Marçal: factoids on the networks follow economic theory – 09/28/2024 – Power

“The most powerful way to get in is to be criticized, [criando] a controversy, a destruction”, explained Pablo Marçal (PRTB) during an interview with the channel Primo Rico, on the 19th, about his strategy to reach what he calls “stratospheric levels of collective unconscious”, that is, to become very well known .

The practice could be seen during a Flow Podcast debate, on Monday (23), from which he was expelled after violating the rules by going into conflict with his opponent Ricardo Nunes (MDB), who is seeking re-election.

Backstage, a member of his team punched Nunes’ marketer, who left his face bloodied.

The strategy publicly assumed by Marçal days after taking a chair from José Luiz Datena (PSDB) — until then the culmination of the aggressive environment he had been building since the beginning of the campaign — is based on a theory born in the economic environment transported to the digital world as an efficient profit tool.

The so-called “attention economy” considers the time spent by the user on social networks to be a limited commodity and, therefore, competed for in exchange for monetization — a term used to refer to payments made by social networks to owners of pages that produce content that generates views. in bulk.

The concept predates social networks and was created in the 1970s by psychologist and economist Herbert A. Simon, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1978. He linked the theory of scarcity that governs economic relations to human cognitive capacity.

To stay ahead amid excess stimuli, as Marçal explains, one way out is to access intense emotions, such as anger and indignation, because they capture users’ attention more and instigate engagement.

“Algorithms are made to keep people online and, as content becomes radicalized through hate and visceral reactions, people react more and continue online”, says Ana Carolina Noronha, professor of linguistics at Unesp (University São Paulo State).

The day after the TV Cultura debate, in which Marçal took the chair, the self-proclaimed ex-coach’s profile achieved twice as much engagement. He made 23 publications that generated an average of 265 thousand interactions each. In the previous three months, the average had been 133 thousand.

A survey by the Instituto Democracia em Xeque and the Observatório de Conflitos na Internet also identified that 49 accounts with Marçal’s name on TikTok had 14.1 million views and more than 4.8 million followers during nine days, at the beginning of September.

The most viewed videos show Marçal saying that “it must be really bad being the daughter of [Guilherme] Boulos, a person who changes his character with each election”, and accusing the journalist of lying about him in an interview with the program Roda Viva. In all the cuts, Marçal appears as the confrontationist.

An excerpt from the survey details that many videos try to build the image of Marçal as someone persecuted for standing up to the “system”. The contents are used to reinforce the antagonism between him and his opponents, “as well as to ridicule journalists”.

“Everything is guided by this mission of publishing on a large scale to generate revenue, mainly from awards, direct monetization on the platform and also from the sale of products”, says Tatiana Dourado, doctor in communication and author of the study.

According to Ana Regina Rego, professor at the Federal University of Piauí and coordinator of the National Network to Combat Disinformation, Marçal’s method is effective because it enhances emotions that already naturally gain stronger colors on social networks.

“In the process of platforming life, everyone competes with everyone else as a content producer. This has to do with action strategies to direct algorithms and sell products, values ​​and beliefs”, he states. The consequence, she says, is more polarization and disagreement for political reasons.

The expert defends regulation that covers the transparency of platforms in relation to the functioning of algorithms and their responsibility, together with producers, for hateful and disinformation content recommended to users. “It is a practice that is harmful to democracy and undermines the construction of a communicative process so that voters can choose the candidate from a fairer point of view”, he says.