This intellectual sandbox, while entertaining, also serves a purpose: to broaden perspectives, challenge assumptions, and occasionally inspire new lines of legitimate research. The speculative exercise is self-aware. Everyone in the room knows the rules—that these narratives are not fact, but hypothetical constructions, clearly labeled and treated as such.

The Current Crisis: Social Media’s Uninformed Evangelists

Unfortunately, in today’s digital society, the lines between academic play and public consumption have dangerously blurred. What was once a contained exercise among scholars has now leaked into social media, stripped of context and critical disclaimer, and weaponized as “truth.”

A new wave of content creators—often without any academic credentials or understanding of historical methodology—have co-opted these imaginative constructs, presenting them not as what-ifs but as what-weres.

The motivation? Fame, influence, and profit. In the attention economy, clickbait thrives, and a sensational story about lost civilizations, hidden bloodlines, or ancient technologies is far more lucrative than a peer-reviewed journal article.

Responsible Speculative History vs. Misuse on Social Media

The consequences are troubling: misinformed followers, growing distrust of credible historical institutions, unnecessary social conflict, and the rise of conspiratorial echo chambers that feed on distorted histories. When audiences don’t understand the rules of speculative history, imagination becomes indoctrination.

Misinformation Is Not Harmless

While some might argue that these imaginative historical reinterpretations are simply entertainment, the damage goes deeper. Misinformed individuals vote, shape policy, and influence culture. When history becomes a choose-your-own-adventure game with no accountability, societal cohesion breaks down.

A public fed on fantasy loses touch with reality. When history is rewritten based on charisma rather than scholarship, we risk repeating the very mistakes it was meant to help us avoid.

How to Recognize Speculative History

To protect ourselves and others from falling prey to these charismatic yet misleading presentations, it’s important to learn the signs of speculative history misused as fact:

1. 1. Overreliance on a Single Data Point – Real historical claims are supported by multiple, corroborative sources. If an entire theory hinges on one ambiguous artifact or idea, it’s likely speculative.
   2. Lack of Scholarly Citations – Beware of content that offers no credible sources or only references fringe theorists. Peer-reviewed work and university-affiliated publications remain the gold standard.
   3. Use of Absolutist Language – Phrases like “This proves…” or “What they don’t want you to know…” are red flags. Responsible historians speak in probabilities, not certainties.
   4. Appeal to Suspicion – If the argument relies more on distrusting institutions than on providing hard evidence, it’s likely conspiratorial rather than historical.
   5. Absence of Critical Peer Debate – Academic speculative history is debated and often debunked within its community. Social media claims usually exist in isolation, echoing unchallenged among fans.

What You Can Do: Becoming a Digital Critical Thinker

1. 1. Ask the Source: Before sharing or believing a wild claim, ask: Where is this information from? Has it been verified by more than one credible source?
   2. Look for Context: Is this presentation marked as fiction, theory, or speculation? If not, why not? Who benefits from presenting it as fact?
   3. Use Academic Databases: Google Scholar, JSTOR, and university press articles can help you compare the speculative claim with established research.
   4. Challenge Respectfully: If you see someone spreading misinformation, ask thoughtful questions instead of attacking. “Interesting—do you know if any scholars support this theory?” is a good start.
   5. Follow Real Historians: There are many excellent historians and archaeologists online who do the work of debunking speculative claims. Support their voices.
   6. Avoid the Outrage Trap: Social media thrives on emotional response. If a historical claim is designed to make you angry, suspicious, or overly excited—pause. You might be the product, not the audience.

The Sacredness of Truth

Speculative history is not the enemy. In fact, when handled responsibly, it is a vital intellectual tool. It fosters curiosity, fuels new research directions, and opens us to creative interpretations of humanity’s vast past.

But just as a microscope can reveal wonders or be used to burn ants, speculative history misused on social media becomes a weapon against truth. In a world drowning in in misinformation, our job is not only to be curious but also to be discerning.

Let us keep the doors of imagination open—but never unguarded.

I get it. These are companies. They are certainly entitled to censor their users, just as any shop owner might post a “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service” regulation. Businesses have the ability to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Is it good policy? I don’t know, but it seems to be reasonable to me.

Banned from YouTube

Just the other day, a friend of mine’s YouTube account was deleted due to a violation of YouTube’s terms of service. My friend had posted a video that included a personal testimony and an associated opinion that my friend believed to be true.

YouTube determined (by whatever method was utilized) that my friend’s truth was contradictory to YouTube’s definition of truth, and therefore deemed my friend’s truth as disinformation.

Okay, I agree that YouTube has the right to police their own userbase and limit how they use the “free service” that they provide. Of course, we know the free service is heavily monetized by exploiting the userbase as their revenue source.

You might think that restricting the video might be an appropriate reaction, but instead, in accordance with YouTube policies, my friend’s entire account was deleted. All the videos are gone. And if that wasn’t enough, my friend was sent a Dear John letter which clearly stated that this included being forever banned from ever possessing a YouTube account in any way, manner, or form in the future. Period.

Banned from Facebook

On Facebook, no doubt you’ve seen Zuckerberg’s attempt to also determine what is truth while trying to hide behind third-party fact-checkers. More censorship. And user accounts that are not in compliance with their policies are also being suspended, banned, or deleted due to “someone’s” perception of truth.

Banned from Google

Google’s attempt at censorship is in the controlling of what you have access to via their search engine. They do not ban you, but they ban what you have access to, so you never know it existed. If the Google thought machine deems something to be misinformation or fake news.

There was a time when Google’s search results were unfiltered and not restricted. It reminded me of having access to a library back in the day.

I could go to the library and have access to a wide variety of information from the kooky and bizarre to classic literature, practical how-to information, and more current academic work all in one place. (I am still somewhat traumatized by the information that I had access to from libraries back in my youth but grateful for having access to that information nonetheless.)

With Google? You obtained instant inclusive results and access to most all the information you could possibly imagine (way more than you could get from vising a hundred libraries) at lightning speed. A researcher’s dream come true.

That was then. This is now. Today, in comparison, Google’s search results are sorely lacking.

Mind Control

Is there an underlying theme of controlling the minds of the world, to manipulate what the masses believe to be truth? (See: How to Exert Mind Control Over the Masses.) In recent appearances before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, the companies maintain they are acting in the best interests of their users to prevent the spread of misinformation or “fake news.”

The government would certainly like to play a part in determining what is proliferated as truth within our borders and beyond. This is a matter which will be part of further negotiations with the information and media providers as well as the social media outlets in the upcoming months.

Obviously, they do not realize that truth can only be determined by one person: You. It cannot be dictated. Truth is a continuum. And having access to varying data and points of view are of primary importance to any scientific method.

If they (whoever they may be) can control the information you have access to, they could reasonably conclude that they can control your thoughts. If they can control your thoughts, they can control what you believe, say, and do.

Let Us Think for Ourselves

I believe we are better than they give us credit for. I think people can and should be able to think for themselves. I think you must have access to all the thought that is available to arrive at your own conclusions, to believe whatever you want, and call that truth, whatever it is.

Empower us to do our own fact checks. I learned about fact-checking, before sharing something that was designed to make me click-and-share the click-bait so that my personal profile could be expanded and targeted the hard way, and I became a more cautious user because of the experience.

We all can learn how to do this. We do not need to resign ourselves to existing in an information vacuum.

Free Speech

So, how do we preserve free thought and free speech?

I do not think we can trust companies to provide us with unbiased access because it does not support their financial monetization strategies. Greed and amassing tremendous fortunes while cashing-in on the exploitation of others tends to cloud one’s judgment.

Though it would be nice to have unrestricted information and media providers as well as open social media outlets. I have asked myself,

What if I were to do it?

What if I were to create a totally free platform, free from censorship? What would that look like?

If it were me, I also would have to provide some parameters for users, or else I would be providing a breeding ground for exploitation, nefarious individuals, and criminal activity. Things that would interfere with my concept of making the world a better place.

The answer is not an easy one.

But I believe we could do better.

You are at least somewhat aware of how the law of attraction works. Right? When you expend energy on any negative topic, you make it stronger. Even if you vehemently oppose it, the more you abhor it, you add even more energy to it.

When we do this, we are power cells for negative energy.

Take a look at your social media posting history, and what do you see?

Do you see someone who posts positivity and promotes love? Or do you see someone promoting drama and trauma?

You might be surprised to find that you can easily tell where your center of attraction is, which is also known as your vibrational frequency, by taking an objective look at what you share on social media, as well as what you talk about, with friends, around the water cooler, or in general.

If your attention were like a teeter-totter, with negative energy and positive energy on the other, at the very least, you would want to remain balanced. But if you have more negative energy, then your positive energy is nullified due to the dominance of negative energy. Even though your intentions are quite good.

When you share something on social media, you might consider asking the question – before you post it – “Where’s the love in that?”

If you can view your posting(s) and see no love in it, you could consider stopping posting altogether, because you are not only lowering your own vibration, but you are adding to that which you are feeling uncomfortable, sick, or angry about.

And, if you’re sharing a good deal of negative “fake news” such as articles, images, and memes that are fictional but created to elicit a negative response from viewers, then you are purely spreading negative vibrations for no reason. This is an unnecessary reckless negative promotion, of which you should be ashamed.

Please fact-check any emotionally charged negative post before responding or sharing. Do not be a part of the decline of our culture. Ignorance is no excuse.

What can you do?

So glad you asked.

You can post regarding that thing you despise, but do not share a negative post. Do not do it.

Share a love-filled positive post instead.

Let’s look at an example.

Let’s say you say a posting of a person who was demon-possessed pushing people in a crowded supermarket, looking crazy, threatening, and had that “if looks could kill” look in his or her eye. This appeared to be captured via cell phone, and the caption reads, “Demon possessed ghoul, attacks and tries to eat innocent shoppers in Atlanta!”

We already know, if you repost it, you are adding to the negative energy of this post, so you’re not going to do that.

Instead, you could share a related love-filled positive post.

You could do a search and maybe find a related article about a priest who exorcizes a demon from a shopping mall in San Antonio, with a tearfully happy ending. Or you could seek out and find an organization that supports public exorcisms, donate five dollars to the cause, and share a post promoting their ministry.

Or, if you’re particularly concerned about what you post, you may do a search on the shockingly negative post which got you all riled up in the first place to discover the original video capture was of a shopper who was choking on a chicken bone whose life was saved by a store clerk. The victim is alive and well, and now a vegetarian.

The video footage was edited and promoted as a fantastically negative energy generator, and it had gained quite a bit of momentum to push down the vibration of the Internet to the glee of some twisted individual.

Dare to care and check before you share.

And by all means, ask, yourself, “Where’s the love in that?”

If you cannot see the love, be the love, and share the love.

Thank you so much.

Now, you are the solution to the growing web of pollution.

It’s a tough balance to maintain between data collection and free speech. We all agree (well, some of us) that someone should be able to think or say anything they want. Many of us use the Internet as a resource to access factual data, even events happening in real time that is not (could not have been, or might have been suppressed) by the media.

People Click on the Darndest Things

False Information Internet Narcissists (FIIN) stalk the World Wide Web scouring it to glean headlines, quotes taken out of context, and create photoshopped images to appease their addiction to obsessive click counting which send their dopamine system into orbit.

The quest for creating anything that “goes viral” on the Internet drives many non-malicious, twisted, thrill-seeking web surfers to create false information for the dopamine rush it provides (and maybe their 15 minutes of fame).

If you’ve ever posted something on Facebook that’s received a massive response, you know what the Internet-fueled hit of dopamine feels like. It’s a great high that makes you feel good, and it’s quite addictive. It’s what keeps us glued to our devices and clicking endlessly throughout our lives.

Not all of the fake news found on the Internet is spread in folly, some of it is posted and shared to manipulate the minds of Web-surfers. Before the present millennium, television, radio and newspapers were the media used to program and sway the minds of people to generate a particular mass mentality, and to separate us into manageable groups of polarized thinkers.

Now, the Internet provides us with a more effective access to each individual regardless of age. The programming starts as soon as a toddler is able to hold a device, and we all fall into line as it nearly becomes a demand that all individuals have access to a device connected to the Internet (though now, it is only a right, not a demand).

There are plenty of initiators of bad information with the malicious intent of controlling your thoughts or actions, as well as some who possess the well-meaning intent to sway the thoughts of others to align with their own perceptions and/or conclusions without malice.

When you are accessing information on the Internet, and you read something that seems quite fantastic, you might be better off doing a little fact-checking before joining the viral wave of fake news promoters.

We all do it. I even caught myself sharing a bit of falsified information because it was forwarded to me by a trusted friend. Because it was written in the first-person, I assumed it was written by my friend, whom I respected, and the message included a sincere request for me to share it on his behalf. (Which I’m embarrassed to admit, I did, without checking first.)

You cannot stop the spread of false information, but you can refuse to be party to its impact. Taking a few moments to do a little fact-checking before you re-post something can go a long way in slowing the spread of fake news.

All that Internet drama takes a toll on your physiology, causing cellular deterioration which can cause health decline for 8 hours following the emotional impact of a false news report.

Guarding your heart and your mind against getting sucked into a false media campaign will help you live a healthier, happier and longer life.