>>4321554

They'll just cook up 100 new personalities, load them up with whatever topic the research suggests we support, and milk the fuck out of them until we get angry enough to abandon ship. It never changes. But the cycles are getting shorter. And the personalities more desperate, cheaper, more available, and more distraught when cast aside.

What's next when this cycle implodes is probably gonna be world changing. The internet's made it easy for millions of idiots to insert themselves between content and audience in place of the handful of news outlets that used to control it. So now (((they))) try to control the most popular of those millions. And as we swat them away they get more frantic and more desperate.

One day it'll be direct. One day. And we'll probably still have shills just chimping out everywhere.

>>4321635

That would be dangerous. The entire world's corrupt media would frenzy everyone about tyrannical abuse of journalists. And they'd look correct as all the famous ones got dragged away.

Now rightfully charging all of these cunts with sedition while also pardoning Assange, turning the whole fucking industry on its head . . . that shit might just work.