The Dream, the Algorithm, and the Shadow of Propaganda
The Monday Blueprint 1.13.25: Essays I've read and last week's market report
The Instagram account usa.mom.in.germany bothers me. Highly. Especially this reel:
The American Dream is a cultural cornerstone of U.S. identity, embodying hope, opportunity, and upward mobility. The American Dream promises that anyone can achieve success and upward mobility through hard work and determination.
USA Mom in Germany dismantles this notion, labeling the American Dream as a "myth" and implying the dream functions to sustain systemic inequality. She emphasizes the stark realities faced by the working poor, such as poor health, limited life expectancy, and insufficient resources for basic needs.
USA Mom in Germany states that,
Many US Americans belong to what sociologists called the working poor. They have not enough money to pay for health insurance, their health is poor, and their life expectancy is clearly limited because of the cheap and unhealthy food they eat […] Americans are offered access to luxury items that are small and relatively meaningless as concessions for their poor living and working conditions.
[…] they have the trappings of affluence, mobile phones, cars, or flat-screen TVs.
Americans are offered access to luxury items that are small and relatively meaningless as concessions for their poor living and working conditions.
Thinking about my own personal situation having just had ankle surgery that has cost me near $3000 out of pocket—at least I have not had to pay for this procedure up front and that I was billed post-surgery. We will, of course, chip away at that bill, but in comparison to my teeth: out of pocket and up front roughly five grand is needed. And that’s with insurance. I guess getting my teeth fixed is maybe a good use of a credit card? Except the average credit card interest rate is expected to be around 19.8% by the end of the year.
USA Mom in Germany says, “Pretending like the American Dream exists functions to keep things the way that the are.” By encouraging people to "pretend" that the American Dream is achievable, society sustains its current economic and social structures. The belief in the Dream serves as a pacifier, offering hope and aspiration while discouraging dissatisfaction with the status quo. It shifts the focus away from systemic change and places it squarely on individual perseverance, diverting attention from the structural issues that perpetuate inequality, such as wage stagnation, limited access to education, and inadequate healthcare.
My teeth, my problem, absolving larger systems of accountability.
Who cares that I pay into dental insurance? Success or failure is not dependent upon the Delta Dental plan I pay into monthly, but healthy teeth and gums are soley a matter of my own personal effort.
So I either make more money to repair my teeth or I go into high-interest rate debt to repair my teeth because the system is structured to limit my opptions. This perspective justifies vast disparities by portraying wealth as a natural outcome of individual merit. For instance, a wealthy entrepreneur is celebrated as the embodiment of the Dream, while a struggling worker is viewed as someone who failed to seize their opportunities. These narratives obscure the systemic factors—such as generational wealth, institutional bias, or economic policies. By focusing on individual success stories, society perpetuates the idea that the Dream is accessible to all, even when the vast majority of people face insurmountable obstacles.
Nevermind though. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, am I right?
USA Mom in Germany’s critique, her hyperbole oversimplifies, of course.
The phrase pull yourself up by your bootstraps, by the way, originated as sarcasm. In the late 19th century, a physics textbook posed the question, “Why can’t a man lift himself by pulling up on his bootstraps?” It was a rhetorical device to illustrate impossibility. Over time, the phrase evolved to signify grit and determination. That shift—from ironic impossibility to a celebrated ethos—captures both the allure and the flaws of the American Dream. We’ve turned an absurdity into an expectation.
Those who achieve the Dream rely on unseen support networks, generational wealth, or systemic advantages. I believe in the potential of the American Dream, but its narrative requires balance.
And I don’t think USA Mom in Germany presents a balanced argument for the American Dream—which is fine, she can say what she wants, believe what she wants, free speech and all.
What highly bothers me about the video is that her posts sow doubt about the Dream, aligning with broader efforts to critique—or weaken—American cultural narratives, and her posts are directed at an American audience for sure. Could we say USA Mom in Germany is proper propaganda?
And, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you are aware that the United States is on the verge of implementing a nationwide ban on TikTok, and the ban is set to take effect on January 19, 2025, unless ByteDance divests its U.S. operations.
The U.S. government has been remarkably cagey about what specific security risks TikTok poses. Lawmakers insist that TikTok is a grave national security threat but often fall back on classified evidence when pressed for specifics. As John Oliver points out, claims like "trust us, it’s super scary" only hold weight when the people making them have earned trust, which is not a descriptor many would ascribe to Congress. This lack of transparency leaves the public to navigate a nebulous fear, as even TikTok itself does not know the exact details behind the accusations. Significant portions of the government’s affidavits are redacted, and the information remains hidden not only from the public but also from ByteDance.
TikTok’s data collection practices, while invasive, are not unique among social media platforms. The app’s algorithm tracks user behavior in meticulous detail—what videos are skipped, which ones are watched repeatedly, and for how long. It also collects device information, location, IP addresses, search history, and even biometric data like face and voice prints. But, as Oliver highlights, this behavior is par for the course in Silicon Valley. TikTok doesn’t appear to collect any more data than platforms like Meta (parent company of Facebook and Instagram) or Google. These companies track users across the internet, even when they’re not actively using their apps, and use similar tools to gather and monetize user data on a much larger scale.
USA Mom in Germany’s s role as a cultural intermediary raises interesting questions about the power of narrative and intent. By presenting this textbook’s analysis of the American Dream, she frames the conversation in a way that juxtaposes Germany’s perceived strengths with America’s shortcomings. It’s hard not to wonder if USA Mom in Germany’s goal is to challenge the U.S. to evolve by dismantling deeply ingrained ideologies—or if, perhaps unintentionally, she is perpetuating a narrative that aligns with subtle German propaganda.
Whether intentional or not, USA Mom in Germany’s approach could be seen as advocating for one ideology over another, a hallmark of propaganda dressed in critique.
But I did not find USA Mom in Germany on TikTok, instead her content first appeared to me via Instagram, a Facebook Meta product.
Whenever I’m on TikTok, if I want political content, I must actively search for that political commentary.
TikTok serves me videos like these:
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
And videos like that is why I continue to return to TikTok. Which is probably also why the TikTok algorithm has such a difficult time showing me poltical content.
The Meta algorithm, however, eagerly serves me not only USA Mom in Germany, but also videos on how wealth trickles up, not down and videos on how Americans refuse
to accept good solutions over blaming poverty on, well, poverty.
Or, on Facebook itself I get weird things in my feed that I have absolutely no care about in the world.
I mean, notice the blue Follow link in the upper left hand corner of the post. I never even knew the Futurism page existed, nor do I even care. When I’m on Facebook, I want to see what my friends and family are up to, not be pushed ads. I mean, it makes sense, this post pushed into my Facebook feed as I used to teach Futurism in a class called Society and Technological Change. Long live Filippo Tommaso Marinetti.
But if I want to actually see what my friends and family are up to on Facebook, I have to visit their individual Facebook profile pages. The app takes concerted effort and work now because Meta is more interested in making a buck than they are getting back to thier roots, despite the recent Zuckerberg fact-checking announcement.
I think, by the way, that watch he’s wearing, is worth like $900,000.
It’s interesting to me that YouTube and Facebook both rolled out short-form video apps: the YouTube shorts and the Instagram Reels, and the very product they are competting against will be banned across the entire United States in six days.
TikTok, by the way, is the fastest growing social media app in the world, and has accomplished in just over 4 years what it took Facebook and Instagram to do in 10 years.
Hey, Zuck, I guess banning TikTok is just the right amount of censorship? Of course, tech companies pushing for a TikTok ban is purely conjecture and conspiracy theory on my part.
IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER
Essays I’ve Read
Lyz Lenz’s upshot is that Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to shut down Meta’s fact-checking department is framed as a reckless capitulation to political pressures, particularly from Republican lawmakers and right-wing misinformation campaigns. The piece critiques Zuckerberg's justification of promoting "free expression" as a cynical move that prioritizes profit and political appeasement over the societal harm caused by misinformation and hate speech.
Lenz highlights the potential real-world consequences of Meta’s decision, including increased violence, division, and the spread of harmful falsehoods, drawing on past examples of Facebook’s role in such incidents. She ultimately argues that Zuckerberg prioritizes personal wealth and influence over accountability, effectively abandoning any pretense of ethical responsibility for the platform’s impact on democracy and public safety.
Her essay rather reminded me of my own piece This Pizza is Bullshit, which was a response to Kayla Scanlon’s The Year Narrative Ate Reality.
To be clear, Zuckerberg isn’t ditching fact-checking. Instead of outsourcing to third-party organizations, he’s turning to the Facebook community for crowdsourced moderation. The move aligns with Meta’s desire to cut costs (why pay third parties when users will do it for free?) while appearing to champion free expression.
This move is not inherently evil, but it’s deeply cynical—less like Wikipedia and more like free labor dressed up as democracy.
Anne Hellen Petersen’s interview with Dana Miranda, author of the new book You Don’t Need a Budget, argues that we need to rethink budgeting as a tool for control over individual finances and instead focus on collective action to address the systemic inequalities driving financial instability. Budgeting, while helpful for some, shouldn’t become a moral yardstick or a substitute for demanding systemic change. The essay ultimately calls for a broader shift away from “bootstrap” financial narratives toward advocating for policies that make financial stability accessible to all. If you’re a Realtor or a Financial Advisor, you may not like this essay as it will give you the heebie-jeebies. You can also check out The Money With Katie Show’s interview with Miranda, but be prepared for a long diatribe on lip gloss.
Lincoln Michel’s essay, Art in the Age of Slop, is a rallying cry against the rise of formulaic, trend-chasing, algorithm-driven “slop” in creative industries, particularly literature. Michel critiques the increasing commodification of art, exemplified by Romantasy novels designed to cater to social media trends and publishing algorithms, where originality is sacrificed for marketability.
The essay rather reminded me Clement Greenberg’s 1939 essay Avant-Garde and Kitsch. For Greenberg, kitsch represents the mass-produced, formulaic art of the industrial age, appealing to base tastes and offering easy gratification without intellectual or emotional depth. It thrives on imitation and kitschy sentimentality. Slop is the 21st-century equivalent of kitsch—algorithmically driven, trend-chasing, and devoid of originality. Like kitsch, slop is designed to satisfy consumer expectations rather than challenge or elevate.
Michel urges writers to resist the allure of writing slop, even if the odds of financial success are daunting. He acknowledges the challenges of pursuing originality but maintains there is intrinsic value in creating work with care, intention, and personal authenticity. True art, Michel argues, is worth striving for—not just for its creators but for the dwindling audience that still values it.
Written in 1968 and later featured in her 1969 anthology Slouching Toward Bethlehem, The Santa Anas by Joan Didion seems apropos. The current fires feel like an eerie continuation of Didion’s themes—a literal and metaphorical burning of California mythos.
Didion’s ending doesn’t just reflect a personal or psychological truth; her writing points to an existential truth—that the earth itself is fragile. And our ability to thrive depends on our respect for that fragility. Didion challenges us to hold both truths in our minds: the earth’s immense beauty and its terrifying power, its capacity to sustain us and its indifference to our existence. It’s a call to humility, awe, and perhaps fear.
LAST WEEK IN THE STOCK MARKET:
Will Fannie Mae Privatization Shake Up the Housing Market?
Last week, the U.S. markets hit a bit of a rough patch. The S&P 500 fell 1.54%, the Dow Jones dropped 1.63%, and the Nasdaq matched that with a 1.63% decline. Meanwhile, the Russell 2000 saw the sharpest drop, losing 2.22%. The downward momentum came as bond yields climbed to their highest levels since late 2023, driven by a stronger-than-expected December jobs report. The labor market added a robust 256,000 jobs, pushing unemployment down to 4.1%, but this strength raised concerns about the Federal Reserve holding rates steady—or even hiking them—if inflation doesn’t cool further. Tech stocks, which had been the market’s bright spot at the start of the year, continued to face recalibrations. On the other hand, commodities like crude oil and gold gained ground, with crude jumping 3.58% and gold edging up 0.99%, as investors sought safer assets amidst the uncertainty. All in all, the markets continue to kick off 2025 with a dose of volatility as investors weighed strong labor data against inflation and Fed policy concerns.
Big Themes to Watch:
Jobs Data Adds Complexity
The December jobs report came in hot, with 256,000 new positions added, blowing past expectations of 165,000. While this strength signals a healthy economy, it’s complicating the Fed’s inflation fight. Sticky inflation metrics—like core inflation holding at 3.3%—are keeping rate cuts off the table for now. Investors are keeping a close eye on upcoming inflation data, as it could dictate the Fed’s next moves.Tech Stocks Face Turbulence
Profit-taking, that is investors selling stocks, bonds, or other assets that have increased in value to lock in gains and realize a profit, continue weighing on big names like Tesla and Nvidia. Tesla, which soared earlier in the year, is now seeing sharper corrections. The broader tech sector remains vulnerable. Analysts, however, still see potential in AI-driven growth with expectations of a recovery later in the year.Commodities Surge as Safe Havens
While equities struggled, commodities like crude oil and gold were the stars of the week, reflecting a pivot to inflation hedges as market uncertainty mounted. The rally in commodities signals growing investor caution, with many seeking safer assets amidst concerns about rising borrowing costs and slowing global growth. These moves highlight a broader shift in sentiment as investors brace for an unpredictable year ahead.
Looking Ahead
Speculation is heating up around the potential privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the Trump administration. These two giants guarantee 70% of U.S. home mortgages, and any move to privatize them could shake up the housing market. Right now, they’re still under government control, but hedge fund investors are buzzing about what could happen if the government reduces its stake or lets them go public. If that happens, mortgage rates could climb, making homeownership more expensive for the average American.
And all eyes are on the Federal Reserve’s first meeting of 2025 at the end of January. Rate cuts seem to be completely off the table right now, and some analysts are talking about possible rate hikes later this year. Rising rates could push borrowing costs even higher, which doesn’t exactly help with affordability in a real estate market already strained by two-decade-high mortgage rates hovering near 7%.
Economists are cautiously optimistic about the labor market cooling off slowly, which could help bring inflation under control. But let’s not get too comfortable—if job growth stays unexpectedly strong or inflation refuses to budge, it could throw off the Fed’s balancing act.
The housing market itself could face a double whammy. On one hand, privatizing Fannie and Freddie could remove some of the government’s safety net, potentially driving up costs for banks and, ultimately, homebuyers. On the other hand, if bond yields keep climbing—as they have in recent weeks—mortgage rates will follow suit.