Confronting the Digital Stupidity Epidemic

Our world is consumed within a stupidity epidemic!

I’m convinced that social media is making us less rational and, frankly, more stupid—perhaps even deliberately ignorant. I’m clearly not alone in that view. Meanwhile, the “tech bros” profit by keeping us wilfully uninformed and exploiting the consequences—like selling us a megaphone, charging per shout, then feigning surprise when no one can hear themselves think. Our world is collapsing under the weight of fuckwittery!

Observing Conversational Decline

Like languages—more on this later—our behaviour evolves, though not always for the better. In recent decades, a major driver of this change has been the rise of the internet and our near-constant reliance upon digital communications; in place of face-to-face conversations, where speech is enriched by nuance and non-verbal cues. Additionally, often progression – for the common good – is further stymied by “keyboard warriors” bashing out increasingly more angry missives at 2am in the morning. And that problem doesn’t ever start to consider the latest additional impacts from the plethora of AI generated “angry bots” that also inhabit almost every corner of most digital platforms.

The evidence broadly supports these assumptions. Research on the “online disinhibition effect” shows that anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity and reduced social feedback can loosen the restraints that normally govern face-to-face behaviour; a 2024 study found that difficulty regulating emotion predicted stronger online disinhibition, which in turn was associated with self-reported uncivil communication—even after personality and empathy were taken into account.

A separate 2024 systematic review of “digital banter” found that the absence or ambiguity of cues such as tone, expression and timing increases the risk of humour being misread as aggression and conversations escalating towards vitriolic conflict. Meanwhile, research into automated information disorder identifies bots and generative AI as potential amplifiers of false narratives, because they can create and distribute persuasive material rapidly and at scale. In other words, the medium does not merely carry anger and misunderstanding: some of its defining features make both easier to produce, misinterpret and multiply.

Sifting Digital Sludge

There is, however, a more nuanced—and increasingly well-supported—version of my original outrageous, inflammatory and vulgar claim. Research around online misinformation shows that people often decide what to believe and share based on familiarity, social approval, emotion and identity rather than careful verification. A 2024 systematic review found that “cognitive biases, emotional appeals and social-identity motives all help create and spread false information”—often like wildfire. Large-scale studies of Facebook and Twitter, now X, also found that “misinformation provokes more outrage than reliable reporting, making users more likely to share it without first reading it.” To my genuine surprise, this does not prove that humanity is becoming less rational overall. It does, however, suggest that social-media systems “amplify unreflective behaviour by rewarding speed, certainty and emotion over careful thought”, often for lucrative financial gain. But honestly, who has time to think these days?

Politics: Digital Tones

Social media has changed both the tone and structure of sociopolitical discourse, and the language we use. It has broadened participation by enabling marginalised voices, activists and citizens to address large audiences directly. Yet it can also divide debate into like-minded networks, where selective exposure and repetition reinforce groupthink and identity politics. Research on affective polarisation finds that “exchanges between political opponents are more negative and toxic” than those within the same ideological group, while large-scale analyses of online comments show that “uncivil openings prompt increasingly uncivil replies.” As divisions deepen, opponents are more readily cast as enemies, complex policies reduced to slogans, and outrage rewarded over nuance. But did anyone really ever care about politics—or its effects on individuals and society—before those effects physically reached them?

Politics: Digital Discourse

Perversely, repeated exposure to misinformation and hostility can erode trust in experts, journalism and democratic institutions, making compromise and shared standards of evidence harder to sustain. That is before accounting for electorates already suspicious of politicians who repeatedly fail to “read the room”. Because these effects vary across platforms and countries, social media is possibly better understood as an amplifier of existing political divisions rather than their sole cause. But it’s still always worth remembering that almost every thick twat now has a megaphone!

At the extreme, political polarisation becomes less a disagreement over policies than a belief that the opposing camp is immoral, illegitimate or dangerous. Evidence on “affective polarisation” links this hostility to lower trust, weaker willingness to compromise and greater tolerance of democratic norm-breaking; cross-national research by Falkenberg et al. (2024) found “a common pattern of greater toxicity and engagement in exchanges between political opponents”, while Levy’s field experiment (2021) showed that “exposure to ideologically opposed news can increase polarisation rather than reduce it.” Research by Milli et al. (2025) further found that “engagement-based ranking amplifies divisive content.” The danger is therefore practical as well as rhetorical: when opponents are treated as existential enemies, misinformation becomes easier to justify, intimidation and political violence become more acceptable, and the shared rules needed for peaceful democratic government begin to erode.

Monetising Anger

Additionally, algorithmic monetisation has served to intensify all these problems because the dominant advertising model turns attention into revenue. Platforms rank content by predicted engagement—clicks, shares, comments and viewing time—rather than accuracy, public value or users’ considered preferences. Emotionally charged, divisive or misleading posts often score well on these measures, gaining greater visibility and generating reactions that trigger further promotion (and division). This feedback loop encourages creators, political actors and media organisations to produce ever more provocative content because reach can be converted into advertising income, subscriptions, donations or influence.

Studies comparing engagement-ranked feeds with chronological ones show that the former amplify more angry, partisan and hostile material, while economic models suggest that prioritising likes and shares can increase misinformation and polarisation. Platforms need not favour any ideology; the system simply rewards whatever captures the most attention. Because the effects vary by platform, algorithmic monetisation is best understood as an accelerant of political division rather than its sole cause. Even so, the rich and powerful grow richer and more powerful by deliberately provoking people. Annoying social-media lifestyle influencers ride the same wave through often highly lucrative side hustles, while the rest of us absorb their shit—and pay for the privilege.

Developing Language

Perhaps this subheading should read “declining” rather than “developing”. Still, English—like most languages—is constantly evolving as a means of expression and an essential tool for communicating with others. I do sometimes wonder whether consulting Dr Dolittle’s phrasebook before speaking might improve my conversational success though.

Flippancy aside, my “mother tongue” emerged from Middle English around 1500, when printing, the Great Vowel Shift and growing standardisation helped create Early Modern English; since then, global contact, science, technology and popular culture have continually reshaped its pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. The OED’s quarterly figures indicate that roughly 20,000 new words, phrases and senses have been added over the past decade.

Language clearly matters, even when bastardised or abused. Yet the National Literacy Trust reported (2024) that one in six people in the UK has poor or no reading skills: “More common is the use of the term ‘functionally illiterate’. And around 16 per cent, or 5.2 million adults in England, can be described as functionally illiterate”. I may therefore be goosed: relying on a keyboard to convey an idea—and on others to read and understand it—could be overly optimistic, if not a step too far. So not only are we not able to converse civilly anymore, but we also struggle with reading anything that was written by someone else.

To borrow Corporal Fraser’s famous warning from Dad’s Army, “We’re all doomed, Captain Mainwaring—we’re all doooomed!” Or, as the eruditely crude but hilariously funny – Scottish storyteller Billy Connolly might put it with a wry smile: “We’re all fucked!”

Potty Mouth

Coarse language has become an increasingly common part of our everyday speech, yet it has also been present for centuries. However, swearing is essentially a form of emphasis, but if everything is emphasised—especially with constant, pointless “F-bombs”—the words start to lose their force. Think of someone you know who rarely swears, assuming you actually know one: when they say “fuck” or one of its derivatives, you (should) immediately understand that the subject matters deeply to them, for better or worse.

“A lot of people say that it’s a lack of vocabulary that makes you swear. Rubbish. I know thousands of words, but l still prefer FUCK.” (Billy Connolly)

Connolly often compressed social commentary into sharp one-liners. On politicians, for example: “I think the desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever becoming one. Don’t vote; it encourages them!” Profound, I’m sure you’ll agree. Yet despite being a lifelong fan, I cannot recall him using the c-word— “cnut”, rearranged—on stage. Perhaps even he regarded it as a step too far, as many still do. Yet I often see women using it in social-media lifestyle conversations, despite many objections to the word also coming from women. Perhaps referring to their own anatomy makes the term seem more permissible or normalised. Who knows?

Alternatively, some people—as you will have encountered in conversation and online—seem to take pride in expressing instant disgust, especially on someone else’s behalf, when displaying that “offence” can serve as virtuous moral signalling.

Back to the F-bomb: the exact origin of fuck is uncertain, though it is probably Germanic and related to words meaning to strike, move back and forth or copulate. Despite persistent folklore, it is not an acronym for phrases such as “Fornication Under Consent of the King”.

The word’s spread and popularity have also been linked to military life and warfare—hence “swear like a trooper” or “sailor”. Ruth Wajnryb described this connection in Expletive Deleted (2005) and, wait for it, attributed the ‘problem’ to Americans:

If Napoleon’s soldiers spread the ideals of the French Revolution on their bayonets, American troops may likewise have carried the worldwide taste for fuck across the battlefields of the Second World War . . .

Yet clear written [fuck] examples date from late-medieval English, including the disguised form fuccant around 1475, but the word remained largely absent from respectable print and dictionaries for centuries. From the 1960s, easing censorship and changing attitudes brought it into mainstream literature, film and speech. Its vernacular reach now extends far beyond sex: it serves as a verb, noun, adjective, adverb, interjection, insult and intensifier, and appears in compounds such as fuck-up, fuckwit and, inevitably, fuckwittery. Now you can see why storytellers, like Connolly, have always lorded the word; it clearly possesses an earthy descriptive capability and outright flexibility.

The Etymology of Fuckwittery

In case you missed it, fuckwittery is an abstract noun combining the slang term fuckwit with the suffix -ery. A fuckwit is a stupid person, much like a halfwit or dickhead, and the word conveys contempt for someone considered a “stupid fucker”. Their ranks appear to be growing, and their fuckwittery has, for many of us, become inescapable.

fuckwittery (uncountable)

1. (Use: UK, Ireland, Commonwealth, slang, vulgar, derogatory or offensive) Behaviour of a fuckwit; irksome foolishness. 
2. Examples:
   1. 2004, Garry Mulholland, This Is Uncool: The 500 Greatest Singles Since Punk and Disco: …and ‘Three Lions’ jingoistic fuckwittery that went on to lay karmic waste to record labels, live venues and rock mag institutions alike.
   1. 2005, Ian Rankin, Fleshmarket Alley: “How the hell are we supposed to help them when they’ve got gold medals in fuckwittery — answer that, Sherlock!” She slammed her briefcase down…

Sadly, I use the word more often than ever, though I still value its brevity and refreshingly objective precision. Few areas of modern life now seem untouched by fuckwittery. Like many first-world problems, much of it has spread through the internet and, as I often conclude, originated in America—or in traits particularly prominent there. Recent education figures hardly inspire confidence: in 2024, US fourth- and eighth-grade reading scores fell by two points from 2022, continuing a decade-long decline, while twelfth-grade reading and mathematics scores reached record lows. In mathematics, 45% of twelfth-graders performed below the NAEP Basic standard. The decline extends into adulthood: in 2023, US literacy and numeracy scores were lower than in 2017, with more adults at the lowest proficiency levels. But often, the fuckwittery actually originates from those who believe they are clever; take for example the almost constant “Enshitification” of our digital world, most of which was born in silicon valley, developed and ‘expertly’ promulgated by American IT Geeks and subsequently distributed by American Tech-bro commercialism. I rest my case!

Yet this enshittification—and the fuckwittery it breeds—has serious, sometimes disturbing consequences far beyond American geekdom. I am less concerned about what America does to itself—each to their own—than about why we continue allowing its effects to spread here. I keep asking: “WTAF—why are we letting this happen?” Why do we [in the UK] keep soaking up American effluent and revelling in it? Like Labrador puppies who continually role in cow shit and then come tail wagging to their owners for praise. Crazy!

It is heartening to see signs that much of this nonsense may finally be declining, as more nations begin to free themselves from the American commercial beast. The more, the merrier, in my view. At last, the current US administration may have achieved something from which the rest of the world can benefit. A belated but much-needed digital and cultural colonoscopy!

Homegrown Fuckwittery

Closer to home, despite the largely American influences described above, the UK is hardly immune to fuckwittery. Building our own herd immunity may take time—assuming decades of importing the so-called “American Dream” have left us any. Still, there are encouraging signs: more people are recognising and challenging blatant fuckwittery, often through irreverent comedy. That can be useful—if you couldn’t laugh, you’d cry—because humour, satire and sarcasm can expose many social ills. The difficulty is that Americans often miss their essential nuances. Sometimes we can benefit from having ‘friends’ who will support our struggles and battles.

One of my current favourites is Ian Callaghan, author, blogger and creator of the EOM coaching programme—not that I need it. It is aimed at outwardly capable people in their forties and beyond who feel thoroughly fucked inside: sleeping badly, running on empty and repeating the same harmful habits. They have reached the point where another hollow motivational quote from a twenty-something lifestyle guru, influencer or content creator will neither solve their problems nor address their causes. Indeed, those figures often add to the problem through their own fuckwittery.

Like Ian, I have spent far too long wondering why people persist in harmful behaviour and helping them recognise that not every problem is someone else’s fault; many arise from our own choices. Much of my working life has involved helping people regain control and the confidence to advocate for themselves. I am not trading on Ian’s reputation; I’m simply recommending his daily digital observations – as a timely escape- and his recent book, The Great British Book of Fuckwittery, which I look forward to reading when I receive my copy. His rational, logical, satirical dismantling of life’s nonsense often leaves me howling.

I had no grand plan to become Britain’s foremost archivist of everyday bollocks. I was simply writing about the things that make me laugh, make me swear, remind me of being a kid, or make me stare at modern life and wonder whether we have all quietly agreed to pretend some utterly ridiculous shit is normal. (Ian Callaghan)

At the very least, Ian’s work may help you recognise and navigate the cesspit we all seem to inhabit. Visit www.iancallaghan.co.uk or his Facebook page; his book is also available on Amazon (HERE). Using an American retailer may seem ironic after my condemnation of American commercialism, fuckwittery and overt enshittification, but I confidently predict that his writing will leave you spitting coffee—or wearing it through your nose.

Summary

I have intentionally used provocative humour and satire to examine “fuckwittery” as a modern form of foolishness and absurdity. I have focused upon the influence of American digital culture, online misinformation and technological “enshittification” in the UK, where I believe many of these problems originate. I singled out Ian Callaghan’s writing because humour can provide a useful tool to help us with the recognition of our harmful habits, and the social absurdities that we endure; neither of us would ever suggest that comedy or informal advice are substitutes for qualified clinical care (see below). Academic sources on misinformation, online toxicity and divisive digital content are included below.

Disclaimer

A brief caution is appropriate here: caveat emptor!

Neither my comments nor, probably, most of Ian’s are substitutes for qualified clinical care when you genuinely need it. Yet some therapies and medications on which many people rely may themselves contribute to the fuckwittery epidemic. Today’s “snake oil” no longer arrives from a covered wagon; it comes as polished, carefully produced digital content—offering ‘medical’ advice from a surgically enhanced, digitally filtered influencer behind a ring light on a sunny balcony. Even so, never stop taking any prescribed medication without seeking qualified clinical guidance.

NB. If you have used drugs or alcohol heavily for a prolonged period to cope with life’s difficulties, seek professional support before reducing or stopping. Sudden withdrawal can cause serious illness or death.

Never let fuckwittery take up the headspace you need to enjoy your day!

Reference Sources

1. Munusamy, D., et al. (2024). “Psychological factors contributing to the creation and dissemination of fake news among social media users: a systematic review.” BMC Psychology, 12, 673. doi:10.1186/s40359-024-02129-2.
2. McLoughlin, K. L., et al. (2024). “Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online.” Science, 386, 991–996. doi:10.1126/science.adl2829.
3. Falkenberg, M., Zollo, F., Quattrociocchi, W., Pfeffer, J., & Baronchelli, A. (2024). “Patterns of partisan toxicity and engagement reveal the common structure of online political communication across countries.” Nature Communications, 15, 9560. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53868-0.
4. Yadin, D., Yahav, I., Zalmanson, L., & Munichor, N. (2023). “Resolving the ethical tension between creating a civil environment and facilitating free expression online: comment reordering as an alternative to comment moderation.” Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-023-05450-9.
5. Milli, S., Carroll, M., Wang, Y., Pandey, S., Zhao, S., & Dragan, A. D. (2025). “Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media.” PNAS Nexus, 4(3), pgaf062. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf062.
6. Germano, F., Gómez, V., & Sobbrio, F. (2026). “Ranking for engagement: How social media algorithms fuel misinformation and polarization.” Journal of Public Economics, 255, 105589. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2026.105589.
7. Levy, R. (2021). “Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” American Economic Review, 111(3), 831–870. doi:10.1257/aer.20191777.
8. Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A., & Siderius, J. (2024). “A Model of Online Misinformation.” Review of Economic Studies. doi:10.1093/restud/rdad111.
9. De Gregorio, G., & Goanta, C. (2022). “The Influencer Republic: Monetizing Political Speech on Social Media.” German Law Journal, 23(2), 204–225. doi:10.1017/glj.2022.15.
10. Muhammed T, S., & Mathew, S. K. (2022). “The disaster of misinformation: a review of research in social media.” International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 13, 271–285. doi:10.1007/s41060-022-00311-6.
11. Linzer, I., & Branum, B. (2025). Architects of Online Influence: How Creators, Platforms, and Policymakers Shape Political Speech. Center for Democracy & Technology.
12. National Literacy Trust. (2026). “Adult Literacy Rates in the UK.” National Literacy Trust. Statistics updated for England in 2024.
13. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2026). “Early Modern English language” and “Great Vowel Shift.” Britannica. Overview of the transition from Middle to Early Modern English, including printing, standardisation and pronunciation change.
14. Oxford English Dictionary. (2016–2026). “Updates” and quarterly press releases. Oxford University Press. Listings of new words, phrases and senses added in successive OED updates.
15. Oxford English Dictionary. (2026). “fuck, v.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Historical meanings, forms, compounds and etymological discussion.
16. Harper, D. (2026). “fuck.” Online Etymology Dictionary. Summary of the word’s uncertain Germanic origins, early written attestations, omission from major dictionaries and modern vernacular development.
17. National Assessment Governing Board. (2025). “NAEP Reading — US Reading Score Trends” and “NAEP Math — US Math Score Trends.” The Nation’s Report Card. Summary of 2024 national reading and mathematics results.
18. National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). “Highlights of the 2023 U.S. PIAAC Results.” U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National findings on changes in adult literacy and numeracy since 2017.