The Narrative Factory

In November 2025, the TBIJ published a story documenting how a man in Sri Lanka made $300k by producing anti-immigration content for UK Facebook users. He wasn’t British, and he seemingly wasn’t ideological. He was simply fluent in the economics of attention. AI tools, Facebook pages, emotional triggers — stitched together into a profitable operation.

It’s an example that feels small on the surface, but it points at something much bigger: narrative has become an industrial product.

The stories we think in
The “self” feels solid, but I’ve come to think of it more like an internal narrator — stitching perception, memory and prediction into something coherent enough to live inside. Consciousness often feels like reading that story as it writes itself.

Once you see it that way, narrative stops being entertainment.
It becomes the architecture we use to make sense of the world.

Culture as shared code
Genes are the hardcoded layer.
Memes — the Dawkins kind, not the JPEG kind — are the soft weights floating between minds.

Culture becomes a distributed prediction system running on millions of brains at once. Not centralised, or coordinated, but emergent — shaped by repeated behaviour and emotional reinforcement.

Cultural change is simply what happens when a large enough number of brains update their internal stories. Sometimes gradually. Sometimes abruptly when the old stories stop matching reality.

We feel like we’re actively participating and choosing our beliefs. I suspect that most of the time, we’re inheriting them.

Where the factory externalises itself
If culture is the software running across millions of minds, platforms are the hardware. They don’t just transmit stories — they optimise them for scale. A narrative factory running nonstop, optimised for engagement and ad revenue rather than truth or insight.

It’s no surprise that people learn to exploit this factory.
What’s surprising is that more people aren’t doing it.

It reinforces a belief I’ve had for years: the advertising stacks built by the likes of Google and Meta might be one of the most socially net-negative inventions that humans have created. Not because advertising itself is inherently harmful, but because these ecosystems sit on top of total opacity, monopoly leverage and incentives that reward emotional manipulation at scale.

They didn’t invent the narrative factory. They industrialised it; creating the assembly line of emotion.

Consciousness isn’t immune to its environment
Working closely with AI has made me reflect more on how humans think and how easily that process is to nudge. Large language models generate narrative in the same basic rhythm our brains do: prediction layered on prediction.

When the information we consume is shaped by machinery tuned for provocation, it rewires the inner narrator. New instincts. New fears. New certainties.

Shift the internal story, and behaviour follows.
Shift enough behaviour, and culture follows.

Technology without shiny object syndrome
This is why I’m careful with how I think about technology. I still believe in technology for good — I wouldn’t work in this industry otherwise — but the platforms shaping our informational diets are increasingly misaligned with anything beneficial.

Grouping “big tech” together is often unhelpful. Hyperscale cloud and enterprise SaaS share almost nothing with the behavioural extraction of ad-funded platforms. One is infrastructure, with legitimate concerns around sustainability and monopolisation. The other demonstrates psychological leverage.

Not everything built by big tech is the same flavour of harmful, but the parts that monetise attention are doing measurable, systemic damage.

Why this matters now
Part of the reason I’m thinking about all this is personal. Social media has changed radically in the last decade. I stopped using Instagram and Facebook in 2020 due to the overwhelming volume of sponsored content, and time wasting techniques being woven into to keep me engaged at any cost. I played around with TikTok shortly after the Musical.ly merger, and removed that from my devices as soon as possible. I still use Reddit and X, which isn’t exactly a badge of honour, but even there the drift toward provocation and emotional baiting is obvious.

At the same time, political conversations with friends and family feel more intense, more emotional, more narrative-driven — and less grounded in shared reality.

We’re living inside a narrative factory, and the production line doesn’t stop.

The open question
The problem isn’t that bad actors exist, or that AI can generate infinite content, or that platforms incentivise emotion.

The scary part is how seamlessly all of this plugs into the way human consciousness already works.

If our minds run on stories, and our culture is shaped by shared stories, then the systems that control story production hold enormous influence over the future.

So the real question becomes:
How do we stay conscious in a world constantly trying to rewrite the story inside our own heads?

I don’t think anyone has the answer yet.
However, noticing the factory at work is the first act of resistance.
Refusing to let it write your story is the second.

The Collective ‘Second Brain’

As we approach ChatGPT’s second birthday, it’s astonishing to see how quickly our interactions with emerging technologies are reshaping what we consider possible, and also how we as a society value the data we all collectively create.

We started with the “second brain”—our personal files, notes, digitised paper trails, all tidily organised to relieve our overtaxed minds. A handy way to keep track of ideas, but ultimately an individual’s siloed knowledge base. Now with the rise of large language models (LLMs) we are seeing the start of something bigger: a shared “digital twin” of text, a collective second brain with a natural language interface. Text is searchable, easy to store, rich in meaning, and now there is a front end for turning our accumulated words into a living, responsive knowledge pool.

As we engage with it, we’re shaping a digital version of our world that parallels, learns from, and increasingly resembles our physical reality. This view underscores that what we’re building isn’t just another tool, but a dynamic mirror of human consciousness, reflecting back not only our knowledge but our values, biases, and quirks. As we contribute to this digital twin, our collective knowledge transforms from mere data into something with deeper cultural and societal weight, an asset we’re barely beginning to understand.

Whilst this evolution makes it easier to access the collective input of our written thoughts, experiences, and knowledge, it’s not flawless. Our challenge now is to shape this digital twin thoughtfully, managing bias and accuracy while making it available to everyone. It’s not just a shift in technology; it’s a fundamental change in how we collectively remember, think, and communicate. We’re shaping the way future generations will understand our thoughts, ideas, and culture – our legacy.

Diluting atmosphere

I have been thinking about this for a while, but after Jurgen Klopp made comments post game about the Anfield crowd, I was inspired to write this down. “I was not overly happy with the atmosphere behind me. I wondered what they wanted. We need Anfield on Saturday. We need Anfield on their toes without me being in an argument with their coach or whatever. If you’re not in the right shape, give your ticket to someone else.”

Have you ever been to a live event where the crowd was so in tune that you felt like you were part of something bigger than yourself? Where the history, culture and atmosphere of the venue and the performers combined to create a unique and unforgettable experience.

Live events are not just about watching or listening to something. They are about participating, interacting, engaging, and co-creating. They are about being more than a spectator, but a contributor.

Some people go to live events for the wrong reasons. They go because they want to be seen. They go because they are sold on the atmosphere, but they don’t realise their role in creating it. They go because they want to be spectators, not contributors. They go because they want to consume, not create.

I can’t help but think back to watching Liverpool’s historic win against Barcelona. I was stood next to my Dad, but that night more than many others, we were a part of Anfield. The crowd reacts to every moment: every goal, every save, every tackle, every foul, every corner, every free kick, every substitution, every injury, every whistle, every minute, every second. The crowd is not just watching the match, they are living it. They are influencing it. Football is not a reality TV show packaged by Sky Sports, but a living, breathing experience that you are part of.

The same can happen with music. I remember going to Grime events in the early/mid 2010’s when it was losing popularity and in small pockets really starting to go back to its authentic roots. The crowds were smaller than they used to be, but fully engaged and part of what makes the music unique. However, I’ve seen the same music when the crowds get bigger, more diluted, and the people don’t play their part. What if the crowd is there because they heard Grime is cool, or because they got free tickets, or because they have nothing better to do? What if the crowd is passive, detached, or disruptive? What if the crowd is killing the vibe, or more likely not creating it?

I am not here to gate keep. However when these events and experiences are at their best, there is nothing comparable. You are a contributor, part of a community or a movement. Go for the culture and the atmosphere, but play your part.

“No such thing as a dumb question”

I actually began writing this in August 2019, but obviously got distracted… until I read this Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/trust-in-scientists-grows-as-fake-coronavirus-news-rises-uk-poll-finds, suggesting that public trust in the work of scientists and health experts has grown during the coronavirus pandemic, amid a surge in misinformation about the virus.

In a world of DeepFakes and #FakeNews, and especially during our battle with COVID19, it is more important than ever for us to critically think and be sceptical of the information shared in the world around us.

Last year, I read Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, which expertly predicted today’s world where fake news stories and Internet conspiracy run riot. In this book, Carl Sagan ‘aims to explain the scientific method to laypeople, and to encourage people to learn critical and skeptical thinking. He explains methods to help distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science and those that can be considered pseudoscience. Sagan states that when new ideas are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of skeptical thinking and should stand up to rigorous questioning’.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World>

Sagan describes how there are “naïve questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question.” A cliché often used in corporate meeting rooms, but a phrase we could do better to act on more often.

I also love Carl Sagan’s view on how “bright, curious children are a national and world resource”. There is something amazing about the way children investigate and discover the world they find themselves in, and something which tends to be lost as we age. There is a brilliant Sagan quote, and one of my favourite from the book, that he might not “…know the answer. Maybe no one knows. Maybe when you grow up, you’ll be the first person to find out”.

Sagan suggests children “need to be cared for, cherished, and encouraged; but mere encouragement isn’t enough. We must also give them the essential tools to think with.” I think this is a critical skill to learn at a young age, but also crucially, one not to abandon as you grow older.

With the situation we all find ourselves in, I hope that this drives a real cultural change around trust in science and data based decision making, but also that we all begin to question and critically analyse the information we are provided with more scrutiny.