Thursday, 13 March 2025

Harm and offense - what online content exists that may harm or offend an audience?

This is not a nice post. It comes from discussions with two separate classes on the potential harmful content that can be disseminated through digitally convergent technology, and the mechanisms that exist to allow profit and manipulation through such content. It is important to note that the outlined content is absolutely NOT related to Zoella or Attitude. However, it exists as a fantastic example of the ineffectiveness of regulatory bodies in the United Kingdom in the face of hyperconvergent media.


Example one - Gore

For example, Mexican cartel violence is often documented and distributed in order to obtain ransoms, and primarily to create fear, confusion and ambiguity in Mexico. However, this intimidating footage spreads to other countries, and is shared to obtain engagement, likes and clicks. This footage now takes the purpose of entertainment and is commodified. This easy sharing is thanks to digitally convergent technology. Viewing extreme violence normalises and desensitises audiences to extreme violence, and has been directly implicated in several recent high profile murder cases. Therefore these videos can be used to effectively radicalise audiences.  This footage, recorded in real life, for example candid street footage, footage of actual murder, dashcam footage of road accidents, and execution footage. Much of this footage is recorded to intimate and to terrorise. This footage is then shared using digitally convergent technology, and then uploaded and reuploaded in order to encourage engagement. This in turn produces desensitisation that cases real harm and offence to those not even implicated in the original context.



Online agitator Alex Jones was once famous for his rants and raves on his website and media portal Info Wars, that promoted conspiracy theories to a highly receptive audience



Example two - Conspiracy theories - an idea or theory that an alternative ideology exists in direct opposition to the official ideological perspective

Just a few examples...

  • Flat earth theory
  • Ancient aliens 
  • Vaccines cause autism 
  • The great replacement theory 
  • Area 51
  • Covid Vaccine truthers
  • Moon landing is fake
  • Covid was planted 
  • The illuminati 
  • Lizard people
  • Princess Diana was murdered
  • Birds are cameras 
  • Q-annon
  • Pizzagate
  • False flag attacks


  • Conspiracy theories are popular as they can explain the world in a simple and straightforward way. 
  • Conspiracy theories are comorbid and synergistic They have a high degree of convergence, and people who believe one of them are more likely to research more. This encourages audiences to fall down an internet rabbit hole, watching more and more, for example YouTube videos, and becoming slowly manipulated by this confusing set of ideologies and then becoming even more radicalised.. When an audience believes one, they are more likely to believe another. Audiences who are engaged with conspiracy theories are likely to watch videos for an excessive time. 

Who benefits from the proliferation of conspiracy theories, and how?


One way in which online content can be so effectively shared and monetised tis through the process of algorithmic convergence. An algorithm is a set of code and rules. The ways in which we interact with online media is collected and shared and analysed in complex ways that even the people who put these systems together do not understand. It can be used to maximise audience engagement. Yet such maximising of engagement comes at a real cost to the audience member who essentially becomes an unwitting vector within an infinitely perpetuating feedback loop of dubious ideological perspectives.