If you haven’t seen the Vote Different! viral YouTube video portraying Hillary Clinton as Big Brother out of 1984 (in a mashup of Apple’s 1984 ad) you should go see it – and then watch this video where ParkRidge47 a.k.a. Phil de Vellis, who created the ad, explains how he did it and what his ideas about viral, citizen-created political videos. A major concern about the video was that it was anonymous, which caused people to worry about a lack of accountability. De Vellis points out that there is a long tradition of anonymous and pseudonymous political speech in the United States, and also that “the system worked”, in that when his video became so vastly popular, people figured out who he was. He has some great things to say about the changing media landscape and its effects on politics.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Chuck

    Thanks for posting this interview, Jill. I’ve been sorting through my response to de Vellis’s ad, and I’m still not sure whether it’s doing anything new. I love the fact that it has inspired other forms of politicized production, people wanting to learn Final Cut Pro, to create viral videos. I still wonder whether his video is adding anything new to the already established image of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or whether those images are already so pre-spun that they simply participate in reinforcing those images. Clinton was *already* seen by many on the left and right as a kind of Big Brother (big sister?) figure. Still, it’s interesting to hear de Vellis talk about his intentions and the issues of anonymity.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]