An AI-generated representation of a hive-mind and digital confusion. Photo: Francisco Ameliach.
Editorial note: The author wrote this piece after the confusion created by Donald Trump’s statements about the Venezuelan electoral system. In these statements, Trump cited a CIA report.
By Francisco Ameliach – Jul 18, 2026
Yesterday, I wrote about the content of a CIA report that Trump cited. I extracted two paragraphs that are conclusive because I read the entire report. It is not my fault that the report says what it says.
Protecting our children, loved ones, and society from selective and programmed ignorance is of vital importance. That kind of damage cannot be caused by political bias. I invite you to research the production of ignorance (“el enjambre agnotológico“) and reach your own conclusions.
Contemporary debate on digital platforms is no longer governed by the confrontation of data or argumentative logic. Today, public deliberation faces a more organic, coordinated, and destructive phenomenon: the production of ingorance that causes cognitive paralysis. This production of ignorance (or “agnotological swarm”) also segregates the digital pheromone of discredit.
This network, dedicated to the cultural production of ignorance and disinformation, has found in reputational attack its most effective weapon. When the swarm lacks solid bases to refute an idea, it activates a defamation mechanism that floods the digital ecosystem, spreading with the same speed and automaticity as a pheromone in an insect colony.
What is the digital pheromone of discredit? In biology, pheromones are chemical signals that unleash collective and instantaneous behavior. On social media, an identical process occurs, but it is not chemical—it is algorithmic and psychological.
The digital pheromone of discredit is the foundation of structured hate on the internet, operating as an automatic trigger for mass hostility. A single node activates the attack signal through an unfounded postulate, a denigrating meme, or a cancellation tag, and the rest of the accounts (bots and radicalized users) react through pure mimesis (unreasoned automatic imitation).
This emotional contagion nullifies any attempt at critical reading. The virtual environment becomes so saturated that the original content of the discussion is buried under a dense layer of noise. The digital pheromone of discredit is the foundation of hate because it does not seek to convince but to mobilize visceral rejection and to visceralize interactions.
The argumentative void and the tactical retreat
The first symptom of agnotology is the inability to sustain a valid counterargument. Faced with verifiable data or rigorous analysis, defamers experience cognitive paralysis. Unable to demolish the idea, the objective shifts immediately: the sender must be destroyed. The retreat from the terrain of ideas is tactical; they prefer to move the conflict to the mud pit of defamation against the author, where truth takes a backseat.
The first symptom of agnotology is the inability to sustain a valid counterargument. Faced with verifiable data or rigorous analysis, defamers experience cognitive paralysis. Unable to demolish the idea, the objective shifts immediately: the sender must be destroyed. The retreat from the terrain of ideas is tactical; they prefer to move the conflict to the mud pit of defamation against the author, where truth takes a backseat.
The reputational attack as an end in itself
For these organized groups, winning the debate means silencing dissent definitively. The attack on reputation seeks the social, professional, and virtual isolation of the creator. By saturating channels with false or decontextualized narratives, they ensure that any third party who tries to approach the original debate backs off out of fear of being defamed with the same hostility.
For these organized groups, winning the debate means silencing dissent definitively. The attack on reputation seeks the social, professional, and virtual isolation of the creator. By saturating channels with false or decontextualized narratives, they ensure that any third party who tries to approach the original debate backs off out of fear of being defamed with the same hostility.
The flooding of networks with personal attacks is not a sign of strength but the explicit proof of an intellectual collapse. The resort to systematic defamation is the last refuge of those who know that in the strict terrain of ideas, they have already lost the game.
Social Media Spies Exposed: Profiles Vanish After MintPress Report
Francisco Ameliach is a postdoctoral fellow in National Security and Human Rights, PhD in Methodology, master’s in history and management, specialist in electoral and political communication, military officer, PSUV member.
(X)
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/CB/SL
Cameron Baillie is an award-winning journalist, editor, and researcher. He won and was shortlisted for awards across Britain and Ireland. He is Editor-in-Chief of New Sociological Perspectives graduate journal and Commissioning Editor at The Student Intifada newsletter. He spent the first half of 2025 living, working, and writing in Ecuador. He does news translation and proofreading work with The Orinoco Tribune.
