#mediacritique

A Practical Proposal for Restoring Signal Integrity on the Open Internet

THE SHEILD Introduction: There was a time when the internet felt like discovery.

You didn’t scroll — you found. You didn’t consume — you explored. The network wasn’t perfect, but it had a defining quality: signal was earned. You had to go looking for it, and when you found it, it meant something.

That environment no longer exists.

Today’s internet is not constrained by lack of information, but by overexposure to low-quality, manipulative, or irrelevant content. The dominant systems that govern distribution — algorithmic feeds, recommendation engines, engagement loops — are not designed to maximise value, truth, or relevance. They are designed to maximise time, reaction, and monetisation.

The result is a form of cognitive exhaustion:

Endless fake or distorted narratives

Marketing disguised as authenticity

Coordinated influence patterns

Ragebait, urgency loops, and emotional manipulation

This creates what can be described as moron fatigue — not as an insult, but as a structural condition. The system ensures constant exposure to the lowest common denominator because it performs best under current incentives.

Attempts to fix this have largely failed.

Centralised moderation leads to censorship concerns and political bias

Walled gardens create isolation and fragmentation

New platforms simply repeat the same incentive structures

What’s missing is not a better platform.

What’s missing is control at the point of intake.

Introducing THE SHEILD THE SHEILD is a conceptual product — a user-controlled, cross-platform filtering layer designed to restore signal integrity without breaking the open nature of the internet.

It does not replace platforms. It does not block the internet. It does not isolate the user.

Instead, it acts as a selective filter between the user and the network, allowing connection to remain intact while dramatically reducing exposure to manipulation, noise, and low-value content.

At its core, THE SHEILD is based on a simple premise:

The problem is not what exists on the internet. The problem is what is forced into your field of view.

Design Principles THE SHEILD is built around five core principles:

User Sovereignty The user controls what they see, not the platform.

Filtering logic, trust networks, and preferences are owned and portable — not locked inside a service.

Selective Permeability The goal is not isolation, but controlled exposure.

Users can still access anything — but nothing is artificially prioritised or forced upon them.

Transparency Over Censorship Content is not removed. It is contextualised.

Manipulation, origin, and spread patterns are made visible rather than hidden.

Network Retention The system must preserve connection between users.

A shield that isolates is not a solution — it simply creates a quieter prison.

Incentive Resistance THE SHEILD is designed to degrade the effectiveness of engagement-driven manipulation.

If ragebait and propaganda lose reach, they lose value.

Core Components of THE SHEILD

Personal Signal Firewall At the heart of THE SHEILD is a local filtering system — a Personal Signal Firewall.

This operates at the user level (browser, proxy, or OS layer) and evaluates incoming content in real time.

Rather than blocking content outright, it:

Deprioritises low-signal material

Flags manipulation patterns

Greys out or delays suspicious content

Highlights high-trust sources

This preserves access while reshaping attention.

Trust Graphs Instead of relying on platform-defined authority, THE SHEILD introduces user-defined trust networks.

Users build their own trust graphs based on:

Direct endorsements

Consistent engagement

Observed reliability

Content is prioritised based on proximity to trusted nodes.

This creates a decentralised reputation layer, replacing platform verification with actual human signal.

Content Provenance Layer Every piece of content is accompanied by a contextual overlay:

Original source (where it first appeared)

Edit or mutation history

Spread dynamics (organic vs coordinated)

Indicators of automation or manipulation

This does not prevent misinformation — it makes it obvious.

Friction Layer Modern systems optimise for speed. THE SHEILD introduces intentional friction.

Examples include:

Delayed surfacing of viral content

Cooldown timers for emotionally charged material

Rate limiting on repeated narratives

This disrupts manipulation cycles without preventing discussion.

Shared Shield Profiles To avoid isolation, users can share and adopt filtering configurations:

“No marketing noise”

“High-trust tech sources”

“Minimal political exposure”

“Weird signal only”

These profiles are:

Portable

Forkable

Customisable

Think of them as open-source attention filters.

Cross-Platform Overlay THE SHEILD does not require a new platform.

It operates as an overlay across:

Social media

News sites

Video platforms

Forums

A single filtering layer governs all inputs.

This is critical. Any solution that requires migration becomes another silo.

Signal Pools To maintain connection, THE SHEILD introduces Signal Pools — shared, filtered spaces where users converge.

Pools are:

Topic-based

Trust-weighted

Noise-reduced

They allow discovery without algorithmic distortion.

Instead of being alone in a filtered box, users participate in curated commons.

Why Existing Systems Fail Most current approaches fall into one of three traps:

Centralisation Platforms attempt to “fix” content through moderation or algorithm tuning. Result: bias, opacity, and loss of trust.

Isolation Users retreat into private groups or closed ecosystems. Result: fragmentation and echo chambers.

Reinvention New platforms emerge promising better systems. Result: eventual convergence on the same engagement-driven models.

THE SHEILD avoids all three by operating:

Locally

Transparently

Across existing infrastructure

Technical Feasibility (Reality Check) This is not speculative.

A functional version of THE SHEILD could be built today using:

Browser extensions for UI and filtering

Local proxy layers for traffic inspection

RSS and feed aggregation for controlled input

Heuristic scoring systems (rule-based or ML-assisted)

Portable configuration files (JSON/YAML profiles)

More advanced layers (provenance tracking, network graphs) can evolve incrementally.

The system does not require permission from platforms — it operates independently of them.

Economic Implications If widely adopted, THE SHEILD would:

Reduce the effectiveness of targeted advertising

Disrupt engagement-based revenue models

Devalue manipulation tactics

This makes resistance inevitable.

However, because THE SHEILD operates at the user level, it cannot be easily suppressed without restricting user autonomy itself.

Cultural Impact THE SHEILD does not aim to “clean” the internet.

It aims to rebalance attention.

Potential outcomes include:

Reduced cognitive fatigue

Higher signal density

More intentional discovery

Re-emergence of niche communities

Decline of mass-manipulation tactics

In short, it restores the ability to choose what reaches you.

Path Forward: Building THE SHEILD The path is not institutional.

It is incremental, user-driven, and practical.

Phase 1 — Personal Stack Feed control (RSS, curated inputs)

Basic filtering (keywords, domains)

Local tools (scripts, extensions)

Phase 2 — Shared Profiles Publish and share filter configurations

Build small trust networks

Create early signal pools

Phase 3 — Unified Layer Develop cross-platform filtering tools

Introduce provenance overlays

Expand trust graph functionality

Phase 4 — Network Effect Grow adoption through utility, not marketing

Encourage interoperability

Maintain decentralisation

Conclusion: A Return to Intentional Connection The internet does not need to be rebuilt.

It needs to be reframed at the point of interaction.

THE SHEILD offers a direction that is:

Technically feasible

Socially scalable

Resistant to central control

It does not attempt to fix the network.

It gives individuals the tools to navigate it on their own terms.

And in doing so, it restores something that has been quietly lost:

The ability to engage with the internet by choice, rather than by design.

THE SHEILD is not a product launch. It is a direction.

A simple idea:

“Drucilla didn’t just fall off a cliff — she was pushed off the edge of representation. And I’m still mad about it.”

Let’s be clear: Drucilla Winters wasn’t just some soap character. She was the moment. A Black woman who clawed her way from troubled teen to matriarch, model, and executive — all while serving face, fashion, and fire in Genoa City. She earned her place in daytime history. And then they threw her off a cliff like she was an extra in a telenovela.

No body. No closure. Just vibes and disrespect.

Meanwhile, Neil Winters got a multi‑episode tribute when Kristoff St. John passed — and he deserved it. But it’s telling, isn’t it? Black men in daytime get legacy arcs. Black women get sudden exits and silence. Drucilla’s disappearance wasn’t just bad writing — it was a metaphor.

Lily Winters’ whole storyline — from paternity drama to prison to cancer — is a masterclass in how Black women are written to suffer, not to thrive. And Devon Hamilton’s glow‑up from foster kid to mogul? That’s what happens when you give a character space to evolve.

Drucilla’s fall is why I stopped watching. It was messy. It was loud. It was symbolic. And it reminded me that Black women’s progress in media is always conditional.

So yes, my Black History posts include Drucilla Winters. Because she earned her place. Because she was iconic. And because her fall was not just literal — it was a warning.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was framed as a story about empowerment.

A girl chosen to stand alone. To fight. To save the world.

But the more you actually follow the story, the more something quietly unsettles that idea.

Buffy wins every battle.

So why does she never seem truly happy?

There’s a deeper tension at the heart of the show—between strength and isolation, purpose and identity, power and fulfillment.

What does it really mean to be “empowered” if it doesn’t lead to peace?

The Unfunnies prioritizes shock value over substance, presenting a series of grotesque scenes in lieu of a plot or compelling protagonist. As someone who appreciates underground comics, horror films, and "extreme" literature (also known as splatterpunk), I’m open to gritty themes when they offer an interesting perspective. However, The Unfunnies falls flat in that regard.

Unlike the cream of the underground comic or horror crop—which uses disturbing content to challenge the audience—The Unfunnies frequently employs cartoonish dialogue as a jarring contrast to its dark subject matter. Characters often break the fourth wall in the style of vintage Gold Key or Archie comics, but this is juxtaposed with disturbing contexts, such as a character being arrested for possessing child pornography. While this contrast can make certain scenes unsettling, it quickly becomes apparent that this is the only brush in Millar’s palette, and it grows tiresome.

Even when a more intriguing supernatural horror storyline emerges toward the end, it remains bogged down by filler content and shock tactics. A more structured approach with developed character arcs and organic plot progression could have elevated the series into a memorable horror comic. The premise—a cartoonist’s fictional world degenerating as he becomes a serial killer—is strong and could have provided a solid foundation. But rather than exploring that concept, Millar leans on disjointed, depraved vignettes, making the series feel more like a string of tasteless sketches than a cohesive story.

Millar has stated that The Unfunnies was intended as a comic counterpart to disturbing ensemble films like Happiness or Magnolia. Unfortunately, it lacks the believable character motivations and thematic interconnectedness that make those films work. Instead of resonating as an ensemble piece or anthology, it comes off as a scattered assortment of sketches made solely to offend.

While we know that what we’re seeing is ‘not real’, it is actual people in interactions and our brain perceives it as such. I would say that maybe the majority of interactions, especially of certain kinds, that we witness are not real. We are spoonfed hours and hours of what it looks like when people

manage conflict (or not)

negotiate sex (or not)

deal with breakups (or not)

abuse others and excuse their abuse of theirs

deal with problems

etc etc etc

Even if we’re watching something that is not explicitly about any of the above, and is explicitly very much about like, humans in space, we are absorbing patterns of behavior, whether we like it or not.

AND, because our brain often takes a frequentist approach to normality, the more of X we see, the more normal it becomes, and the less we see of Y, the more unusual it is.

I can’t even count the number of times I saw two characters just have feels for each other, start making out and end up sleeping together on screen, with little to no communication. But I can’t really recall instances when they kind of start making out, and one of them is uncomfortable and doesn’t want to really proceed to sex and then there is a discussion—the normal is that you start making out and things progress and it’s is baked into our minds because we’ve seen it so many times. 

We see characters acting or saying things that IRL would cause them to lose friends or jobs and while we know it’s just the show, we are not immune to the effects of watching it all.

Among the many top lists published by media outlets, you’ve probably heard TIME’s lists mentioned repeatedly. The only reason I paid attention to this fall’s edition was seeing Jack Quaid’s name among the future faces.

This year, Jack Quaid was selected as one of the future figures in the TIME100 Next 2025 list. That means Jack has established himself as an independent actor with charisma, high emotional intelligence, and a strong collaborative spirit. In TIME’s write-up, Jack is described as someone who has walked the path of fame with heart, known for his humane choices, humility, and professional kindness.

The list in question is published annually and features 100 emerging and influential figures shaping today and tomorrow’s world. It doesn’t necessarily include people who are already widely famous. It includes individuals from various fields who show signs of influence, innovation, or leadership potential in the future. The goal of this list isn’t just to showcase successful people—it aims to predict who will play key roles in shaping the world in the years ahead.

These lists have faced criticism at times, though not necessarily for the concept itself, but for the inclusion of certain figures deemed controversial or contradictory by critics. For example, Erika Kirk, wife of political activist Charlie Kirk, was included this year and faced backlash. Critics argue Erika holds extreme views that clash with public values, and her inclusion was seen as a political endorsement. In the TIME100 Climate edition, some executives from major oil and industrial companies were featured, sparking reactions from environmental activists who accused the list of hypocrisy and superficial commitment to climate issues.

Lack of transparency in selection criteria, mixing cultural and political figures, and the tension between fame and real impact are among the common criticisms. TIME’s main list focuses on established, famous individuals, while the Next list highlights those still growing but showing signs of global influence.

TIME publishes several lists each year, with seven main ones: In spring, the 100 most influential and established figures; In fall, the 100 emerging future-shapers; In late fall or winter, leaders and environmental activists; In December, a person or group with the year’s greatest impact; In March, outstanding women across fields; In November, top innovations of the year; And at an unspecified time, influential figures in health and medicine.

TIME officially presents itself as neutral, but over time, some media analysts and critics believe the magazine leans toward liberal or progressive ideologies in the U.S.—especially in its choice of figures, coverage of social issues, and focus on racial justice, climate change, and women’s rights. In the TIME100 and TIME100 Next lists, many cultural, scientific, and social figures with progressive views are featured. In recent years, there’s been extensive coverage of topics like climate change, social justice, and minority rights. Still, TIME occasionally includes conservative or right-leaning figures and is generally seen as a socially and culturally liberal-leaning outlet.

Personally, my issue with these lists is how they fuel competitive culture in American society. They don’t necessarily encourage responsibility or creativity—instead, they can push people to seek fame and attention through performative means. These lists may appear to celebrate talent, but underneath, they reinforce competitive norms and measure value through visibility. In this dynamic, creativity becomes a tool for entering lists rather than a response to genuine need or experience, and people may shift from honest living to crafting marketable personas.

Such lists can heighten social anxiety and create feelings of being left behind, unseen, or inadequate compared to those featured. These criticisms aren’t always voiced directly, but whispers of them exist in media and analytical spaces. Some social psychology critics believe these lists can increase anxiety around invisibility and symbolic deception—where people reshape their identities to fit into these lists. On Twitter and in informal critiques, users sometimes say: these lists feel more like popularity contests than real evaluations of impact. Yet, there’s no comprehensive critique that deeply explores the psychological and social effects of these lists—only scattered, brief mentions.

Summary The TIME100 Next list was first published in 2019 as a complement to the main list. Many figures introduced in 2019 were expected to shape the future, but gradually faded from the spotlight—some by choice, others by circumstance. We still see names that linger, but each year, many fade away and are essentially forgotten. From the 2024 list, Sabrina Carpenter arguably rose to fame the fastest. Last year, she was one of the three cover stars.