Activism & Social Media

People may reasonably ask why, if I care so much about our societal trajectory, I do not just join a party or focus on traditional political engagement here in Germany.

For me, as for many others, the current state of the world feels like a building on fire. I highly value the people who are trying to extinguish those flames, stop new fires from starting, or at least hold the blaze in place so things do not collapse today. Yet, while many are fighting the fires on the upper floors, I haven't seen nearly as many working to save the load-bearing pillars that are crumbling underneath us.

Those active fires are external problems, whereas my focus lies on the underlying human weaknesses that keep feeding them. (Detailed explanation: An [external problem] is a threat or challenge in our surroundings, such as a bad policy, an exploitative corporation, or a manipulative algorithm. An [internal weakness], by contrast, is a lack of capability or restraint in how we handle what is in front of us, such as our bias toward cognitive ease and emotional validation over truth: we tend to rate familiar, easy-to-process claims as more true [illusory truth effect] (Dechêne et al., 2010) and to favor information that confirms what we already believe [selective exposure] (Hart et al., 2009). Because external problems constantly mutate, patching them while leaving our weaknesses untouched makes it likely that new threats will keep exploiting the same vulnerabilities, whereas teaching people to recognize manipulation techniques themselves helps them spot misleading content they have never seen before [prebunking] (Roozenbeek et al., 2022; Simchon et al., 2026) (explored in the chapter [Constructive Confrontation]).) One might ask what happens if the roof caves in before the pillars are fixed, which is why we need those firefighters buying us time. Conversely, what good is having the best roof if there is nothing left worth placing it on, or if the pillars below crumble the moment we set it down?

From a broad view, this weakness could be summarized as people lacking the tools to reliably find the most suitable path toward their happiness. When we struggle to figure out what we need or avoid the uncomfortable, we easily fall back on proxy solutions and surface-level validation. Carrying unaddressed frustration and a habit of avoiding friction, we become far more likely to dodge self-reflection and shift blame onto the first target we perceive, be it accurate or not.

When enough people operate this way, our shared foundation rots, as, in my reading of history, many societal collapses begin not with bad policies but with broken feedback loops. We cannot secure longevity solely by drafting better rules if a society has severed its capacity to productively register and correct its own deterioration.

Right now, the pillars that keep that feedback loop functional, such as credibility, avoiding hypocrisy, productive confrontation and communication, clarity and precision, and self-reflective agency, are eroding, if not already gone in many places.

Because politics, much like any market, is governed by supply and demand, our political landscape largely mirrors what the electorate tolerates and rewards. So long as our feedback loops remain broken, the political market tends to reward those who supply effortless, consequence-free comfort while punishing leaders who openly admit errors or ask for necessary sacrifices.

Besides, I am fairly sure others are far more suited for electoral politics than I am, as I believe that my strengths lie in a more supporting role. More importantly, stepping into party politics before shaping that demand for the better means trying to build on a rotting foundation. My work here is meant to help restore those pillars first, and beyond that, to strengthen and refine them so they are not only as "good" as before, but appropriate for our contemporary world.

Bonus Motivation Explanation: While this book has occupied my mind almost daily for the past two years, shifting between taking notes alongside uni and work and using semester holidays or job vacations for month-long writing phases where I mainly stopped to nap or recover, my drive recently reached a level I have never experienced before. Whenever uni and work allow it, I now spend at least ten hours a day working on this.

That pace comes from feeling the pressure and responsibility to act, which has made even habits I used to love, such as reading every day, far less enjoyable right now. Comparing our current trajectory to Cyberpunk 2077 (the game), I questioned whether people today would revolt against those conditions or just carry on as usual, much like the citizens in that world, and the conclusion I came to, as you probably figured out, was jarring.

I am not in a warzone, and I do not want to equate my position to the misery people in Ukraine have to endure, yet the urgency I feel makes it seem like a war is unfolding right outside my door. Honestly, I am thankful to have my good friend by my side, because without him I feel like I would have already gone insane (the bad way).

I do not plan to run endless marathon streams. Because I value quality over quantity, regular streams are intentionally kept shorter and focused, though certain planned streams and special events may run longer.

To set fair expectations, I will almost always complete my uni work, day job, writing, or activism before going live. This means I frequently won't be at peak mental capacity during casual broadcasts, with the exception of specially announced streams and events where I plan to dedicate my full mental and physical energy.

A Training Ground, Not a Parasocial Hangout: As explored in the book regarding the economy of misery, livestreaming becomes counterproductive when it profits off loneliness or acts as a passive substitute for real-world connection. This stream is a sparring, consulting and feedback room designed to equip you with tools you can take offline.

Priority for Book Readers: People who have read the book (or parts of it) tend to have priority when joining the stream.

Open to All Kinds of Discussions & Success Stories: You do not need to arrive with a rigid debate topic or a controversial opinion. Every conversation is welcome, whether you want to share a success story about how applying these tools improved your life, give general feedback on what I do, ask for help with a personal scenario, or think through a problem together.

You Vote on Guests and Topics, I Hold the Veto: When multiple people want to join the stream or suggest topics, you can vote on what we do next, either ahead of time on Reddit or live in chat. Meanwhile, I retain a veto only if a topic or direction proves unproductive.

When joining for a personal conversation on stream, turning on a camera is appreciated for three reasons:

• Stepping into Friction: For many, speaking face-to-face on camera can be a first step out of digital comfort, closer to the eye-to-eye human dynamic of Citizens' Assemblies. (Detailed explanation: While a screen still filters out physical presence, real faces and voices [audiovisual social cues] counter much of the anonymity and invisibility that loosen restraint in text chat [online disinhibition effect] (Suler, 2004): hearing someone explain a view we disagree with makes them seem more thoughtful and human than reading the same words (Schroeder et al., 2017), and in a small online chat experiment, lacking eye contact did more than anonymity or being unseen to make exchanges hostile (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). That makes it easier to drop tribal caricatures and stay accountable.)
• Personal Preference: Simply put, I prefer seeing the kinds of people I am talking to rather than speaking into a blank screen or a disembodied voice.
• Bridging Relatability: Since I could be considered far from the norm (for now), seeing a wider variety of people on stream makes it much easier for viewers to relate to one another and may ground the conversation in a more shared reality.

On stream, there is a sharp line between Systemic/Interpersonal Dynamics (Allowed) and Partisan/Electoral Banners (Excluded):

• Why Electoral Politics is Excluded: First, there are already more than enough people producing electoral and party-politics content. Second, it is not the point of my activism. If you read the book, you can already derive what I might think on specific political questions based on the framework, so you should not need my validation.
• Stripping Out the Banners: We can talk about workplace exploitation, urban planning, education, environmental incentives, or free speech mechanics all day, but the moment someone names a political party or politician, or uses a "left/right" label as a shortcut for an argument, we pause and strip the label out so we only evaluate the underlying mechanics. (Detailed explanation: Party labels can outweigh substance: in classic experiments, people's attitudes toward a social policy depended almost entirely on the position their own party was said to hold, overriding the policy's actual content, while they denied any party influence [party cues] (Cohen, 2003). Yet when people do have substantial policy details, those details seem to sway them at least as much as party cues (Bullock, 2011). In a large survey experiment with 4,531 American partisans across 24 policy issues, party leaders' positions often moved attitudes more than persuasive messages did, yet did not make people any less receptive to those messages' arguments and evidence (Tappin et al., 2023).) Sometimes, ideologies themselves can still be examined by their mechanics; what gets stripped are party names and team labels used as shortcuts.

Philosophy over Personality (It's not about Me): Stepping onto social media will inevitably make me part of the presentation and turn my personality into a potential selling point. Even so, the content exists to serve Iterism (the philosophy, the community, and the activism) rather than centering on me.

Avoiding Distraction: Audience capture is particularly risky because it pulls focus off course. When a creator caters to personal curiosity, personality drama, or shifting audience demands, they drain energy and attention away from what I believe matters most right now.

Drawing the Line: While I strongly value transparency and practice it throughout my work, limitless personal openness on social media quickly becomes counterproductive. If I only drew a few narrow, last-resort lines and answered everything else, then declining a specific personal question would often give away at least part of the answer, if not the whole thing, simply through the refusal itself. To prevent this, I will intentionally draw wide personal boundaries, even where they might seem unnecessary.

Streaming content goes beyond troubleshooting problems to highlight real-world breakthroughs.

How It Works: Viewers are invited (on camera) to share how applying Iterism helped them improve their life or habits, navigate a confrontation, set a boundary, or update a belief. Spotlighting these experiences ought to prove that these tools benefit everyone.

Live demonstration of Converging Conversation, Socratic sparring, and mutual refinement.

How It Works: You choose the format (giving feedback, asking for help, or debating). If we debate, we always lock in our underlying premises and falsifiability before arguing conclusions.

Demonstrates how the Mindset → Strategy → Context → Method → Execution chain works on real-life problems.

How It Works: We assess which links in your approach broke (Mindset vs. Strategy vs. Context vs. Method vs. Execution) and work out customized alternatives rather than handing out generic advice.

How It Works: Seems fairly self-explanatory. You share a relevant video, and I hope to provide extra value while reacting to it, critiquing the arguments, or discussing it live with the creator on stream.

How It Works: We unpack specific chapters, discuss how their concepts connect across the book, explore new examples, and gather direct feedback.

This is part of building the website's Dialogues [Q&A] archive.

How It Works: I plan to write down the most common or standout questions from streams, videos, Reddit, and email, then add them to the archive with more thorough, thoughtful answers.

How It Works: Essentially a Reddit recap, but only if there is enough interest in it.

• Lowering the Reading Barrier: In Converging Conversation, we see that people rarely change their minds just because we hand them a massive text. A focused video or edited stream segment can convey the same underlying reasoning with less initial friction.
• Reaching Other Bubbles: Instead of waiting for people to step out of their digital comfort zones, injecting the most compelling ideas directly into their feeds can introduce a seed of doubt.
• Visualizing Metaphors and Analogies: The book is filled with visual thought experiments, and translating them into on-screen visuals can turn abstract arguments into more memorable (and attractive) moments.
• Editing Pipeline (Stream → Highlight): Only a fraction of people will sit through an unedited broadcast. Recording live conversations makes it possible to cut out the downtime and keep only the most useful highlights, examples, or discussions, which can then be turned into compact educational assets.

Open Clipper's License & Community Videos: Feel free to make your own videos or clip stream segments for Shorts, TikTok, or YouTube, as long as you preserve the relevant/necessary context and link back to iterism.com.