Transcription
We are going to refer here to a question that has to do with literature, much more than what appears at first glance. It is a question that reflects on information published not too many days ago, first in the Anglo-Saxon press—in the British press specifically—and then recreated, promoted, spread, but above all recreated in the Spanish-language press. I am referring to an issue that refers to what they have called the putrefaction of the brain. This is a very striking metaphor, very impactful because it has to do above all with a naturalist conception; and here literature intervenes a lot—a naturalist conception of human life. Of course, literature is much closer to all of us than we think. What happens is that, by not having a relatively deep and relatively exhaustive knowledge of literature, we are unaware of the use that it makes of these metaphors. Often the press or certain social behaviors do what literature already used a long time ago, even more than a century ago. The French found out about this more than a century ago. In Spanish literature, naturalism was already present since the “Cantar del Cid,” in reality, and especially from “La Celestina” and from “Lazarillo de Tormes.” But let’s talk specifically about how this news first spread in the British press, in the Anglo-Saxon press, and then recreated in the Spanish-language press, where they talk about the putrefaction of the brain or the rot of the brain. I insist: This is a deeply naturalistic image, deeply naturalistic, but it can only be understood in terms of metaphor. Brain necrosis, as a medical term, I intuit—intuit—that it has to be another question, something else.
Now, what does it mean? It should be the cause, in literal terms, of this deterioration of the brain, of this deterioration of the brain, of this mm process that turns the brain into an excremental substance, metaphorically speaking. It seems that this is linked to the behavior that certain human beings acquire when living in social networks, when being on social networks, of course. This is an issue that we have dealt with in great detail, more or less in detail, from certain very demanding, very ambitious points of view. In the book, *A Philosophy for Surviving in the 21st Century*, there is a chapter dedicated precisely to these matters, eh. Ya. We have warned that this book, *A Philosophy to Survive in the 21st Century*, we will present it at the Faro de Vigo club in the Marco center—the center of the city—the Faro de Vigo press club on February 12, with Inmaculada Naya. We will be there at the presentation of this book with Inmaculada Naya, *A Philosophy to Survive in the 21st Century*. And here in this book, there is a chapter that addresses precisely the approach of news like this. Now well, eh, facts of this nature inform us of several parallel issues. Not simply the fact that social networks deteriorate human thinking, deteriorate human cognitive processes—and here we can use all kinds of technicalities to impress the staff—but these facts also reveal two important issues: the first is the little initiative that the Spanish press has when it comes to dealing with certain problems with originality, because it always goes to what the Anglo-Saxon press says and converts these articles originating from the Anglo-Saxon press into journalistic material from the Spanish-language press. What this refers to above all is the second semantic world that occupies a good part of Spanish journalism that is supplied with news previously generated, previously cultivated, previously published in the Anglosphere, of course.
This is an issue that reveals the parasitism of a good part of the Spanish-language press that turns to the English-language press to promote certain ideas. Of course, this is noteworthy in many aspects. First of all, we are not at the forefront of information, but rather we are in the parasitism of information. We are parasitized by what is published in the English language and disseminated to Spanish-speaking society, as if from the point of view of internet access this could not be circumvented. And of course, it is like a periphrasis of the content published two or three weeks before in another social context or in another cultural context, of course. This, secondly, these types of issues suppose an injection of Anglo-Saxon values and Anglo-Saxon codes of interpretation in a culture that is increasingly Anglo-Saxon, although its tradition comes from areas completely incompatible in many aspects with the Anglo-Saxon tradition. That is to say that we have our own life that we interpret in the key of foreign cultures. This is a constant that has increased since the Second World War until today, but that has worsened in a terrible way during the last decades and above all during recent years; that is, the use of Anglo-Saxon criteria to interpret a life of tradition that is completely contrary, if not incompatible, to the forms of behavior and conduct typical of the Anglo-Saxon world. So, of course, this is manifested in all aspects of life, but it is manifested now not only in the way of interpreting literature. In fact, literature has been replaced by commercial products that have nothing to do with literature, and the methods of literary interpretation, instead of being those traditionally prepared by the Hispanic-Greco-Latin formation, by Greco-Latin tradition and by the Italian and Greek Hispanic tradition, since they are those of Terry Eagleton or those of people like that—that is, the work or writings of certain authors who, in their entire lives, have not been taken as a reference for the interpretation of literature. Not a single literary interpretation of a single literary work has been made; that is, it sends shivers down your spine. The issue is in relation to authors. I insist that they talk about literature without ever having interpreted a single literary work. Of course, it is as if we were saying that there is an excellent musical performer that has never interpreted a single musical work by any composer. Well, it’s the same. Exactly the same. And most of the universities in Latin America, Europe, and Spain, of course, they interpret literature taking as reference the work of supposed theorists or literary critics who have never interpreted not a single particular literary work nor a single author of specific literary works to whom they have ever dedicated not a single particular study. They have dedicated headline statements from press, various writings, but they have not interpreted a single literary work from beginning to end, ever. Well, because those authors are the ones who serve as a reference. In the case of the press, it occurs exactly the same. The articles that are published today in the Anglo-Saxon press, in two or three weeks, will be recreated, promoted, paraphrased by many columnists in the Spanish-language press, and this is one of the several examples that we propose. This, I insist, demonstrates the insufficiency of the Spanish-language press to be original. And secondly, the increasingly defective use of interpretative procedures typical of the Anglosphere to explain a way of life and behavior that does not obey in absolute to the imperatives of the Anglosphere. Eh, it is evidently the self-satisfaction of a society and a culture that many years ago stopped being original. We could even talk about two or three centuries since which it is no longer original. So, of course, paraphrasing these articles from the Anglo-Saxon press… Let’s go to the original. Let’s go to the original article published in the Anglo-Saxon press where it is said that the unconscious, mechanized consumption of low-quality materials on the Internet rots the human brain. Well, this is naturally a verbal metaphor—is a verbal metaphor—that is to say, rots the human brain, most of the human brains that do not develop, mm, because they lead to behavior typical of a semantic third world, evidently. And then the headline emphasizes that the proof, the demonstration, eh, is increasingly difficult to ignore. Well, this is obvious. They are obvious. The curious thing about this type of information is that they speak from the solemnity of the obvious. It is a set of information that comes to say that, in some way, as a person eats food, he or she gradually loses appetite; that is, as someone drinks water, they gradually lose the desire for thirst. Of course, these are admirable truisms, no? And then, to stand out and draw attention, that metaphor typical of naturalistic literature is used: brain putrefaction, brain rot. Well, the logical thing would be to talk about brain necrosis. But this is already a medical term that probably many neurologists would not accept with the same semantic values that these journalists use.
And then it is said in the original article—that is later corrected in an epanorthosis—that the journalist himself, from the original article, states—it is said that cerebral refaction is the word. Of course, we would say it is the expression, not the word, because there are two words. It is the expression of the year of the Oxford dictionary, but later it is corrected like this same, because it is not the expression of the Oxford dictionary, but the expression of Oxford—the Oxford expression is said like this—as if Oxford, Oxford day, took the word truth. It does not seem that it was the expression coined by an editor of the “aones” service of the University of Oxford. And in order not to confuse it any further, I am going to limit myself to reproducing the epanorthosis; that is to say, the autocorrection that the journalist himself added to his own article after a few days. And the note says this: “This article was modified,” I translate, eh, “This article was modified on December 9, 2024. An earlier version of the article itself said that ‘rotten brain’ was the Oxford English Dictionary word of the year, when in fact it was the Oxford *Word of the Year*, literally chosen by the Oxford University Publishing Service—Oxford University Press—the editor from the dictionary itself; that is, not even epanorthosis itself is very illuminating regarding the initial error. But it seems that it was not a word chosen by the dictionary, but rather a word or expression chosen by the director of the publications service or by the publications service or by the editor of the dictionary edited by the publication service; that is, we do not know exactly very well who was the creator of this expression. The fact is that later, in the periphrasis or recreation that is made of these contents in some articles in the Spanish press, it is said that the definition was given by The Osford Dictionary, voted by more than 37,000 people, chose this concept as its word of the year. Dictionary experts noted that the term has gained relevance in recent times to express concerns about the impact of excessive consumption of low-quality content. The experts of a Dictionary are called lexicographers, but of course, if it turns out that lexicographers organize a dictionary democratically based on the votes of the people who vote, you can imagine what kind of quality a dictionary will have, even if it is called Oxford or Villac Conjar del Infant above. I don’t care. The terms in English never impressed me because I know that society—I studied English among indigenous people—and I know how they speak it and the value they give to each of those terms. The fact is that the origin of this expression that will only last a few days and a season and then it will be forgotten forever, because it means absolutely nothing—a metaphor without a future—is one more postmodern metaphor without a future. And then the columnist of the original content of this news item from the Anglo-Saxon press says—in an Anglo-Saxon t, in a gringo t—says: “If you want to witness the last vestiges of human intellect going down the drain, hold your nose and write some words, give him some words as if they were magic words on the internet.” I won’t say where it stops so as not to increase this. And a video appears that lasts a few seconds showing some rubbish. Well, then everyone will go looking for the rubbish. This doesn’t seem to be a head emerging from a toilet, etcetera, etcetera. And it says: “This video has been seen more than 215 million times. It has been seen more than 215 million times and generated hundreds of millions of references on social networks.” Well, well, that is to say that when you show people an excrement, everyone goes to the excrement, like flies, evidently. And then this is what rewards what the Oxford dictionary identifies and what it votes on; that is, the triumph of excrement is what crowns the lexicographic work of the Oxford dictionary. It is still very curious. This does not really make a whole dictionary to point out as a star word precisely the putrefaction of the brains of Internet consumers. That is Anglo-Saxon culture. This is the Anglosphere, eh, gentlemen, as Pachón would say: “This is the trail, gentlemen. We sell you cheap and with the price in English,” literally, eh. That is why it is appropriate, says the original columnist, that the Oxford word of the year has recently been announced as cerebral putrefaction. As an abstract concept, brain putrefaction is something that we are all vaguely aware of. Well, it was to say, and you more than others, but well, the dictionary defines it how? And here it gives the definition: the supposed deterioration—because assumption will be the obvious deterioration, no?—but supposed deterioration of the mental or intellectual state of a person, especially as a result of excessive consumption of material basically on the internet considered trivial or little—or little stimulating, say some translations; little challenging, say others; not stimulating. It has to be, because if, of course, it has been visited more than 215 million times by different people or even the same people, you will tell me if this is not stimulating. Come on, who can exert the same stimulus 215 million times? Let’s say, if this is not stimulating, you will tell me. What is stimulating? They don’t even know how to lexicographically define a word in the so-called Oxford dictionary. But this no longer simply demonstrates brain rot, but rather the ability they have to define lexicographically the meaning of the term that they themselves have invented. It is a very curious question. Is it the example of a lexicographical work, please? What will it be? Then the living example of brain rot. Few people are aware of… To what extent the original columnist continues: “Technology rots our brains. And how the compulsive use of the Internet destroys decisively our gray matter.” But let’s see, it’s not the use, hm, oo, it’s not the technology; it’s convenient to mention the use of technology or the technology or the use; that is to say, there is a confusion of terms, even literally taking the writer’s statement as a reference. It is true that one does not really know if this article has been written by an Artificial Intelligence with some components that have been given to it or not, but whatever the case, this is what the Anglosphere promotes: brain rot and also poorly defined in a dictionary that boasts of being the reference dictionary of the Anglosphere, of course. And then, from here we begin with the second part of these press articles: first the shocking metaphor, then the descriptive recreation, and finally we will arrive at dropping names—by dropping names that each one says an occurrence in a format of solemn obviousness. Let’s now move on to the recreational description. Almost 20 years ago, the possibility was predicted—note that this is the telling of a story—it was if once someone who predicted many years ago what was going to happen next. No? So what? It’s like the brave little tailor or the princess eh with the giant wart or anything of this type, no? Or the goat that had very long horns. You can invent anything. Almost 20 years ago, the possibility of a brain disease was predicted when scientists studied the effects of a new invention called email. I mean, can you imagine scientists studying email? Of course, it was—it was good. It’s like people who say: “We just discovered a cherry!” And then everyone puts a pea on top. And then everyone puts the pea on top from the table and they look at it and contemplate it and say: “Well, it’s a pea. And it’s green and has a smooth or rough surface, as Mendel observed at the time,” etcetera, etcetera, no? And then everyone is delighted, and in the end, after several days or months or years of study, they come to the conclusion that it is a pea. And then they publish a research paper saying that they have discovered a pea and that after having spent years examining that pea they have come to the conclusion that it’s actually a pea. The same thing you can say about a square that is subjected to a meticulous process of observation. After several years, you come to the conclusion that it remains stable; that is, it still has four sides if it has not developed a pentagonal or triangular arrangement, according to no. Well, this is the same. These are these types of Anglo-Saxon studies. The scientists say… What scientists? What scientists studied this? The computer scientists, the engineers, the psychologists, the neurologists… The partners who… Not really the results. The results are the constant cognitive overload that it had a more negative effect than cannabis consumption, since the IQ of the participants fell an average of 10 points. In other words, if email is used, the IQ of those who handle email fell an average of 10 points. This would to fall equally obviously. What happens is that communicative processes deteriorate intelligence. So those who are dedicated to semiotics or semiology—that studies precisely the different possibilities of meaning that signs have in human use—must already be below the IQ of dogs, who—whose brain has fewer neurons than those of a crow, by the way—of course. Eh, it is still a fantastic story, a clear journalistic format. Why do they want literature in the Anglosphere, having journalistic articles of this nature, of course? And he adds later: “And this was before… before… and before…” appears in italics, eh, underlined. Before smartphones—a great yuppie palaj because phones are not smart, not even their users are smart—but well, the so-called smartphones put the internet within our reach, which has resulted in the average adult in the United Kingdom now spending at least 4 hours a day online. Well, that is what was intended to be tied in the web of the internet spider. The men of generation Z—and here we already move on to the labels that modulate everything—they spend 5 hours on average per day online, and women of generation Z, 6 and a half hours. Good. I affirm that knowing this data is absolutely impossible. This is simply a data that is adduced, put on the table, and the viewer can say yes or no. What matters is that the data is there. Whether it is true or false, it is impossible to measure this with the precision that is alleged here. But what matters is that it is declared; what matters is that it is affirmed regardless of whether what is said is true or is a lie in the first place, because it is very difficult to determine who is part and who is not part of a generation like Z. And secondly, because it is also very difficult to determine what the sex of people is. Then it is not worth saying that sex is fickle in some aspects and that it is completely defined at the time to carry out surveys of this nature. That is, if we erase the clarity of the concepts, we erase it in all aspects. No, it is not worth just erasing it where it is convenient. On the other hand, on the other hand, the following is noted: Look at a large amount of research in recent years. Academics from institutions such as the Faculty of Medicine from Harvard, the University of Oxford, and King’s College in London… It doesn’t matter to me whether they speak in these terms or whether they speak in terms of Villac Conjar del Infante above or below, because I don’t like these types of terms. They are not impressive at all. I know what the university is, and I know what the Anglosphere is, so the sum of the one and the other, well, it gives a lower level than the clowns on TV in many aspects, and whoever you want to believe the opposite, you can believe, but don’t expect me to believe it, eh. Well, then all these people, after studying the pea and the square for many years, eh, and subjecting them to exhaustive observation processes that consist of looking for themselves and reflecting collectively, have truly found evidence, eh, that the Internet reduces our gray matter—it will obviously reduce theirs—shortening our attention span, weakening memory, and distorting our cognitive processes. But let’s see, we had not agreed that digital natives have many more skills, abilities, and competencies than those who are not. So why now do they agree or not agree when they say the same nonsense as each other? Because, of course, it’s really surprising. Weakens memory, distorts our cognitive processes. And here we return to stages typical of nineteenth-century neurology, not when it was considered, as in terms of phrenology, that certain cranial reliefs could truly have a meaning with respect to certain human behaviors or whose origin was in certain brain morphology. Affected areas of the brain include attention capacities, since the constantly evolving flow of online information encourages our attention divided into multiple media; memory processes; social cognition. That is to say, again, terms that descriptively recreate any nonsense that is imposed on the effect. And they say: “High internet use, frequent internet use, and intense multitasking with media are associated with a decrease in gray matter in the prefrontal pref regions.” No, I’m…
Not telling you anything about multitasking. I'm not telling you anything. Multitasking that an orchestra conductor has to do who, for example, is faced with directing an orchestra of almost 1,000 or 1,000 instrumentalists, including the human voice, and has to take into account the auditory multitasking of knowing what sound is emitted by each of the almost 1,000 instrumentalists of a symphony like Gustav Mahler's octave, no, of course, all this is for a person who has minimal training; all this is an absolutely intolerable joke, but truly an absolutely intolerable joke. And well, then we reached the stage, the last stage where we entered into dropping names, drop names, dropping names and attributing a statement to each name. But I'm telling you, I'm telling you, this is like a a study of research, a research project that comes to the conclusion that after hitting a finger with a hammer, 99% of people who receive a hammer blow on a finger feel no pain; that is, they are actually investigations of this level. And says the columnist, "You have the nerve to say this, eh," and yet it seems that we do very little to stem the tide. No, it is not that little is being done to stem the tide. It is precisely that the tide has spread to generate a population that can be managed in this way.
A a neuroscientist, I am not going to mention the name, one of the world's experts in divided attention. I would describe him as a galactic expert in divided attention or in atomic attention, which is a much healthier paronomasia. About atomized attention, galactic expert in atomized attention. This is what I say the article translated into Spanish says, "world expert in divided attention," but it sounds better, "galactic expert in atomized attention." Warned, warned as if he were Nostradamus in 2022, than now. We live in quotes, a perfect storm of cognitive degradation; that is, something like a cyclogenesis of brain putrefaction, no. That sounds much better, true, a cyclogenesis of brain putrefaction. This is what I say, the galactic expert in atomic attention says, a perfect storm of cognitive degradation. Clo. This sounds much more elegant but much less impressive. And then quotes another person, another expert of this, this is simply a computer science professor at a university and author of a book whose title I am not going to mention; she has found proof of how drastically our ability decreases of concentration; that is, he came to the conclusion that the square after several years it still has four sides, things of this type. And he says, he says in 2004 his research team discovered what he discovered that the average attention span on any screen was of 2 and a half minutes. They must have been measuring it there, listen to see if the the the the angle of the square moved in some direction to see if the square became a trapezoid, trapezoid, and there was no way he discovered that the capacity average attention on any screen it was 2 and a half minutes. In 2012 it was 75 seconds; 6 years ago it was reduced to 47 seconds. And it says la la la illustrious la peril mustre says quotes, "it is something that I think we should be very concerned about as a society," he said in a podcast in 2023, "it is something that should worry us a lot as a society." No, no, yes, sure. Come on, I mean it's one thing, we are not really going to sleep. So in the publication of this type of nonsense, in the publication of this type of nonsense, they go away all the human resources that should avoid precisely incurring in these forms of behavior. If we studied literature instead of giving rise to these types of issues, we would know how to dismantle all these myths of brain putrefaction that clearly have a naturalistic origin. This is another chapter of bad literature, ultimately because good literature would be to parody this with quality literary works, quality literary works that are not written today because today literature is totally harmless. And when a society writes literature that is totally harmless, it is because this literature is not literature; harmless literature is not literature, it is pseudo-literature, it is a commercial product that is sold as powdered milk is sold as its original milk cedan.
In short, but now we have the Drop names superior to all of the above. This is above the galactic expert in atomic attention, an individual whose name I will not say, former specialist in design ethicist. So he was a specialist in design ethicist, in design ethics. I don't know if it will be aesthetics of ethics, ethics of aesthetics, or what. He said to the United States Congress, I don't know if with a loudspeaker or through a telescope, but he said in 2019, this is like Nostradamus in version 3.10, that billions of people, this is called hyperbole, a psychological imprint the size of Christianity, this is called hyper hyperbole, eh, ties your profits to the amount of attention you capture, creating a race to the bottom of the brain stem to extract attention, hacking further down our reptilian brains in search of dopamine, fear, outrage to win. Well, this doesn't even beat it of guidance, in its best moments; that is, at these levels, public communication reaches these levels, the content that is published in the media reaches these levels, and the curious thing is that it reaches these levels because the capacities of human beings to process the information they receive is at the level of these levels, in such a way that what role does a university play in a society of this nature? None, because all this basically comes from the University; from here come the research projects that for years contemplate the movements of a square to see if it turns into a trapezoid, into a pentagon, into a triangle, etcetera, etcetera. And it is very interesting because the acumen or final moral, the epiphoneme improsa, what this type of articles usually lead to, because this type of articles, as I said, they have a very defined structure; their headline is usually a physiological metaphor, in this case literally physiological, more or less shocking and totally idealistic. Secondly, comes a recreational description more or less seasoned with kit elements that attract the listener's attention. Because if they were original, the listener would not perceive them, he would not see them. Thirdly, comes Drop names, dropping names of people who make statements that are real nonsense, but real nonsense; that is, saying, hey, especially in the present continuous tense, we have been living for the last 500 years centuries contemplating squares that only have four sides. Now comes the time to contemplate squares that have developed a fifth side, and we will call them pentagons, things of this type. And the end ends in a kind of acumen or moral by virtue of which everything said so far is reversed, looking for a hopeful solution. And notice the idealism to which we arrive here, the term brain rot or putrefaction. It became popular on the internet among young people who are at greater risk of suffering its effects, obviously something like this is impossible because no one gives a name to the ailment that you have because if they gave you a name they would be a doctor, not a patient; they would not be the patient but the doctor who cures the disease. The fact that those who are most at risk are the most aware of the problem is encouraging news. This fact is false; this premise is flatly false because it means providing awareness to the victim who is precisely because he unconsciously lacks the knowledge that he does not have that has led him, let's say, to that devaluation or that degradation; it is attributing knowledge to the one who is precisely sick because of the lack of that knowledge. The first step for any change is to understand the problem, and here we become enlightened, we get into fables of going away, and there are many reasons to have hope, of course. In recent years the anti-technology movements have gained strength in where is the first time I hear of anti-technology movements that have gained strength other than the order of the Carthusians since teenagers resort to dumb phones. Here dumb phones should not be understood as a dumb hypálage; does not refer to teenagers but to phones; that is, you have to read this in a literal sense, not as a hipálage, because if you read it as a hipálage, the fools would be the teenagers, and that's not the case. It's not the case, so don't read a hipalage where there isn't one, because they like it a lot to the certain people about the hypálage, the phones are the stupid ones, not the users, stupid phones, often oxymoron, even the campaigns for a childhood without smartphones, again Ada risky and pay a childhood without smartphones and intelligence seems to affect childhood without intelligence more that to the silly phones, green shoots for a future in which we can recover our Minds as if the mind once lost was recovered and everything like this, everything this beautiful and everything this beautiful.
This was the original article. Of the original article, the Spanish press in different media was made echo or the content of the original article; the Spanish press in different media echoed and translated that content more or less differentially, enriching it in its own way. I must say that the recreation that the Spanish press made of that original article is more valuable; it is more valuable. The weight of the Hispanic Greco-Latin tradition is noticeable in the innate formation of Spanish journalism, although it is less original, it is more creative in its action, despite the redundancy, the paronomasia; that is, the original model is very poor if we compare it with the wealth chromatic of the fireworks that that same article acquires in the Spanish press when the millenarians recreate it. The Spanish millenarians have much more imagination than the Anglo-Saxon millenarians. I insist that they come genetically from a Spanish Greco-Latin literary tradition that gives much more strength to the artifice than the Anglo-Saxon undoubtedly. And well, hey, well, that is noticeable and it is quite noticeable. H the recreation they do is much more stimulating and also cites different and well researchers who they have more sparks; he quotes some Spanish researcher who, out of prudence, for the sake of prudence, sticks to statements typical of the solemnity of the obvious. And then quotes a researcher from the school of psychological sciences at the University of a university in Australia. Let's leave it at that; he is a co-author of a study on the consumption of garbage on the Internet; that is, of useless content, of garbage content on the Internet that warns that this garbage takes advantage of the natural tendency of our brain to look for news, especially when it comes to potentially harmful or alarming information, etc., etc. I insist that it is a very eh chromatic, very bright, very interesting recreation of this type of issues, but in reality the consumption of products that contribute absolutely nothing to human intelligence is due above all to idleness, of course. Cervantes himself in a ball from Don Quixote said that forces are usually of love to drive souls mad using careless idleness as an instrument. Most of the problems that human beings suffer are due to idleness, totally neglected idleness, the lack of work responsibility, the lack of work exercise, the work. Working makes human beings mature; the more hours the human being dedicates to working and generating commercially useful products because money must be recognized in measure of all things or products that require intellectual effort, the less time will be dedicated to consuming stupid things on the Internet. But in reality the idleness available to human beings in unproductive societies, in labor-parasitic societies, is what basically allows this human being to dedicate most of their daily life to the consumption of stupid products. But the social network turns those who consume this type of products into what we have called and we must insist on it a lot because that is how mercatrans smis. To this concept of mercatrans we have dedicated a lot of attention and a lot of dissemination because Internet parasites are truly not as parasites as they seem; Internet parasites fulfill a very important function because while someone spends hours and hours and days and days contemplating contents absolutely useless on the Internet, the dissemination of these contents through social networks sets in motion an enormously profitable commercial advertising mechanism, which is what of course generates very valuable wealth for friends of commerce; that is, the secret of social networks. It is not the communication of human beings; it is the commercial transmission of advertising and other content that, by the very fact of being transmitted, transforms that parasite energy into money for the friends of commerce. And otherwise, the world remains absolutely the same. Only if we had more training in literature we would be more aware of what we do and it would be much more difficult to intervene manipulatively with this type of instrument that has made the internet the august of friends of commerce.