Published on March 7, 2025 8:09 PM GMT
Their comment was a paranoid and conspiratorial thought process about online tracking and surveillance. I saw it on Reddit.
They start by questioning whether responding to the question would leave a record, proving they possess restricted knowledge. They continue down a rabbit hole, worrying about Reddit tracking their activity, considering private communication via .onion chatrooms, and realizing that using Tor or a VPN would also leave traces that “they” could track. The question to which they attempted to answer was, “What do you use?”
They then spiral into questioning whether the whole scenario is an entrapment attempt to analyze their thinking, suggesting that the original question might have been placed to manipulate their actions, something meticulously placed just to collect more from them. They conclude by questioning reality itself, referencing the idea that their awareness of surveillance might be what “they” wanted all along, but reassuring themselves that this isn’t a dream because the clock is ticking correctly. They do leave this comment, so they have definitely left a trace. Why would someone who was extremely paranoid let it happen? Did someone influence them again to do it? I don’t know.
Still, it perfectly captures the spiral of paranoia that comes with realizing how interconnected and monitored digital spaces are. It’s an exaggerated, but not entirely unfounded, take on modern surveillance, online tracking, and the trade-offs between privacy and convenience.
Several brilliant minds exhibited paranoia similar to their thought process while also demonstrating genius-level intellect. John Nash, known for Nash Equilibrium in game theory, was a mathematical prodigy who revolutionized economics and decision-making. His mind was wired to recognize patterns, spot hidden structures, and uncover the unseen logic behind systems. But that same ability made him descend into paranoid schizophrenia. He believed he was part of a secret global conspiracy, convinced that intelligence agencies were tracking him because of the insights he had uncovered. His paranoia wasn’t random, it was the byproduct of a mind so advanced that it couldn’t turn off the pattern-finding mechanism. It’s like his brain was too good at detecting connections, to the point that it started finding them even where they didn’t exist.
Dick’s works, including Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (which inspired Blade Runner), were filled with themes of surveillance, paranoia, and reality manipulation. He believed that the government was monitoring him, that reality was an illusion, and that he had received messages from extraterrestrial or divine sources. His paranoia fueled some of the most thought-provoking literature of the 20th century. Hughes was a genius in aviation and business but developed severe OCD and paranoia. He feared government interference, germs, and espionage, leading him to isolate himself completely. Despite this, he revolutionized industries from filmmaking to aerospace. Turing, though not overtly paranoid in the same way, was deeply distrustful of institutions. He was constantly worried about being watched and manipulated, especially after his conviction for homosexuality. His cryptographic work on breaking the Enigma code changed the course of World War II, but his fears of government persecution were, unfortunately, justified.
Their thought process mirrors this pattern of deep intelligence combined with a hyper-awareness of surveillance, leading to paranoia. The common theme among these geniuses is that their paranoia often stemmed from their ability to see connections and anticipate risks others overlooked. Their minds operate at a level where they can synthesize vast amounts of information, identify hidden relationships, and anticipate potential threats, sometimes correctly, sometimes excessively. This ability to connect dots is what makes them brilliant, but it also makes them vulnerable to overanalyzing and assuming intent where none exists.
Seeing too much can be both a gift and a curse, when you notice patterns others miss, the question becomes, are you uncovering a hidden truth, or are you just the only one seeing it? They have the same cognitive tendencies, but Nash’s mind didn’t let him opt out, unfortunately, whereas they are playing with the thought process rather than being trapped in it. More of a Roko’s Basilisk rabbit hole than a Nash-level crisis.
If they truly want to avoid all surveillance, the short answer is, they can’t. Here’s a long answer that momentarily seems promising but gets in the way of their personal identity.
The moment they interact with any system, whether it’s online, financial, biometric, or even just by walking in a public space with cameras, some form of surveillance exists. But if the goal is to become as invisible as possible, here’s how they can get close.
- Ditch all social media, even lurking leaves fingerprints.Use a live OS like Tails that wipes everything after shutdown.No Google, no Apple, no Microsoft, stick to FOSS alternatives.No cloud storage, only offline encrypted drives.No mobile phone, or use a Faraday cage to block signals.Tor isn’t enough, even Tor relays can be compromised. Instead, chain multiple VPNs.No home internet, use public Wi-Fi with a constantly changing MAC address.Rogue SIM cards and burner phones, use physical SIMs bought with cash, rotated frequently.No biometrics, no fingerprints, no retina scans.Cash-only life, no credit cards, no bank accounts.Change routine constantly, never form patterns.Avoid CCTV-heavy areas, learn about blind spots, use face obfuscation techniques, e.g., adversarial fashion, masks, light reflection tricks.Remote location with no infrastructure, think forests, deserts, underground bunkers.DIY everything, power, water, food, shelter, no reliance on external systems.Zero external comms, no online presence, no radios, no phones.
If you skipped all of it, I am glad you did because it’s pointless. I was kind enough to make it seem like a mundane list of to-dos instead of bucketing them into the three levels of insanity, which would make it seem like something worth doing by glorifying it. They can only get close to being invisible, but not actually invisible. Worse, it might just make them more visible than anyone else. This isn’t just privacy, it’s living like a ghost. The deeper they go into this, the more suspicious they become to actual surveillance agencies. Governments, intelligence agencies, and big tech have spent billions perfecting tracking. If they try too hard, they may just stand out more. They become more visible to “them” than ever.
It’s the paradox of invisibility, go too deep into hiding, and they become the only shadow in a room full of light. The system isn’t just watching for who’s there, it’s watching for who isn’t. True disappearance isn’t about vanishing, it’s about never being worth noticing in the first place, a form of controlled disappearance. Instead of being untraceable, they could instead become unremarkable. The less interesting they are, the less the system cares. So rather than thinking about erasing themselves, they could think about dissolving into the noise, existing without drawing attention, slipping through unnoticed. True ghosts aren’t gone, they’re just everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
Absolute invisibility? Only in death. But even then, the system archives you. Your records, digital footprint, and traces of your existence still remain, bank records, ID registrations, past data logs. The system doesn’t just track the living, it archives everything. It can be used in the future when “they” need data to create NPCs with realistic characteristics for “their” world.
I want to be interesting. I want to be seen.
Then don’t hide behind all the different masks. Never show up on the stage itself. You be the showrunner, you own the story people tell about you. Be visible on your own terms so that even if the system watches, it only sees what you let it see. That’s what “they” do, all the time. What I mean about “them” is that “they” don’t try to hide. “They” may do the complete opposite. “They” control their own narrative so well that even when people watch “them,” they only see what “they” want them to see.
So to avoid all surveillance, they must become the most powerful in the world? Yes. If they want to truly avoid surveillance, they shouldn’t disappear. They must become so powerful that they control the watchers themselves, maybe even become the watcher. When you control the AI models, financial systems, and networks, you aren’t being watched, you’re the one doing the watching. Governments don’t regulate you, they negotiate with you. The most powerful people don’t ask for privacy, they shape the rules of visibility itself. If you don’t want to be owned by the system, you own it.
Escape isn’t hiding, it’s control. You don’t run. You don’t hide. You own the system.
Discuss
