As much as Influence Inc. is a game about media manipulation, it’s also a game about patterns of eroding democratic norms.
The game world is very much designed to reflect our present reality, through a blurred and fragmented mirror. Events and clients are amalgamated and often satirized, but all have one or more real world parallels.
Your operations target the fictional country of Tiar. Over time, as you play, you realize that this is a country on the edge of authoritarianism. Presidential elections are imminent. And lots of potential clients are interested in the outcome of these elections.
(Serious spoilers ahead! If you haven’t tried Influence Inc. and want to play, consider doing so before reading the rest of these notes.)
If the current president loses the election, he refuses to step down. You can choose to help him by promoting the idea that the election results are due to fraud. From here the situation is likely to continue to degrade. The only investigative newspaper in the country may be shut down. The government may hire armed thugs to disband protests. A new law banning ‘fake news’ may be applied more widely to whatever doesn’t support the ruling party.
A less obvious path through the game gives you the option to support pro-democracy protestors. You amplify their messages, research government tactics, and do your best to get positive coverage from the press. You can’t get some sort of “perfect ending” this way, but you can improve elements of the situation.
During my research for this game, what stood out to me the most were the patterns. I’d add an event, and a few months later learn about something eerily similar playing out in an entirely different region of the world. And so I’d generally add some details from this new event to expand and fictionalize the original even further.
It’s not that the erosion of democratic norms – and the resistance against it – is the same everywhere. It isn't. But there are often recognizable similarities. And why wouldn’t there be? Authoritarians can learn directly and indirectly from one another. Luckily, so can the people who oppose them.
I've been asked why the overall look and feel of Influence, Inc. isn't darker, given its rather nefarious premise. As a player, you are selling media manipulation services targeting a country hovering on the edge of authoritarianism.
There are many excellent games where the mood clearly underlines the idea that the situation is dire – like This War of Mine, Beholder, and Papers, Please. With Influence, Inc., I've purposefully taken a different approach to explore the idea that dystopia doesn’t always look dark on the surface.
The art, text, and initial music reinforce the idea that you are embarking on a fun new business venture. You're attracting clients, making money, and being creative! Missions feel fairly straightforward in the beginning and then creep towards more ethically questionable requests.
Are you willing to amplify social media enthusiasm about a new album? Exploit fears about the economy to sell a product? Use targeted marketing to encourage people not to vote? What about releasing compromising secrets about a celebrity to distract from political inquiries?
Eventually, perhaps you re-evaluate some of your earlier choices. Really, where is the line between marketing and propaganda? When did you cross it? And what will you do now? (Change course? Or, perhaps, now that you've crossed that line, it's easier to just keep going!)
Only over time do you begin to see the effects of your choices on the fictional country of Tiar and its citizens.
Most of us, in our actual, non-game lives, don’t sell media manipulation services. But I think that the concept of non-obvious dystopias also applies to modern media as a larger system, not just to the individuals working within it.
In some ways, media manipulation is nothing new. Today's advertising industry was built on propaganda techniques refined during the world wars. Practices like appealing to emotions, attacking the opposition, and creating distractions are time-tested methods of selling products and ideas.
However, services that make money though online advertising – this includes almost all social media, search engines, and news sites – embed some of the most concerning aspects of these practices into their business models.
On the surface, these services are pretty amazing. Access to information, ideas, and billions of other people – often at no additional cost, once you're connected to the Internet! And there ARE opportunities for connections and careers that just didn't exist before.
However, these "free" services create systems that favor whatever helps to drive engagement. More emotions lead to more time using the service lead to more ad views. Because these services are funded mainly through ad-revenue, our attention is what is actually being sold.
This bias towards the emotionally-charged makes it easier to spread misleading, false, and sometimes dangerous information using time-tested marketing methods, adapted for online audiences. Social media algorithms amplify this emotionally-charged information, since it leads to longer and more frequent engagement. This bias is built into the core of how social media companies profit, so what incentive do they have to substantially change?
News outlets that depend on ad-revenue are also influenced by these systems. Good journalism is vital for public discourse and positive change. But are the topics that drive the most ad views actually what's most important? And how do we make time for in-depth journalism in online systems that rewards speed and quantity over nuance?
To me, the long-term consequences of these systems are the most concerning. Attention is a limited resource. When attention is focused on the latest scandal, smear, or must-buy-trend, it's considerably less focused on critical, complex issues, like eroding democratic norms and climate change.
So, even if our own attempts at professional media manipulation are limited to games, I think it's important to question whether the online systems that influence so many our lives are fundamentally harmful. Are we willing to continue to sell our attention to the highest bidders via easily exploitable, ad-driven online systems? And if so, what are we willing to ignore as a result?
Influence, Inc. doesn't have all of the answers. But, my hope is that it thoughtfully raises the questions.
/ Amanda
Patch
Hope was accidentally a bit too easy. Fixed it. (Sorry.)
Influence, Inc. - Out Now
Congratulations! You have been selected to lead an experimental branch of XQW Group.
Your team provides one key service: influence. You’ll start by influencing social media in the country of Tiar. There are other systems to exploit later.
Features
Control of a business that provides influence for hire, mostly through social media.
Missions from a variety of clients: corporations, talent agencies, governments, and others. You choose who you want to work with and what types of jobs you're willing to undertake.
A network of public attention, eager for the next scandal that you may choose to break
During your experience, you might reflect on questions such as:
How does what we pay attention to and what we ignore shape reality?
Who is manipulating our attention, and why?
How is social media shaping news and journalism?
How is media used to both promote and fight authoritarianism?
(Or, you might just blithely pursue profit and influence. The choice is yours.)
