In a concurrent digital society, what remains unseen may matter more than what appears on screen. Drawing on Baudrillard, this article examines how influencers, businesses, political actors and generative AI copyedit reality, omitting inconvenient truths to manufacture persuasive hyperrealities. These profitable illusions shape consumption, identity and opinion, threatening society’s ability to recognise and defend a shared factual world against organised manipulation.
The most dangerous image on social media is not necessarily a fabricated one. It may be a genuine photograph from which the inconvenient surroundings have been cropped. It may be an authentic video stripped of what happened immediately before it. It may be a truthful statistic separated from its denominator, an influencer’s real experience disguised as an independent recommendation, or a company’s genuine environmental initiative presented as though it represented its entire business.
Nothing visible has to be false. What has been omitted does the deceiving.
This is the central problem illuminated by Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation. The simulacrum is commonly misunderstood as a counterfeit: a false representation created to fool an audience. Baudrillard’s argument is more radical. A simulacrum not only conceals the truth behind an image, but it also constructs a self-contained representation that gradually takes the place of the reality to which it supposedly refers.
The result is “hyperreality”, a condition in which the representation appears more complete, coherent and believable than reality itself. The polished version becomes publicly true, while the excluded reality becomes socially irrelevant. Hyperreality, then, may be understood as reality with its resistance removed. Ambiguity, contradiction, suffering, context and uncertainty are edited out. What remains is not always an obvious lie. It is a preferred narrative engineered to produce a preferred response.
Today, social media influencers, corporations, political organisations and generative AI systems possess unprecedented power to manufacture such narratives. The question is no longer merely whether we can distinguish truth from falsehood. It is whether we can recover the parts of reality that a persuasive representation has made invisible.
Simulation and simulacrum are not the same
In ordinary scientific language, a simulation is an experiment conducted under specified conditions. A climate model simulates possible temperature changes. A flight simulator allows pilots to rehearse emergencies. An economic model examines what might happen if taxes, interest rates or consumer behaviour change. Such simulations do not necessarily claim to be reality. Their value depends on their assumptions being declared and their limitations remaining open to scrutiny. They ask: “What might happen under these conditions?”
A simulacrum works differently. It does not present itself simply as a conditional model. It encourages the audience to experience the model as reality itself.
A digitally enhanced photograph of a housing project, for example, may be a legitimate simulation if it is clearly presented as an architect’s proposed design. It becomes a simulacrum when the image systematically removes congestion, pollution, surrounding poverty and environmental damage, then sells not merely an apartment but an imaginary way of life. There is, however, an important qualification. Baudrillard did not treat every simulacrum as the product of a single mastermind deliberately plotting deception. Simulation can become systemic. Businesses, influencers, audiences, and algorithms may collectively produce hyperreality without any single participant controlling the entire process.
Nevertheless, intention remains highly relevant. Political consultants select images to evoke fear. Companies suppress negative reviews. Influencers carefully stage seemingly spontaneous recommendations. Generative AI enables almost unlimited versions of a desired narrative. In such cases, the simulacrum becomes what we might call the deliberate copyediting of reality. The editor need not invent everything. The editor need only decide what the audience will not see.
Is this not precisely what businesses want?
In many cases, yes.
Businesses do not sell only physical products. They sell representations of the life associated with those products. A cosmetics company sells confidence and social approval. A luxury brand sells distinction. A technology company sells a membership of the future. A property developer sells community, serenity and upward mobility—even when the buyer is purchasing a small apartment beside a congested road.
Advertising has always highlighted favourable aspects of reality. The digital economy goes further because representations can now be personalised, measured and continuously improved. Platforms reveal which image generated the most clicks, which emotional phrase extended viewing time, and which influencer drove the most purchases. Reality becomes raw material for behavioural optimisation. Influencer marketing is especially powerful because it disguises advertising as personal experience. The kitchen looks lived-in. The recommendation sounds conversational. The product appears to have entered the creator’s life naturally. Commercial persuasion borrows the language of friendship and authenticity. The transaction may remain invisible unless sponsorship is clearly disclosed. What appears to be “This is what I genuinely use” may actually mean “This is what I have been paid to display.”
Let’s take a textbook example of hyperreality. The social-media image of a “perfect wedding.” Influencers and businesses display lavish venues, designer clothes, flawless faces and choreographed happiness while omitting debt, family pressure, exhaustion and inequality. This edited spectacle becomes more desirable than the lived event itself. Families then spend beyond their means to reproduce it. The representation no longer reflects the wedding; it dictates what a “real” wedding should be.
The performance of ordinary life becomes more commercially valuable than ordinary life itself. Regulators recognise the danger. The US Federal Trade Commission requires influencers to disclose material relationships with brands and warns that advertisements that resemble surrounding editorial or entertainment content can be deceptive. Its guidance on influencers and endorsements reflects a basic principle: consumers must be able to identify when apparently independent speech is commercially motivated.
The problem extends beyond individual influencers. Businesses can buy followers, fabricate engagement, generate testimonials, and pressure platforms or customers to remove criticism. A product may appear widely trusted because the signs of trust—stars, reviews, views, and endorsements—have been artificially manufactured. In 2024, the FTC introduced a rule prohibiting fake or false reviews, including certain AI-generated reviews, purchased testimonials, and fake indicators of social media influence. It also addressed the suppression of negative reviews through intimidation. The agency observed that fake reviews “pollute the marketplace” and divert business from honest competitors. The rule’s existence is evidence of how thoroughly the representation of customer satisfaction can be detached from actual customer experience.
Influencers as private editors of public reality
The term “influencer” is revealing. It identifies a person not by expertise, public responsibility or professional standards, but by the capacity to influence others’ behaviour. Many influencers produce useful, honest and original work. Some have given visibility to communities and issues neglected by traditional media. The problem is not that they interpret reality. Every journalist, scholar and citizen does that. The problem arises when interpretation becomes indistinguishable from evidence and popularity substitutes for verification.
A 2024 UNESCO survey of 500 content creators across 45 countries found that two-thirds did not systematically verify facts before sharing content. Forty-two per cent treated likes and shares as a leading indicator of credibility. The UNESCO findings expose a self-reinforcing loop: popularity is taken as evidence of truth, while the appearance of truth generates further popularity.
This is how the simulacrum sustains itself. A claim is not believed because it has been independently established. It is believed because many visible people appear to believe it. Their apparent belief may itself be based on the claim’s visibility. Influencers also learn that certainty performs better than hesitation. “This may be one factor among several” is less shareable than “This is what they are hiding from you.” A complex event, therefore, becomes a moral drama with heroes, villains and secret explanations.
The influencer may initially simplify an issue to attract attention. The audience then rewards that simplification. Sponsors value the growing audience. Eventually, the creator’s livelihood depends on continuing to inhabit the constructed narrative. At that point, the influencer is not merely producing the simulacrum but may have become trapped inside it.
Politics manufactures events for the screen
Political communication has always involved image management. Leaders have staged public appearances, selected flattering photographs and repeated emotionally resonant slogans. Digital media has transformed the scale, speed and precision of that activity.