movement – the real one, not the one that is romanticized. Look up “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed” if you’re ready to stop subscribing to the infantile belief that fascists simply get tired slapping the other cheek.
And yet you’ll get upset when anyone points out the truth about fascists not simply exploding into rainbows and coins if you’re nice to them enough. Malcom X knew exactly what your kind was.
Re: Re: Re:6
I’ve got a bout of insomnia, and I’m taking it out on you. 🙃
Not actually what I was doing there, but sure, you keep on believing that.
Here’s the thing: What else do you expect me to do here? I don’t have the financial or interpersonal resources to help others in any substantial way, but you’re out here acting like I’m wealthy and connected as fuck and should therefore be funding entire political causes and shit. I ain’t as powerful as you think I am/should be, son.
That besides, my position on political violence doesn’t mean I’m out here trying to sugarcoat what’s going on in this country. Shit sucks bad right now. And yes, “trusting the system” isn’t exactly the best idea right now, given that Trump and his administration are basically one step away from overthrowing the judiciary and rending the Constitution useless. What I’ve been talking about doing isn’t “revolutionary” work—overthrowing government offices, seizing control of the seats of power by force, that sort of thing—but the actual revolutionary work that isn’t glamorous or headline-grabbing. I’ve mentioned mutual aid and community building because that’s what I’ve seen the most of lately, but I can safely say that plenty of other kinds of work along those lines are going on right now, too. Hell, public protests are a fine approach, too, because protests are a threat: “This is us acting civilized. Don’t make us act uncivilized.”
I’ve said that I’m opposed to political violence, which can (and often does) include murder. You’ve shittalked me over that opposition and acted like I’m a complete pussy for not believing that a little bloodletting here and there is good for the country. It’s like you’re trying to convince me that The Purge is a good idea, and it’s been disturbing to watch you—and possibly others like you, though again, this feels like a personal-only-to-you thing—keep trying even after I’ve told you countless times that I’m not buying into that shit.
And again, that’s why I support protests: They’re implicit threats of violence that should be listened to and considered by those in power. A protest is one step away from a riot, and while I don’t necessarily condone riots (too high a chance of innocent people being hurt), I understand why they happen and what makes people angry enough to start them. Protests are demonstrations of that anger without the violence; woe be unto those who ignore that anger—or worse yet, those who try to increase that anger.
Let me make this clear: I don’t believe that at all. I know fascism ends in blood no matter how non-violent those opposed to fascism stay in the face of it. Fascism is a people-eating machine, and it will eat the violent and non-violent alike just as it will eventually eat other fascists. I’m not as stupid as you seem to think I am, son.
But I still don’t believe in violence as the first, best, and/or only solution to the problem. And this doesn’t come down to the similarly infantile belief of “if you commit a violence, you’re no better than the fascists”. Shit, man, I loved watching Dick Spencer get punched and running away crying. (The best edit I ever saw of that was set to “Born in the USA”.) My opposition to violence has always been about what I call “preëmptive violence”—which is to say, violence done under the notion of “get them before they get you”.
And yes, I know what you’re thinking to yourself right now: “But you just said you loved that video of that one asshole getting punched, and he wasn’t doing anything violent when he got decked!” I’m well aware of the contradiction. Even I have trouble trying to reconcile it, but as best I can tell you, I have less of a problem with that sort of violence because it isn’t meant to be lethal. I’ve said plenty of times that people like Elon Musk and Donald Trump obviously never got popped in the mouth for saying or doing something stupid when they were kids; while I will never condone a parent striking a child in any way, that doesn’t mean other kids can’t do it. Punching an asshat like Dick Spencer, then, is an adult version of that sort of thing.
When it comes to lethal violence, I will stand unwavering by the belief that such violence must be the absolute last resort to any problem that such violence could “solve”. It’s why I advocate for its use only in direct defense of one’s self and/or others. I mean, look at Donald Trump: He got his ear grazed by shrapnel and practically became a martyr for the MAGA movement. Imagine if he had actually died. Do you think we’d be in a better or worse position based on how MAGA reacted to Trump losing the election in 2020?
Fascism always ends in death. And yes, it may seem like the right thing to “get them before they get you”. The morality of such an ethos is murky, but it’s at least understandable. Hell, we fought a whole-ass World War to stop a bunch of fascists. But I can’t stand by the idea that violence—lethal or otherwise—is going to get us out of “the Trump problem”. I don’t want to be someone who endorses violence as the first, best, and/or only solution to a political problem. Part of that is because I was a violent little shit when I was a kid and I don’t want to be that person again. Part of it is knowing that such violence is a step away from being an act of terrorism—and I need only point to people like Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, and Timothy McVeigh as proof of that. And yet another part of it comes down to the idea that violence can be life-changing (if not life-ending) for those who commit it and those against whom it is committed. Much like military rules of engagement, violence should be considered a last resort when all other peaceful attempts to solve a problem, including “walking away from the situation”, have been exhausted or ruled out.
Fuck fascists. No one should be nice to them. No one should welcome them with open arms. No one should treat them as if they can be changed by anything but their own internal bullshit. Fascists don’t deserve a place in the public sphere, even if—by rule of law—we must allow them to be in the public sphere without getting their asses kicked.
See? I can say those things about fascists because I know and believe them to be the truth. And it doesn’t upset me one bit to hear anyone else say those things because they’re speaking the truth. Why you think otherwise is beyond me, but I guess you still think I believe in some kind of “we have to die to fascism because fighting back in any way is morally repugnant” pacifism. I don’t and I won’t. What I am is someone who thinks violence is, and always should be, the option of last resort for a political problem—and that there will always be non-violent options available to us until they’ve all been exhausted or ruled out as effective in any way. That includes options that aren’t necessarily a “direct shot” at fascism, but try to hold together the society that fascism is trying to destroy.
Political violence is an inherently dangerous thing because it could both kill innocent people and discredit a political cause. That’s why I can’t and won’t endorse it as anything but the absolutely-nothing-else-left-but-this option. If you really think that makes me a shitty person, by all means: Call me a coward, call for my death, call me Betty (if I can call you Al)—do whatever helps you sleep at night.
Re: Re: Re:7
True, but you’ve done it frequently enough before that the mud still sticks.
Re: Re: Re:4
Not even necessarily that.
Malcom X warned people about the kind who will smile and cheer when a protest march is held somewhere else on the news, but immediately turn into part of the opposition once a protest holds up traffic for them.
It’s more likely another duplicitous white liberal – they’ll cheer causes on the internet because it’s easy. But if it ever comes down to something that involves leaving the comfort of a desk chair, they’re mysteriously absent. And if any step of the goal threatens any of the comforts they have, they’ll immediately be on the other side.
Re: Re:
When we rebuild after this nightmare, I personally hope that we don’t invite the 2 + 2 = 5 crowd to the table. They should not get a seat, or even a look at what we do to fix shit up after they wrecked it. I also personally hope that we don’t allow center-left liberalism to infect the talks & votes about how to move forward, stalling out important conversations that need to happen about how we got here and how we stop it from happening again.
Like Jamelle Bouie said, There Is No Going Back. We’re going to have to give it a fundamental rethinking. We can’t expect a return to the Constitution as it was. And good fucking riddance to it, if I may be honest.
Re:
The 2+2=5 crowd have to be allowed to exist and able to spout their lies but new extreme rules need to be placed on acceptable qualifications for many government positions. If you utter even one instance of positivity towards hitler then I hope you enjoy never working for the government in any capacity.
Re: Re:
What if a 2+2=5 person gets elected President again? The Washington Post has published that people looking for senior intelligence agency and FBI jobs are being asked questions like, “Who won the 2020 election?” and “Was January 6th an inside job?” as part of their interviews. The people who get these jobs after questions like those are invariably fellow members of the 2+2=5 crowd.
Re:
It may just be that we have to build that time and energy into those institutions, and make it sustainable. Say… through DEI offices, for instance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Correct 2 + 2 = 4 I could not agree more
Human freedom depends not just on knowing the truth but on saying it—again and again and again.
Correct 2 + 2 = 4 I could not agree more.
Historical norms must be preserved. For example for as long as there have been humans, the general consensus backed by science is that there are only two sexes and men and women are different.
Women are not men and men are not women. Men can not give birth. Men can not become women. And so on.
Am I trolling to make a point, yep. But the point stands that conventional thinking should apply to any topic regardless of the current thing.
If you are triggered by my comment, ask yourself, is your world view in line with thousands of year of conventional thinking and modern science? Or do you wish to apply your world view on humanity? Now apply your answer to the original post.
Re:
And your point is “look how much of a bigot I am”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Hilarious that just about a minute ago you were berating another poster for correctly pointing out that disinformation spewers like this one will just keep going non-stop, saying there’s absolutely nothing we can do about them.
You’ve been playing both sides this whole time haven’t you?
Re:
I don’t understand why you people want to continually die on this hill. Why does it outrage you so much? What meaningful impact does it have on your life if someone chooses to identify as a different gender? Why does it matter to you? The answers to those questions will reveal something about who you are as a person.
You talk about “thousands of years of conventional thinking and modern science” but a moment’s critical thought should reveal the tautology of that statement.
Why must “historical norms be preserved”? Arguably there are many such norms that have rightly been rejected. Slavery, for example. Segregation, religious persecution, female disenfranchisement. These were all “norms” at certain points in history. “Historical norms” are just that – a moment in history where a thought or mode of behaviour was considered “normal”. Clearly, as you see from my examples, these things are not fixed. Or are you arguing that those “historical norms” should also be preserved?
Re:
Unfortunately for you (and your “argument”) the historical data disagrees with your simplistic certainty.
For one example, the jewish Talmud, (going back about 3 millennia) recognizes the existence not only of difficult-to-classify intersex individuals, but no less than eight (8) explicitly defined genders.
Your supposedly “logical” and supposedly “intrinsically” all-inclusive, historically justified, definitive classification scheme may be strictly binary… but neither history nor nature turn out to be nearly so neat and simple.
The idea that reality absolutely must be — and can only be — shoe-horned into your over-simplistic “logical” (whether allegedly religiously or scientifically derived) scheme is quite literally delusional… The map is not the territory, and in reality nature simply does not actually conform to your absolutist prescriptive definitions.
Re: Fail. Try again.
Appeals to antiquity aren’t worth shit, they’re one of the oldest logical fallacies in the goddamned book.
Next time, try saying something smart.
I dare you.
Re:
True. Trans women are not men and trans men are not women. So glad we can agree oon that point.
Depends on the man.
See my first response for my agreement with you on this.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Why is everyone so upset
Mike: thanks for your well written pieces. They have help me to help others understand the situation(madness) we find ourselves in.
Slight problem, we don’t own the firehoses.
Re:
The people who do have names and addresses.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Sorry, You Lost
You pretended that Biden was mentally sharp and Harris was intelligent. Don’t talk about lies.
The Biden administration was corrupt to the core and hated free speech. You don’t care about democracy — only abortion, open borders, transsexuals and higher taxes.
Re:
Can you point out where Techdirt ever said that?
Can you offer any proof? Because you MAGA chuds have been claiming that over and over and over again AND NEVER COULD PROVE IT EVER. Even your own Supreme Court, which said Trump is effectively a king rejected the claim that the Biden admin was censoring people.
This is why Mike’s suggestion of flooding the zone with truth is so important. Because absolute fucking idiots like yourself spread such nonsense every fucking day.
Re:
Put it this way: If Biden had decided to defund USAID, he wouldn’t have forgotten the fact two minutes later to threaten other countries with denial of aid if they don’t help him in committing war crimes the way Trump has.
Re:
Under which administration did an agency of the federal government, per the orders of the President of the United States, remove content from its website and internal networks that contained words like “privilege” and “bias”?
Here’s a hint: Biden didn’t do that shit.
And that’s just one agency. Virtually all federal agencies are being required to ban that kind of content based on the order of a segregationist who thinks the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion are bad ideas. And there’s also the pressure he and his followers, both in and outside of the government, have been doing to force private organizations into deleting that kind of content/giving up on those principles.
Biden wasn’t a “free speech champion”, but he wasn’t trying to make corporations shut up about their DEI efforts. There’s only one president that’s been doing that. You know who it is, so say his fucking name and tell the truth.
An oxymoron
Orwell called it doublethink in 1948, but these days he’d call it donaldthink – simultaneously talking out of the intake and exhaust of his digestive system
Re:
Trump and Musk have been huffing each others asses. It’s called Doublestink.