If interaction were to stand as the measure of truth, then the loudest lies would inevitably rise to the status of a new religion. This statement, at first glance provocative, captures the epistemological fracture shaping modern digital societies In the past, truth, however contested, preserved a certain autonomy. It was sought for its coherence, its logical consistency, its empirical support, or its capacity to withstand rational critique. In today’s digital landscape, however, this intrinsic status has been displaced by a fragile, circumstantial one. Truth no longer resides in its depth but in its reach; it is judged not by the rigor of its reasoning but by the intensity of its circulation.
The more a narrative generates instant interactions likes, shares, comments the more it appears credible. Add to this the mass excitement of viral spectacle and the fleeting emotions stirred by digital performance, and the fragile economy of belief is laid bare. Within this inverted order, lies endowed with rhetorical brilliance and emotional resonance ascend to the throne of conviction. They “humanize” themselves through repetition and imagery until they acquire the aura of shared certainty, transfiguring into a new creed, a collective dogma, or, in metaphorical terms, a “new religion
What grants such narratives legitimacy is not intellectual coherence but continuous feeding by algorithms that privilege visibility over accuracy. This dynamic is reinforced by the herd instincts of digital crowds and by the superficial cognitive comfort provided by easily digestible claims. Complexity becomes a burden; simplicity becomes salvation. Thus, truth is reduced to click-through rates, while the trend slowly suffocates critical rationality. The popular becomes the synonym of the correct
This shift signals more than the trivialization of truth; it represents a profound epistemological transformation. Critical faculties analysis, doubt, the weighing of arguments are eroded, replaced by applause, emotional contagion, and mechanical repetition. Knowledge loses its depth and collapses into performance In such a climate, truth risks losing its very meaning. Lies, when polished into captivating forms, cease to be recognized as deviations They become cultural rituals enacted daily across platforms, cloaked in the garments of certainty and celebrated as collective truths
To describe this condition as a “crisis” is not an exaggeration. It is a moment in which epistemology itself is inverted: truth is no longer pursued for its own sake but for its potential to spread, replicate, and dominate the attention economy. Once this logic prevails, the very distinction between truth and falsehood erodes, leaving behind a symbolic order where belief is not anchored in knowledge but in applause The claim that interaction has replaced intellectual rigor as the criterion of truth in digital societies is both powerful and unsettling. Yet, while it captures an undeniable tendency within the contemporary attention economy, it also invites a more nuanced analysis. To label interaction as the sole determinant of truth risks overlooking the complexity of digital epistemology and the multiplicity of forces at work within online knowledge ecosystems.
On one hand, the statement highlights a real epistemological vulnerability: the susceptibility of truth to metrics of visibility and virality. In digital spaces, narratives that provoke outrage, amusement, or emotional resonance often outperform nuanced, evidence-based discourse. This dynamic creates fertile ground for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and populist rhetoric, which gain traction not because they are coherent but because they are engaging. In this sense, the metaphor of lies becoming a “new religion” captures the quasi-sacred aura that viral narratives can acquire. They unite communities, shape collective identities, and generate rituals of affirmation likes, shares, hashtags that resemble acts of faith more than acts of reason.
However, to stop at this conclusion would be to paint a one-sided picture. Interaction is not inherently the enemy of truth. While it can amplify falsehood, it can also democratize access to information, challenge elitist monopolies over knowledge, and give marginalized voices a platform to contest dominant narratives. Viral interactions have not only spread falsehoods but have also mobilized social justice movements, exposed corruption, and held powerful institutions accountable. To reduce interaction to a mechanism of distortion is to neglect its emancipatory potential Furthermore, the metaphor of “religion” may exaggerate the case. Unlike religion, which offers a comprehensive metaphysical framework and ethical system, digital falsehoods often lack durability. They flare up, dominate attention briefly, and then vanish as the next trend replaces them. While some lies do sediment into enduring myths, many simply dissolve in the endless cycle of novelty. In this sense, interaction produces less of a stable “new religion” and more of a continuous spectacle a series of ephemeral enthusiasms that temporarily masquerade as truth
It is also important to recognize that digital audiences are not passive consumers. Users increasingly develop forms of media literacy and critical skepticism, fact-checking practices, and alternative networks of verification. While the allure of virality remains strong, there are counter-currents within digital culture that resist equating popularity with truth. These practices complicate the narrative of a wholesale epistemological collapse In light of these considerations, the claim should be read less as an absolute diagnosis and more as a provocative warning. It forces us to confront the dangers of equating visibility with validity, while also reminding us that truth in the digital age remains contested, fragile, and in need of active protection. Interaction may indeed distort the epistemic landscape, but it can also function as a tool of empowerment and democratization.
Thus, the critical challenge is not to reject interaction altogether, but to reorient its role: to design digital systems that reward depth over speed, substance over spectacle, and coherence over virality. Only then can we prevent the enthronement of lies and ensure that truth continues to hold its rightful place in the architecture of knowledge Taken together, both perspectives reveal the paradox at the heart of digital epistemology. On the one hand, interaction-driven dynamics risk dethroning truth, replacing it with viral lies that masquerade as collective certainties. On the other hand, interaction itself is not inherently corrosive; it can also serve as a democratizing force, enabling new forms of accountability and shared knowledge
What emerges, therefore, is not a simple narrative of decline but a contested field in which truth and falsehood vie for dominance under the same structural conditions. The danger lies in allowing the logics of spectacle and virality to eclipse rational critique altogether. Yet the potential remains to cultivate an environment where interaction is reoriented toward depth, coherence, and intellectual integrity This tension between distortion and democratization, between spectacle and substance is precisely what defines the epistemological crossroads of our time. To acknowledge the risks without dismissing the possibilities is to take seriously both the warning and the critique, and to recognize that the future of truth in digital societies depends not only on resisting falsehood but also on reshaping the very mechanisms through which interaction unfolds.