Denial of Future Attack – Updated

In 2016, I coined the term "Denial of Future Attack". It's time to pick up that thread and attempt to define it further.

First, could you explain in layperson's terms what a Denial of Future Attack is and how it differs from the more commonly understood cyber attack, the Denial of Service?

A Denial of Future Attack is about the overwhelming influx of information that paralyzes decision-making, particularly regarding actions crucial for shaping future outcomes. Unlike a Denial of Service attack, which targets digital infrastructure, a DoFA targets the human mind’s capacity to process information and make decisions. For instance, in 2020, when the term 'GenAI' wasn't yet familiar, I came across a striking example while working on the WDR’s Synthetic Media report. It was about the political situation in Gabon, where the mere possibility of a video being a deepfake created confusion and facilitated political deception, even without deepfake technology. This scenario perfectly illustrates a DoFA: the overwhelming doubt and uncertainty, fuelled by too much unverified or manipulative information, effectively 'denied' the public's ability to discern truth and respond appropriately. It's a tactic that leverages information overload to hinder proactive decision-making and action, especially when it comes to critical issues that shape our future.

What are the most prevalent sources or causes of these Denial of Future Attacks in our current information landscape?

The prevalence of Denial of Future Attacks (DoFAs) in our information landscape is primarily attributed to the combination of media dynamics and their underlying business models. The way journalists are incentivized plays a crucial role; their focus often lies more on garnering attention than driving actual change. A telling example is the nature of what's considered 'breaking news' today, especially in the context of the constant stream of notifications on our smartphones. This attention-driven approach has even prompted tech companies, which provide the platforms for media dissemination, to create features like Apple's summary highlights, helping users manage the deluge of information.

The 1976 film "Network" strikingly portrays the media landscape's shift towards prioritizing the attention economy over substantive, societal change, a concept deeply intertwined with the idea of Denial of Future Attacks. In the movie, a struggling television network exploits the on-air rantings of a deranged news anchor to boost ratings, highlighting the media's increasing focus on sensationalism and profit over informative content. This emphasis on attention rather than impactful journalism mirrors the current media dynamic contributing to DoFAs. By prioritizing stories that grab immediate attention rather than those that encourage thoughtful reflection and action, the media inadvertently floods the audience with superficial content. This deluge of sensationalized news makes it challenging for the public to discern significant issues and engage in future-oriented thinking and decision-making. "Network" serves as a prescient commentary on the evolving media landscape, where the pursuit of ratings and clicks can overshadow the media's role in fostering a well-informed and proactive society.

(If the only thing you will take away from this newsletter is that you need to watch Network, I’ll be happy. Faye Dunaway is such a force of nature in this film! Peter Finch is a true madman and the scene in the board room is just legendary.)

This enables specific individuals and state actors who understand the power of narratives and media operation to wield significant influence. They can trigger widespread reactions with a single tweet or manipulate public opinion domestically and internationally for various purposes – some intentional, others potentially malicious.

Considering the impact of media's focus on attention over substantive change, how does this dynamic specifically hinder individuals' ability to engage in effective decision-making? Could you also touch on the potential long-term consequences of this trend, especially in terms of societal preparedness for future challenges?

The dynamic of media focusing on immediate attention rather than substantive change significantly hampers effective decision-making, particularly in understanding and responding to trends. A key aspect of my work involves elucidating what a trend truly is, as opposed to a singular news story. Trends occur over extended periods, often only recognized by the masses once they've substantially evolved. For instance, Generative Media is a current hot topic, suddenly on the agenda of many boardrooms. However, most people engaging with it now, through tools like ChatGPT, don't realize its deep-rooted history. Its origins trace back to advancements in AI and Generative Art, pioneered by figures like Georg Nees, Ryoji Ikeda and Vera Molnár (who died just a few days ago). Their foundational work was later integrated into Generative AI and Media without much attribution. The lack of attribution and accountability keeps repeating itself a lot in this context.

Understanding trends in their broader historical and developmental context is crucial for making sound strategic decisions. Without this perspective, reactions tend to be shortsighted, as exemplified by media companies rapidly adopting Generative Media tools. Ironically, these tools often lead to less engagement with the content, adversely affecting advertising revenues – a classic example of a Denial of Future Attack. This reactionary approach is prevalent across industries, seen in executive boards and C-level conversations. Even when individuals and organizations know their reactive stance, breaking free from this cycle is challenging. This is why foresight projects that lack tangible outcomes often result in minimal organizational change. They fail to provide a clear path between reacting to immediate trends and engaging in proactive, future-building activities.

Given your insights on how quickly trends like Generative Media are adopted and responded to, often without a deep understanding of their origins or implications, what real-world example can you provide where a Denial of Future Attack has had a tangible impact on a larger scale, perhaps in an organizational or societal context? How did this impact manifest, and what were the long-term consequences?

The pervasive effects of DoFAs on our collective imagination and societal progress can be exemplified by cultural theorist Mark Fisher's (RIP) observation that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. This reflects a societal state where we are acutely aware of undesirable global events but cannot envision or work towards alternative futures due to the cognitive and financial constraints imposed by DoFAs. We are inundated with future imagery, but the nature of this imagery is telling. Hollywood often presents us with dystopian visions, while corporate projections offer 'flat pack futures' – superficially appealing yet fundamentally unconvincing scenarios that lack genuine belief or commitment, even from the corporations themselves. This bombardment of hollow or pessimistic future visions contributes to a state of 'presentism,' where society is trapped in the immediacy of the present, unable to effectively conceive of or work towards alternative, more desirable futures. The result is a stagnation of imaginative and strategic capacity. DoFAs limit our ability to allocate resources towards building believable and achievable futures, keeping us bound to the current trajectory without meaningful deviation or innovation.

Considering your point about the types of future imagery we are exposed to, how do you think the aesthetics of these representations, whether dystopian or overly simplistic corporate visions influence our ability to conceptualize and strive for more realistic and desirable futures? Does the aesthetic nature of these images play a role in perpetuating the cycle of presentism and inhibiting proactive future planning?

The aesthetics of future imagery, as depicted in works like William Gibson's "Neuromancer" and films like "Blade Runner," significantly influence our perception of and engagement with future possibilities. These cultural products often present a stylistic, dystopian vision of the future, reflecting contemporary concerns like the oil crisis in "Blade Runner's" opening sequence. Yet, ironically, while these representations are born from critical issues like fossil fuel consumption, they have also been embraced as a kind of cool, desirable aesthetic. For instance, the clothing from brands like Acronym, inspired by such dystopian visions and designed for individuals navigating a broken world, signifies an acceptance of solitary survival in challenging conditions, echoing the cyberpunk worlds of Gibson's novels. To be clear, I would never trade my J58-WS for anything in the world, but I also want to be open with myself about what it represents. That’s me leaning into the fact that we are complex human beings, and even when we know that something is maybe not the way it should be, it’s hard to make yourself not want something. 

This embrace of dystopian aesthetics speaks to a deeper narrative issue: our struggle to conceptualize believable, positive futures. The prevalence of these dark, stylistic visions aligns with our fascination with the hero's journey narrative structure, which often involves overcoming dystopian challenges. Ursula Le Guin's essay "The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction" highlights the possibility and historical precedence of alternative narratives that move away from conflict-driven stories, suggesting a path toward reimagining future possibilities.

It is the story that makes the difference. It is the story that hid my humanity from me, the story the mammoth hunters told about bashing, thrusting, raping, killing, about the Hero. The wonderful, poisonous story of Botulism. The killer story.

– Ursula Le Guin

The impact of this narrative and aesthetic fixation extends beyond fiction into real-world attitudes. For example, the challenge SMBs face in finding successors in Germany reflects a broader cultural trend where starting something new, even at the expense of existing structures, is often seen as more desirable or modern. This bias towards novelty and disruption, as opposed to continuity and evolution, is part of the broader effect of DoFA. It highlights a collective reluctance to engage with existing frameworks, even when they hold value, in favor of pursuing the allure of newness. This preference for 'starting fresh' over 'building upon what exists' exemplifies a societal inclination towards constant novelty, often at the cost of losing established, functional entities and ignoring the potential of revisiting and revitalizing past narratives and solutions.

(Fin.)

I will focus on what we can do about DoFAs in a future segment on this topic.