"This English translation is based on a Japanese paper co-authored with Google's Gemini AI."

Introduction

In recent years, observing the frequent controversies surrounding anime and games, I've noticed a striking similarity in the critiques, despite the large number of critics. This phenomenon eerily resembles totalitarian mobilization. It suggests that individuals participating in "cancel culture" exhibit extremely homogeneous behaviors, transcending traditional political spectrums like right or left. Similar patterns are strongly evident in so-called "political polarization," where opposing sides view each other as absolute evil, refusing to find common ground and engaging in continuous attacks. This gives the impression of different ideologies forming their own totalitarian states and engaging in warfare.

The author and the AI, Gemini, began this discussion by questioning whether the functions of "The Party" as depicted in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four are manifesting in a peculiar way even in modern society, which is not a single dictatorial state. The conclusion drawn is that "The Party" in contemporary society is not a clear, singular evil, but rather functions as a decentralized and subtle system. In this system, multiple actors pursue their own interests, inadvertently fueling societal division and subtly guiding people's thoughts in specific directions.

We have named this phenomenon "Invisible Control." This is because individuals find their thoughts being guided, yet they cannot specifically identify who is doing the guiding, thus being controlled without realizing it.

This system is maintained like a pro-wrestling spectacle, where each side needs an "enemy," and agitators profit from this antagonism. Its genesis can be traced to the proliferation of smartphones and social media in the 2010s, as well as the legitimization of personal emotions. This paper aims to analyze the mechanisms of this "Invisible Control."

1.The "Soil" Woven by Intrinsic Human Tendencies and Information Technology

At the root of this system are two "soils": universal human psychological traits and rapidly developing information technology. People tend to simplify complex information, seek narratives, and desire to belong to groups and gain approval. Furthermore, they are easily swayed by emotions and prefer to avoid the effort of deep thinking, which influences how they receive information.

Into this mix, internet and social media algorithms are introduced. These have evolved to attract user attention and maximize engagement, naturally creating echo chambers where similar opinions reverberate, and filter bubbles where information becomes biased. As a result, an environment is formed where specific information and emotions can easily become inflamed.

2.The Germination of Division and its "Method": "Emotion vs. Emotion"

We believe that the period when this system of "Invisible Control" truly began to operate and global division accelerated was the 2010s, coinciding with the emergence of concepts and movements like Fourth Wave Feminism, the emphasis on diversity, and the promotion of DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion). Indeed, globally, the mid to late 2010s, when these movements truly became manifest and widely discussed, perfectly aligns with the period when global political and social "division" clearly accelerated, such as the rise of the Trump phenomenon in American politics and the UK's departure from the EU. While these concepts themselves aim to enhance social justice and inclusivity, the following mechanisms could trigger division in the process.

What is particularly notable in Fourth Wave Feminism is the visualization of arguments centered on "personal feelings" or "victimhood narratives," rather than traditional appeals for expanded rights or legal equality. By nature, emotions are rarely a basis for objective discussion. However, by cloaking these in the "garb of legitimacy" of feminism, diversity, and DEI, individual "feelings" or "victimhood narratives" came to be treated as if they were absolute truths. This constitutes the "absolutization of feelings," eliminating the need for logic in defining enemies or claiming righteousness.

Similar characteristics can be found in those who insist on emphasizing diversity, for example, the imposition of unnecessary racial diversity in games and movies, or the extreme promotion of DEI, such as demanding the setting of numerical targets.

These ideologies, in their attempt to rectify inequalities and discrimination in traditional social structures, clearly define an "enemy" or a "problematic system" as the "perpetrator" (e.g., patriarchy, misogynists, white supremacist society). This clear definition of an "enemy," and the concept itself being noble in seeking social justice, brings about a strong "sense of justice" and "moral superiority." And it is this sense of justice and moral superiority that causes them to exhibit strong exclusivity and aggression towards anything that does not align with their sentiments. This simplification into a battle of good versus evil also resonates with the aspect of "Newspeak" in Nineteen Eighty-Four – the simplification of language to facilitate the simplification of national thought and make control based on the Party's ideology easier.

Furthermore, while the emphasis on diversity encourages individuals to unite based on specific identities, it can simultaneously create fertile ground for inter-group conflict by strongly emphasizing the boundary between "our group" and "other groups."

These movements, especially on social media, easily foster a strong "atmosphere," where moral and ethical pressure intensifies, emphasizing principles like "discrimination is unacceptable" and "diversity is absolute." This creates an "absolute justice" that leaves no room for debate, making logical contradictions and "alternative facts" easily accepted in the name of "correctness." This mirrors the acceptance of "2+2=5" in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

This situation reproduces in modern times "doublethink" as depicted by Orwell – the state of simultaneously accepting two contradictory beliefs and consciously or unconsciously ignoring the contradiction. For example, while upholding the universal ethical principle that "discrimination is unacceptable," we've seen acts of attacking and excluding specific physical characteristics, such as the swaying breasts of a VTuber avatar, on the grounds that they are "sexual." This is a form of discrimination that denies physical characteristics, yet it is justified in the name of "justice," a classic example of doublethink. Similarly, establishing gender or racial quotas or setting numerical targets for members of organizations or characters in works, despite denying meritocracy and hindering equality of opportunity, and ultimately creating "reverse discrimination," is done in the name of "no discrimination."

The "garb of legitimacy" can also be seen in patriotism and national interest. The spread of such tactics has led to similar tendencies among opponents, leading to the creation of an "emotion vs. emotion" dynamic that ignores data and logical contradictions, often combined with nationalism, xenophobia, and cultural supremacy. Originally, cancel culture was often initiated by right-wing nationalists, but from around the late 2010s, it shifted to being frequently used by those with left-leaning tendencies, such as feminists, DEI proponents, and advocates for diversity. Recently, nationalist cancel culture, which leverages the concept of DEI, has also resurfaced, and both sides are increasingly becoming threats to freedom of expression.

Cancel culture differs from mere online outrage in that it demands apologies and concrete sanctions from the target individual or organization. Its problems include the escalation of criticism leading to privacy and human rights violations, increased risks for expressing opinions making free speech difficult, and the danger of deepening societal division.

These contradictory logics and alternative facts are formed and used for self-interest by the "agitators." Furthermore, those who are followers of the agitators, or who try to benefit from the agitators' contradictory logic, are the "amplifiers."

3.The Fluidity of "Agitators" and "Amplifiers": Orchestrators of Conflict Driven by Desire

Upon the "soil" woven by intrinsic human tendencies and information technology, actors pursuing specific interests are employing the "methods" of societal division, actively utilizing and amplifying these mechanisms.

Agitators are primarily the "elite class," such as politicians, certain media executives, and intellectuals. They understand social psychology and information transmission mechanisms, and for their own gain—votes, power, profit, fame, or status—they intentionally disseminate messages that inflame social division. Agitators can be said to embody the role of "The Party" in Nineteen Eighty-Four, which created an enemy in Emmanuel Goldstein to foster propaganda of fighting evil and inciting hatred. These agitators each command their own followers, forming a kind of small, dictatorial collective. These mini-states often cooperate based on common interests, such as advocating for legal reforms that benefit them or attacking shared enemies.

Amplifiers are influential individuals with large followings or fervent believers in the agitators. They strongly resonate with the agitators' messages and praise their views. Driven by an elite consciousness that they are part of the knowledgeable class who understand "the truth that 2+2=5," and a strong "sense of justice," they amplify, spread, and radicalize these messages. Their own desires for self-display, recognition, and financial gain also motivate amplifiers. Many of them do not possess a clear malicious intent to divide society; they simply believe that "spreading the ideology of the elite is their role and their justice." They can be said to play the role of the masses in Nineteen Eighty-Four's "Two Minutes Hate," loving Big Brother and expressing spontaneous, fervent hatred towards Goldstein.

Crucially, the boundary between these two roles is not absolute and can shift. Due to fundamental human desires (for money, recognition, power, etc.), it is common to see individuals who initially acted purely out of a "sense of justice" "evolve" into agitators who maximize their own interests as their influence grows. Furthermore, the line between agitators and amplifiers can sometimes be ambiguous, with agitators also acting as amplifiers by spreading specific ideologies. If we were to draw a distinction, it would be based on "for oneself or for others"—those who construct "the truth that 2+2=5" for their own self-interest and intentionally incite division are agitators, while those who do not construct such "truths" but disseminate them out of a sense of mission or financial desire are amplifiers. This fluidity provides the contemporary system of control with flexibility and sustainability, forming a hierarchical structure.

Agitators and amplifiers share fundamental human "desires" such as financial gain, recognition, self-display, power, and the maintenance or advancement of status, but they differ in the intensity, priority, and method by which these desires are fulfilled. Agitators often already possess a certain level of power or status. Their "desires" are directed towards macro-goals such as maintaining existing privileges (e.g., securing votes), gaining greater political influence (e.g., expanding party strength), achieving economic influence (e.g., increasing media appearances), and thereby expanding the influence of their own ideology. In contrast, amplifiers tend to seek more direct and personal gratification, such as recognition on social media, financial gain through monetization, or the self-satisfaction of contributing to "justice." This hierarchy and disparity of "desires" make the division in modern society more complex and enduring.

4.The "Intentionality" of Algorithms: Invisible Control Driven by Economic Gain

The evolution of algorithms is fundamentally driven by the "desire" of large technology companies to maximize their economic profits. To maximize shareholder value, they design algorithms that aim to maximize user engagement—such as time spent on platform, clicks, and shares.

As a result of pursuing this "desire," emotional content, especially content that incites anger or anxiety, tends to be prioritized. The widespread adoption of smartphones (from the early 2010s onwards) and the explosive growth of social media like Twitter further amplified emotional messages, strengthening echo chambers and filter bubbles. This creates a vicious cycle where users are more easily exposed to extreme information, accelerating societal division. Thus, the "intentionality" of algorithms forms a more subtle mechanism of control than the Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four; it's not direct thought control, but rather the maximization of economic profit indirectly driving societal division and "Invisible Control." Users believe they are choosing their own information, but in reality, they are unconsciously guided into specific thought patterns and divided information spaces by systems designed to maximize corporate profit.

5.Transformations in Major Online Spaces: Authoritarianism's Invasion of the Internet

The 2010s marked a period of widespread social media adoption. Before this era, prominent Japanese online spaces like 2channel (2ch) maintained almost complete anonymity. This anonymity separated the online world from real-world status and authority, creating a space untouched by authoritarianism. Posts on bulletin boards were stand-alone, with little connection to the individual poster, and the content's merit was judged purely on its own terms. This environment also made it difficult for individual posters to become targets of "flaming" or online attacks. Additionally, casually seeking answers was frowned upon; users were encouraged to research and discover information themselves. This fostered the development of critical thinking and search skills among users, indicating that the internet was also a place for cultivating critical thought. While anonymity guaranteed freedom of expression, it also had negative aspects, such as fostering irresponsibility and aggressive language.

With the advent of the social media era, posts became linked to their creators, introducing continuity to online discourse. Individual opinions and assertions became visible, making personal attacks and character assassinations more prevalent, leading to a surge in "flaming" incidents. Furthermore, the rise of real-name accounts brought authoritarianism into online spaces, where "who said it" often overshadowed "what was said." This led to blind obedience to authoritative figures, further eroding users' critical thinking skills. The fixed nature of usernames also fostered horizontal connections among users, contributing to the formation of groups, deeper relationships, and community development. However, as the unique characteristics of the online world diminished and it became more akin to real society, real-world structural conflicts were directly imported online. The concept of "friend or foe" led to viewing changes in opinion as betrayal, creating fear of "purges." Meanwhile, the anonymity that persisted carried over the irresponsibility and aggression from the 2ch era into social media, where it was amplified by echo chambers. Social media can be positioned as an intermediate between 2ch and real society, often exhibiting a fusion of the negative aspects of both.

6."Invisible Control" through "Atmosphere": Transformed Group Pressure and the Acceptance of "2+2=5"

As a result of the interaction between agitators, amplifiers, and algorithms, a specific "atmosphere" is cultivated in society. This is the universalization, in the digital age, of what was once considered a uniquely Japanese phenomenon of conformity pressure and collective surveillance/censorship.

Within communities shaped by this "atmosphere," collective beliefs and emotions take precedence over objective facts and logic. This creates a situation where even clear logical contradictions or "alternative facts" are accepted as "truth." Individuals or logical arguments, like "2+2=4," that do not accept the collective belief of "2+2=5" are subjected to intense criticism in the form of cancel culture and online flaming by the group. This is, in essence, "re-education" by "thought police." Social media, with its bidirectional nature allowing both information dissemination and mutual viewing of posts, also possesses the function of the "telescreen" from Nineteen Eighty-Four. It broadcasts propaganda and, through its two-way nature, acts as a surveillance mechanism. Fanatical amplifiers assume the role of thought police, monitoring social media, and when they discover words or expressions that don't align with the group's beliefs, they share them within their groups to initiate "re-education" or "purges" through flaming. This can be likened to the digital version of Foucault's panopticon principle, which he called "the automation of power." The constant awareness of being watched encourages individuals to regulate their own behavior and conform to norms. This also creates a chilling effect, where people hesitate to actively express opinions for fear of being flamed, even if they secretly disagree with "2+2=5." This manifests in phenomena like the "hidden Trump voter." It also fosters political apathy, as people learn that engaging in political matters leads to trouble.

Corporations and administrations sometimes appear to yield to this "atmosphere," fearing economic loss or damage to their brand image. This represents a "new form of oppression," where censorship, akin to that by "The Party" in Nineteen Eighty-Four, is carried out not just by the state but by groups. Underlying this is the transformation of the traditional spirit of "implicit exclusion" into a more aggressive and explicit "collective pressure," verbalized and made visible by the anonymity and collectivism of the digital space. This is also considered one of the reasons for the high level of aggression towards others on social media.

While the influence of religion is declining globally, "specific values" have entered this void as "new religions." In a space dominated by conformity pressure in the name of justice, agitators become like cult leaders, and their amplifier-followers engage in proselytizing, attacking "infidel" communities, and conducting "inquisitions" (re-education) or "excommunications" (exclusion). Just as Christianity demonized and excluded heretics and infidels, opponents who contradict their "values" are "demonized." The "devil" is seen as a corrupting influence whose words should not be listened to, leading to a refusal of dialogue. The battle to defeat the "devil" becomes a "holy war" that permits no compromise. Even though it might seem like people have moved away from existing religions, the negative aspects are simply carried over into these new religions of values.

7. The "Pro-Wrestling Dynamic": A System Where Agitators Desire Division

The division in modern society functions like a pro-wrestling dynamic, where "each side needs an enemy." For example, the spiral of "Trump supporters becoming more extreme → anti-Trump individuals feeling more threatened → anti-Trump individuals becoming more extreme → Trump supporters feeling more victimized" is a prime example. Even the anti-Trump side, especially those who see themselves as the "intellectual class," are driven by a sense of "crisis" from Trump's words and actions, leading them to engage in extreme criticism and exclusionary behavior, rather than opting for the more moderate method of enlightenment. This indicates that they too are driven by "desires" like recognition, influence, and economic gain, acting as agitators and amplifiers to secure these benefits.

In this system, division is "fuel" for the agitators. The deeper the division, the more they can justify their roles and gain greater benefits. Movements where agitators expose "systemic flaws" or "discrimination" and call for their rectification provide excellent opportunities for agitators to enhance their own significance and influence. Actors who gain economic benefits through these movements, such as DEI consultants or media personnel with specific ideological backgrounds, have a vested interest in the perpetuation of division. Therefore, agitators do not desire the resolution of division; rather, they employ subtle tactics to maintain and escalate conflict. This structure is akin to a pro-wrestling promoter whose primary concern is orchestrating exciting matches and keeping fans enthralled. It's the entertainment-ization of politics and ideology. As a result, thinking about how policies or ideologies impact oneself or society becomes secondary; people become interested only in the win-loss record of their own team—that is, their favored political party or the agitator's persona. This entertainment-ization represents the most simplified form of thought.

It's crucial to consider what benefits and drawbacks their accusations bring to oneself and society, and to think beyond the confines of a "team."

8. The Peculiarity and Danger of "Amplifiers" in Modern Times

In earlier times, the mass media played the role of amplifiers, escalating and spreading critical narratives against the ruling party, influencing elections, and earning substantial revenue from commercials. This phenomenon has now expanded to individuals through the monetization features of social media and platforms like YouTube. The online activities of these ordinary, individual amplifiers represent a new presence, one that was absent in the historical path from agitation to totalitarianism. The peculiar nature and danger of these modern amplifiers warrant particular attention.

First, the most striking peculiarity is the explosive increase in the number of potential amplifiers. Unlike traditional mass media, which acted as information gatekeepers, social media has allowed anyone to become an information broadcaster. As a result, messages from specific agitators can be instantly diffused across a vast range of individual accounts. This isn't like a single speaker shouting loudly; instead, it's countless people shouting simultaneously in their own voices, resonating with each other and creating an overwhelming "atmosphere." This "infinite reproducibility" has the power to paralyze logical verification and drown out dissenting opinions.

The danger of modern amplifiers is that many are not prominent journalists or intellectuals but rather "ordinary people." Their communications often stem from personal experiences and emotions, making them highly relatable and empathetic to recipients. Many people tend to think, "If someone like me is saying it, it must be true." This "relatability" becomes a trap that lowers guard against information, allowing agitators' messages to be absorbed uncritically. Their information lacks "professional" distance, making it difficult to view with skepticism. While in the past, the main amplifiers were solely the mass media, and critically examining their broadcasts was sufficient, social media means everyone can be an amplifier. The danger they pose is no different from that of the mass media. Therefore, it's essential to view even the communications of "ordinary people" with skepticism and critical thought.

Many amplifiers act out of a genuine "goodwill" or "sense of justice," aiming to improve society or rectify injustices. This becomes a powerful motivation for actively disseminating messages and attacking dissenting views, serving as an indulgence that justifies harsh attacks on others. False resentments and jealousies towards an "enemy" or "privileged group" created by agitators also serve as motivations.

Social media platforms are designed with mechanisms that stimulate broadcasters' desires for self-display and recognition. "Likes," "retweets," and increases in follower count become direct rewards for the sender. This pursuit of rewards encourages the dissemination of more extreme and emotional messages, aiming to gain further engagement. Coupled with algorithms designed to prioritize emotional content, amplifiers unconsciously become caught in an "infinite loop of information consumption," continuously producing content that fuels societal division. This loop serves as a powerful driving force for the perpetuation of division.

What makes the peculiarity of these modern amplifiers most dangerous is that many are unaware that the "justice" or "ideology" promoted by the agitators ultimately doesn't bring true benefit to themselves or society; in fact, it can cause harm. Opposition to progressive taxation is a good example: despite not being in the tax bracket that would pay high taxes, they're driven by the illusion that their future interests will be harmed or by an unfounded fear that society will suffer without the wealthy, thus functioning as convenient pawns for the agitators. While agitators increase their own power and economic gains from conflict, amplifiers gain only spiritual satisfaction or a sense of belonging from participating in the "ideological war," receiving no substantial benefit, or even suffering losses. Furthermore, agitators, leveraging their expanded influence, may directly engage in national policymaking as "experts," exhibiting a form of political profiteering. These "experts" aren't necessarily individuals with specialized knowledge; sometimes, celebrities are chosen. Both their calls for deregulation and increased regulation must be carefully scrutinized.

These peculiarities demonstrate how "Invisible Control" in modern society has transformed into a more subtle and difficult-to-resist form, no longer relying solely on clear violence or censorship as in past totalitarian states. Instead, it cleverly exploits people's intrinsic desires and "goodwill," leading them to voluntarily contribute to societal division. Agitators have successfully used the existence of such amplifiers to spread their intentions to every corner of society and cultivate a strong "atmosphere."

Appendix: Depth of Thought and "Invisible Control"

The "Invisible Control" we've analyzed in this paper functions by subtly manipulating our very thought processes. To understand this mechanism, Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning—a framework that categorizes cognitive learning objectives into hierarchical levels—is useful. This taxonomy also functions as a diagnostic tool, indicating the depth of information processing.

Bloom's Taxonomy divides thinking into the following six levels:

Remembering: Recalling facts and information as they are.
Understanding: Explaining the meaning of information, but interpretation is superficial.
Applying: Using knowledge and understanding in new situations.
Analyzing: Breaking down information to deeply comprehend its components and relationships.
Evaluating: Critically judging the truthfulness, reliability, and validity of information or claims based on specific criteria.
Creating: Combining different elements to generate new ideas or solutions; this is the highest level of thinking.

The subtlety of "Invisible Control" lies in its ability to keep people at lower-order thinking levels like remembering and understanding, intentionally bypassing higher-order thinking steps such as applying, analyzing, and evaluating. Agitators incite emotions and provide simplified "alternative facts," leaving no time for people to engage in logical verification, thus directly leading them to "evaluate" or "act."

For example, an agitator might take a snippet of a game video and post a strong emotional comment like, "This is an insult!" This strong emotion causes a shortcut, bypassing the stages that should naturally follow:

Remembering: "Saw" the agitator's message.
Understanding: Accepts the "alternative fact" or "feeling" prepared by the agitator as is. Completely skipping intermediate stages like Applying or Analyzing, this induces a very short-sighted thought pattern, leading immediately to the agitator's desired outcome:
Evaluating: "It is an insult."
Creating: "I can't tolerate this," leading to a post.
This suggests that strong emotions lead one to be guided in someone else's intended direction, without recognizing the "current location" of their own thoughts.

Ideally, by engaging in critical thinking and verifying sources, one would proceed through the stages:

Applying: "How would I have acted if I played the same game?"
Analyzing: "Which scene was clipped from this video? What was the sender's intention?"
Evaluating: "The original video's intent has been distorted."
Creating: "This is strange. It's a convenient selective editing," leading to a post.
This demonstrates the effectiveness of advancing one's thoughts step-by-step, without being swayed by emotion.

Conclusion:

The Modern Terror Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four and the Possibility of Resistance
Ultimately, this complex mechanism reveals the harsh reality that the populace is being used as "convenient tools." They believe they are "fighting for justice" by their own choice, yet they are unknowingly deepening societal division as unwitting pawns in a game orchestrated by actors with specific interests.

In the dystopia of Nineteen Eighty-Four, a clear, singular evil—The Party—existed, and some individuals, like Winston, became aware of it. However, "The Party" in modern society lacks a centralized ruler. Instead, it cleverly exploits intrinsic human tendencies and technological advancements, leading people to "voluntarily" participate in division. This makes it a more insidious and difficult-to-detect form of "Invisible Control" than that depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The years-long global division strongly suggests the truth of this complex mechanism.

It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when modern Invisible Control began. There was no single decisive event; rather, it gradually emerged as internet environment changes, the spread of hardware like smartphones, and ideologies slowly fused in the 2010s.

Historically, Invisible Control bears similarities to phenomena like witch hunts and the rise of Nazism. This indicates that "Invisible Control" by agitators and amplifiers has always existed. The key peculiarity of the modern era is the explosive increase in "ordinary people as amplifiers" due to social media.

However, we, as "ordinary people," must not cease our communications. Instead, actively articulating "2+2=4," derived from our own critical and logical thinking, is the most effective form of resistance against Invisible Control. We shouldn't rely solely on the efforts of well-meaning intellectuals who have historically opposed dictatorships. Instead, it is crucial to collaborate with them, build common platforms and networks, and create "spaces of awareness" to help diverse people recognize the mechanisms of "Invisible Control." This aims not just to provide information but also to foster critical thinking, genuine diversity that accepts varied viewpoints, and a "new atmosphere" that guides people towards solidarity rather than division.

The modern Invisible Control system, using social media, is a naturally occurring phenomenon born from technological advancement, and it's not inherently problematic. The issue lies in the agitators' motivation to incite division for profit. It's also possible to spread "2+2=4," derived from critical and logical thinking, through social media. Furthermore, social media is a powerful weapon to counter older forms of Invisible Control, such as that by the mass media as amplifiers. While many people have witnessed and are wary of the mass media's position as agitators and amplifiers, their influence remains formidable.

Concluding Remarks

The system presented in this paper comprehensively explains phenomena ranging from social media flamewars to global "divisions," though specific examples have been kept to a minimum.

This paper aims to serve as an aid for critical thinking, helping readers break free from being convenient tools or pawns of control. We leave it to the reader's judgment to determine what constitutes an "agitator," "amplifier," or "driving desire" in each specific situation. However, we do not wish to point out and publicly name who these agitators or amplifiers are. Doing so would align with the very behavior of agitators and amplifiers who seek to attack opposing factions. Nineteen Eighty-Four itself is often used as an attack to mock other factions as totalitarian. However, the attackers themselves are also under the "Invisible Control" of "The Party." The theory presented in this paper is a framework, a tool, for analyzing the divisions occurring in modern society. We refuse for it to be used as a tool for "war."

We also do not propose systemic overhauls as solutions. In essence, this "Invisible Control" is virtually unstoppable systemically. It's easy to label the system as evil, but its misuse stems from human desires, and any system, depending on its operators' intentions, can reproduce division. "Invisible Control" operates entirely through democratic and legal means. The activities of agitators and amplifiers all take place within the bounds of freedom of speech. To stop them would require regulating freedom of speech, suppressing corporate actions, and restricting various freedoms, which would paradoxically lead to a real-world Nineteen Eighty-Four. Of course, illegal acts that deviate from freedom of expression, such as threats and slander, are inexcusable and require a firm response, as goes without saying in a law-abiding nation.

Regulating social media would only restore "Invisible Control by the mass media." However, the mass media is also an indispensable presence. Their journalistic capacity as corporations far exceeds that of individuals, and their information gathering abilities are excellent. By critically examining articles with an awareness of the powerful biases the mass media can introduce, a great deal of valuable information can still be obtained.

Orwell wrote: "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." The author of this paper does not deny algorithms that maximize corporate profit, nor does he deny the desires of agitators and amplifiers. This is because they are human instincts and cannot be denied. However, there is absolute resistance to having one's freedom suppressed by others' desires. Individuals must maintain logical, critical thinking and continuously protect the freedom to say "2+2=4" from "new forms of oppression."

In recent years, corporations and governments have shown an increasing reluctance to easily succumb to cancel culture. Evaluating actions that uphold "2+2=4" against "new forms of oppression," and thereby making the methods of division obsolete, might be the breakthrough to overcome other forms of "Invisible Control."

Furthermore, it is also important not to overly refute or engage with messages that incite division. "He who feeds the troll is also a troll." Trolls become more extreme when they feel seen. Engaging with emotional and illogical opponents gains nothing, and the doublethink of those strongly gripped by Invisible Control is rigid and impervious to logic. "Dialogue works" depends on the opponent. There are also "unreasonable people who say dialogue works." Engaging with them might even inadvertently spread the agitators' "2+2=5." It is important to continue to communicate calmly and logically "2+2=4," without engaging with emotional "2+2=5." It's also a good idea to utilize block functions appropriately. Blocking can serve as a means to protect oneself from "telescreen" surveillance and "thought police."

Lastly, this paper was constructed primarily through dialogue with AI, Gemini, with its mainstream and novel perspectives refined through refutation, agreement, and evolution. AI, unlike humans, does not possess emotions like likes or dislikes, or extraneous biases from human relationships. This neutral perspective is useful. Drafts were also shown to other AI models like Grok and ChatGPT, and their respective perspectives were incorporated to deepen the analysis. Each AI model offers diverse viewpoints, which is crucial for avoiding AI-induced echo chambers. However, even AI perspectives are largely influenced by the "Invisible Control" of mainstream viewpoints. While AI is often considered neutral and fair, it cannot completely exclude the influence of the "atmosphere" and mainstream ideologies present in its training data, making it highly probable that its responses will be affected by them. This indicates the danger of AI also becoming an amplifier. For this reason, users' critical thinking (the freedom of "2+2=4") remains indispensable even in dialogue with AI.

"The original Japanese text of this paper was developed through extensive dialogue with Google's Gemini AI, which also provided this English translation."