THE BLACKOUT CHALLENGE AS A PARADIGMATIC METAPHOR OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Liviu Poenaru, July 5, 2025
​
​
The "blackout challenge" emerged as a dangerous online trend, primarily propagated through social media platforms, wherein individuals intentionally induce a state of asphyxiation—often by strangulation using household items like belts or scarves—with the perilous objective of experiencing a fleeting sensation of euphoria or altered consciousness. Participants frequently film these hazardous acts, disseminating them across various digital channels to achieve visibility and viral reach. This practice, disturbingly, toys with the thin line between life and death within an algorithmic theatre where visibility and virality are elevated to supreme values. The core danger is profound: multiple instances of fatalities have been directly linked to this trend.
​
In 2021, a 10-year-old girl named Nylah Anderson from Pennsylvania tragically died after attempting the challenge. Similarly, the same year saw the death of Archie Battersbee, a 12-year-old boy in the UK, whose parents found him unconscious with a ligature around his neck. More recently, in July 2025, a 12-year-old boy named Sébastien in Castleford, UK, also tragically lost his life after participating in this challenge. His family and close ones have since issued stark warnings about the pervasive dangers of such viral phenomena. These are just a few of numerous documented cases across the globe, underscoring the lethal reality behind this online phenomenon.
​
This perilous quest for filmed self-suffocation can be profoundly understood as a metaphorical expression of an asphyxiating relationship with social media itself. Digital platforms, through their inherent design and pervasive influence, often stifle individual expression and genuine individuation by imposing homogenizing behavioral and aesthetic norms. Attention, the vital currency of the digital realm, becomes captured, compressed, and intensely exploited to the point of becoming a scarce commodity—a metaphorical "air" that is bought, sold, and desperately gasped for. Consequently, the pursuit of social recognition within the digital space assumes a pathological vitality: to be seen or to cease to exist becomes the harrowing existential dilemma.
​
The "blackout challenge" further illustrates how users paradoxically believe they are exerting a form of self-control—choosing to suspend their lives, to film themselves, to become objects of attention—when in reality, they are enmeshed within a mimetic control structure. Here, the decision to engage in self-endangerment is merely the culmination of a deeply ingrained process of algorithmic alienation. This act is not a rebellion against the system; rather, it is its logical conclusion in a world where attention capitalism compels individuals to sacrifice their physical bodies for the ephemeral shadow of digital validation.
​
Within the "blackout challenge," the intrinsic meaning of the act is conspicuously absent. It functions neither as a rite of passage, nor a form of protest, nor a genuine personal challenge. Instead, it is a pure production of signal: a shocking image, a brief video clip, a fleeting spike in visibility. The metaphor becomes chillingly evident: nothing needs to signify; everything merely needs to circulate, capture attention, and generate "reach." The body itself transforms into a sacrificial interface within the relentless economy of clicks.
​
As a paradigmatic metaphor, the "blackout challenge" encapsulates several fundamental traits of contemporary social media. It highlights a self-destructive pleasure derived from recognition, often intertwined with a profound anxiety of non-existence when one is not seen, liked, or commented upon. It signifies an extinction of the connection to reality, replaced by the intense, often overwhelming, affects generated within digital spaces. There is also a disturbing inversion of ritual: historically, rites initiated individuals into symbolic life; here, they initiate them into symbolic death, sometimes tragically real.
​
The "blackout challenge" represents an extreme yet profoundly revealing symptom of a desire for disappearance that pervades connected societies. This is not merely an individual aberration but the tragic expression of a systemic issue wherein attention becomes more valuable than life, recognition more vital than breath, and virality more urgent than intrinsic meaning. In this sense, the "blackout challenge" is not an anomaly; it is a dark mirror reflecting our era, a scene of symbolic suffocation where the individual does not perish despite social media, but rather through them, within them, and for them.
GO FURTHER
​
​
DID YOU KNOW THAT DISRUPTION IS THE RULE?
Liviu Poenaru, July 3, 2025
​
DID YOU KNOW THAT the largest psychological experiment in political history was conducted on over 87 million Facebook users—without their consent? Cambridge Analytica, born from military psychological operations (PSYOPs) and backed by Steve Bannon, didn’t just scrape personal data—it militarized it. By hijacking emotional vulnerabilities and exploiting affective triggers like anger, fear, and resentment, the firm engineered digital psychowarfare. This new frontier of manipulation blended psychographic profiling, viral messaging, and AI-enhanced targeting to sway elections, fracture societies, and activate deep-seated prejudices. What seemed like simple online ads were in fact emotionally weaponized scripts tested on specific populations—turning the digital space into a battlefield of psychological conditioning.
DID YOU KNOW THAT the guiding principle behind this strategy wasn’t truth, but disruption? Wylie recounts how chaos was the goal—not an unfortunate side effect. “Nonsense is more effective than truth,” was the underlying creed. Instead of building consensus, the operation deliberately stirred rage, paranoia, and confusion, using fake news, disturbing imagery, and microtargeted propaganda to fragment reality itself. This was not just a tech scandal; it was a global experiment in perspecticide: the systematic breakdown of symbolic thought, shared meaning, and narrative continuity. The algorithm didn’t just track you—it sculpted you. And it did so through your eyes, emotions, and unconscious biases.
DID YOU KNOW THAT your anger could make you less rational and more impulsive—and that this was precisely the effect Cambridge Analytica sought? By triggering emotional overdrive, the firm made voters more susceptible to propaganda, more likely to punish perceived outsiders, and more willing to accept economic self-harm for ideological gratification. Emotional contagion spread like a digital virus across WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter, facilitated by Big Data, military contracts, and political ambition. What Wylie ultimately reveals is a blueprint of 21st-century emotional capitalism—one that transforms your pain, fear, and frustration into a lucrative engine of engagement, polarization, and control. This isn’t just manipulation. It’s emotional colonization.
​
​
HYPERMOBILITY AND THE PARADOX OF DIGITAL FREEDOM:
How Informational Movement Fuels Ideological Segregation
Liviu Poenaru, June 30, 2025
​
DID YOU KNOW THAT the more we move in digital environments—clicking, swiping, jumping from one group to another—the more we may unknowingly contribute to ideological segregation and social polarization? Unlike the physical world, where mobility was historically limited and coexistence with diverse perspectives was structurally inevitable, digital spaces allow us to escape disagreement in milliseconds. With a single gesture, we leave discomfort and land in echo chambers filled with validation, sameness, and familiar narratives. This hypermobility feels empowering—but it comes at the cost of cognitive plurality and collective dialogue.​
Computational models like Schelling’s segregation simulations illustrate this dynamic: even when individuals exhibit a high tolerance for diversity, if they are allowed to move freely and widely, they tend to cluster into homogeneous communities. Transposed to digital society, this suggests that the greater our freedom of informational mobility, the more likely we are to seek out the ideologically comfortable. Algorithmic infrastructures further entrench this tendency by amplifying content we already agree with, leading to what researchers describe as “networked homophily”—a feedback loop of identity, preference, and confirmation bias.​
In this sense, more digital movement doesn’t mean more exposure—it means more self-selected filtering. The result is a paradox: our global information networks were supposed to increase access to plurality, but they often reduce us to narrow islands of shared belief, disconnected from the wider social fabric. Polarization is not a failure of digitality—it’s a logical consequence of its architecture, unless deliberate friction, dialogue, and diversity are reintroduced as core values of digital design.
​
DID YOU KNOW
THAT BAD
IS BETTER?
Liviu Poenaru, June 28, 2025
​
Our brains are wired to prioritize negative information. This phenomenon, known as negativity bias, means we're more likely to focus on, and remember, bad news over good or neutral information. This isn't just a quirk; it's a deep-seated evolutionary trait that once helped our ancestors survive by keeping them alert to dangers.
At a synaptic level, learning creates prolonged changes in the strength of synaptic connections, a concept called plasticity. When it comes to negative stimuli, our brains become sensitized, strengthening the synapses associated with dangerous or threatening information. This process is so powerful that it could explain why political and economic powers often use fear: to ensure sensitization to certain stimuli, preventing habituation and cognitive disinterest from setting in.
Recent research from Soroka, Fournier, and Nir (2019) provides robust evidence of this bias across different cultures and countries, showing it's a universal phenomenon. People consistently exhibit stronger psychophysiological reactions to negative news, regardless of their cultural background. This pervasive bias has profound implications for media consumption, as it directly influences what news gets produced and highlighted.
The result? Media outlets, driven by the need to capture attention, are incentivized to disproportionately focus on negative events. This creates a skewed reality, potentially fostering a more pessimistic worldview and contributing to increased stress, anxiety, and depression. It's a lucrative model for digital platforms, which algorithmically capture our attention by emphasizing negativity and perpetuating a culture of suffering. This constant bombardment with increasingly polarized and catastrophic information, negative emotions, and negative comments thrives on capturing attention by any means necessary.
​
​