{"id":79811,"date":"2025-08-05T09:45:21","date_gmt":"2025-08-05T07:45:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.humanlevel.com\/uncategorized\/del-que-al-quien-la-confianza-como-estrategia"},"modified":"2025-08-19T09:29:44","modified_gmt":"2025-08-19T07:29:44","slug":"from-what-to-who-trust-as-a-strategy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.humanlevel.com\/en\/blog\/digital-marketing\/from-what-to-who-trust-as-a-strategy","title":{"rendered":"From What to Who: Trust as a Strategy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week I shared on LinkedIn an article I really enjoyed, originally published on Substack. It discussed what the author called the \u201ccompression culture,\u201d referring to the growing trend of summarizing information \u2014 something now both demanded by users and delivered by almost every tool, platform, and app. She talked about valuing depth over speed, about the importance of process, consistency, and repetition in mastering any skill. I liked it so much that I shared it almost instantly on both my social networks.<\/p>\n

Ironically, just a few days later I stumbled upon a post in which another Substack user accused the first one of plagiarism<\/a>. In one of her articles, she had copied entire paragraphs verbatim, casting doubt on her authorship of the rest of her posts. Yes \u2014 someone who had been defending the importance of repeating something many times to achieve mastery had chosen to take a shortcut and copy others\u2019 work. It\u2019s still unclear whether her other articles contain plagiarism, but just in case, I deleted the posts where I had recommended hers. I blamed myself for not researching the author \u2014 a complete stranger to me. I guess the fact that she was among the Top Authors in Substack\u2019s Technology category (when I shared the article, she was #8; at the time of writing this, she\u2019s #1) gave me a false sense of security. As if any sort of blue checkmark from a social network was beyond question. As if certain platforms didn\u2019t reward virality over integrity.<\/p>\n

Digital exhaustion<\/h2>\n

I joined Substack \u2014 like I imagine many others did \u2014 to get away from microblogging<\/em> and have the chance to read full arguments, original reflections, and nuanced thinking. To discover good writers. And luckily, I have. But I\u2019ve also noticed that, like every other platform, Substack opens its doors to plagiarism, uncontrolled AI use (already nicknamed AI slop<\/em><\/a>), misinformation, and even hate speech. And I\u2019m starting to feel a certain fatigue.
\nI\u2019m not the only one.<\/p>\n

This post by Jay Acunzo<\/a> shared the following exchange between Lily Ray and Rand Fishkin:<\/p>\n

\"Conversation
\nI think more and more people will start to feel like Lily or like me \u2014 tired of having to stay hyper-alert just to avoid swallowing fake news, synthetic images, copy-pastes, or made-up facts that sound real. We consume enormous amounts of information, and running it through so many filters all the time \u2014 while essential \u2014 is exhausting.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A new way to navigate<\/h2>\n

A few (rare) companies are offering to help, like DuckDuckGo, which announced a couple of weeks ago a new setting to hide AI-generated images<\/a> from search results. However, tweaking these settings on every single platform doesn\u2019t sound appealing either. I lean more toward Rand\u2019s simple answer: if you know and trust the source, you don\u2019t need as many barriers.<\/strong> And I think this will be the formula many of us choose to navigate the Internet in the era of infoxication<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Check the signature first, then the content.<\/strong> Go to what\u2019s familiar and respected, while investigating further when something feels unfamiliar. Even if it doesn\u2019t become a mainstream behavior, it would be the most responsible one.<\/strong> Otherwise, we risk enriching plagiarists, spreading fake news, and amplifying dangerous narratives backed by lies. As citizens of the web, we have the right to access quality information \u2014 but also the duty to protect the online environment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

What role will your project play in the coming years?<\/h2>\n

In this scenario, companies now face a crucial crossroads.
\nThe first option is to chase (or keep chasing) fast growth through cheap, paraphrased, and sometimes even misleading content. This can work for a while \u2014 until a Google de-indexing turns the dream into a nightmare overnight. You also risk your brand being permanently tied to such content, damaging its authority and reputation. On top of that, agencies recommending these tactics often underestimate users\u2019 discernment, assuming they\u2019ll consume whatever\u2019s put in front of them. Nobody genuinely wants to listen to a podcast with two synthetic voices agreeing with each other. Just because something can be done doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a good idea.<\/p>\n

These tactics create the kind of environment described by the Dark forest of the web<\/em> and Dead Internet theories. The web becomes a hostile territory filled with low-quality content and robots talking and feeding off each other<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If this becomes widespread, humans will retreat to the cozy web<\/em>, meaning closed platforms like messaging apps.<\/strong> There, users will feel more comfortable to talk and share \u2014 but they\u2019ll be out of your reach. To better understand these concepts, I recommend watching this talk by Maggie Appleton:<\/p>\n