THE TRUTH WILL NOT PROTECT YOU
How hustlers, suckers, and the nobody-cares equilibrium are turning truth into a spectator sport — and what it would take to make caring rational again.
Vincent F. HENDRICKS
The truth will set you free. So we are told. Indeed, a comforting proposition. It suggests that once the facts are established, the lies exposed, and the evidence placed on the table, something resembling justice will follow. Unfortunately, the truth has recently developed a rather disappointing track record.
A politician is caught lying. He doubles down. A corporation is exposed for misleading its customers. It announces a renewed commitment to transparency. And a social media influencer promotes a dubious investment, collects the commission, and posts a video about the importance of authenticity. The facts are established and evidence is public. The wrongdoing is documented. And then? Nothing much … “Nobody Cares” as mob-boss Sonny Lospeccio, brilliantly played by Chazz Palminteri, says in Robert De Niro’s director’s debut A Bronx Tale.
The liar continues lying while the corporation continues trading and the influencer acquires another hundred thousand followers. The truth has been told. Doesn’t make much of difference though. Say hello to the increasingly plausible credo of contemporary public life: The truth will not protect you. Neither because truth has ceased to exist nor because facts have become subjective. Obviously, humanity has not suddenly lost its capacity for rational thought. The problem is considerably more interesting, and considerably more disturbing.
Truth may be known without being consequential. Wrongdoing may be exposed without being punished. Institutional dysfunction may become common knowledge without anyone having a sufficient incentive to correct it. People have not become ignorant from one day to the next. The crisis is really one of incentives.
The Hustler, the Sucker and One who doesn’t give a Sh**
To understand it, consider three archetypal characters increasingly at home in the contemporary information economy. The Hustler, the Sucker, and the Nobody-Cares. The Hustler has a simple philosophy: Why settle for my share when I can have some of yours? This person understands that cooperation creates value, but that value can sometimes be appropriated without contributing much to its creation. Whoever it is exploits trust, manipulates expectations, and transfers costs to other people. The Hustler does not oppose the rules but simply prefers that they apply to everyone else.
The Sucker believes that honesty, effort, and decency will be reciprocated. The person in question trusts institutions, honors agreements, and assumes that others are broadly committed to the same arrangement. In a functioning society, this is often perfectly sensible. Cooperation can be individually profitable and collectively beneficial. The Sucker becomes a sucker only when the willingness to cooperate is systematically exploited. The mistakes amount to believing that decency will be rewarded in a game whose incentives favor something else.
Finally, there is the Nobody-Cares. This character has seen enough. Both well aware that Hustlers hustle and that Suckers get exploited. Surely, institutions are installed to supposedly prevent this, yet these very institutions appear to have other appointments. Forget about outrage about this. Outrage requires energy. The response is withdrawal. A Nobody-Cares may still work, vote, consume, scroll, click and occasionally complain. This is not about abandoning society. What is abandoned is the rather expensive expectation that being concerned about this dysfunction will make a difference. The philosophy is succinct: Keep the winnings. I cannot even be bothered to lose.
In short: The Hustler exploits the game. The Sucker believes in the game. The Nobody-Cares has concluded that playing properly is not worth the trouble. These are not immutable personality types. They are strategic positions. People can move between them as incentives, information, and expectations change.
And this is where things become interesting. Imagine a workplace where everyone knows that promotions depend less on performance than on cultivating the right people. Employees know it. Management knows it. Employees know that management knows it. Management knows that employees know. In game theory, this approaches what is called common knowledge: Everyone knows something, everyone knows that everyone knows it, everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows it, and so on.
Common knowledge can facilitate cooperation. If everyone knows that a bridge is unsafe, everyone can coordinate on avoiding it. But suppose everyone knows that the bridge is unsafe, that the alternative route is expensive, and that the authorities responsible for repairing it have no intention of doing so. Clearly, knowledge alone will not repair the bridge. In our dysfunctional workplace, the Sucker works harder, hoping that performance will eventually be recognized. The Hustler takes credit for the work and cultivates management. The Nobody-Cares performs the minimum required, updates his résumé, and goes home.
Who is rational?
That depends on the payoffs. The qualification is essential. Game theory does not establish that indifference is universally rational, nor that common knowledge of dysfunction automatically produces disengagement. Rationality is always relative to available strategies, expected consequences, and the behavior of others.
Now consider a game in which conscientious participation is costly, exploitation is insufficiently punished, and withdrawal offers a reasonably secure alternative. Suppose further that the benefits of conscientious participation depend on enough other people doing their part. Under those conditions, caring can become individually irrational even when everyone would benefit from a society in which people cared. The Sucker’s cooperation is no longer reciprocated. The Hustler’s exploitation remains profitable as long as enough trusting participants remain. And the Nobody-Cares discovers that disengagement protects him from at least some of the costs.
Recall the movie, A Beautiful Mind, with Russell Crowe playing game theorists and Nobel Prize Laureate in economics John Nash. If the payoff from withdrawing exceeds the payoff from either cooperating or exploiting, given what everyone else is doing, withdrawal is a best response. If this holds for all participants, mutual withdrawal can form a Nash equilibrium: No one can improve his payoff by changing strategy unilaterally. Everybody may prefer a functioning institution. Everybody may know that the institution is dysfunctional. Everybody may know that everybody knows. And nobody has a sufficient individual incentive to fix it.
A remarkable achievement: Collective intelligence producing collective paralysis. The truth is not absent. It is common knowledge. It is simply strategically impotent. This is the environment in which the proposition that the truth will not protect you acquires its force.
Traditionally, exposing wrongdoing was supposed to trigger a sequence of consequences. Evidence would change beliefs. Changed beliefs would produce public pressure. Public pressure would activate institutional accountability. Accountability would make misconduct costly. The chain never worked perfectly, but it worked often enough to give exposure some deterrent value.
Now imagine that the chain breaks. A journalist uncovers corruption, but the responsible institution lacks the capacity or willingness to respond and a whistleblower documents misconduct, but the whistleblower loses her job while the perpetrators retain theirs. Think of a consumer discovering that a product has been misrepresented, but switching suppliers is costly and the market offers little meaningful choice. The truth has been established. The incentives remain unchanged. Worse, the exposure itself may become profitable for the wrongdoer.
The Meta-Hustler
This is where social platforms enter the picture, not merely as neutral distributors of information, but as potential meta-Hustlers. A Hustler manipulates a game to secure an advantage. A meta-Hustler influences the rules under which other people play. Social platforms occupy a particularly consequential position because they organize visibility, attention, reputation, and increasingly the economic rewards associated with all three.
They determine, through their design and ranking systems, which content becomes prominent, which signals count as success, and how participation is translated into measurable engagement. The ordinary Hustler competes for attention. The platform organizes the market in which attention is exchanged. And the platform can earn money whether the content being circulated is true, false, illuminating, misleading, uplifting, or thoroughly idiotic.
Every platform does not deliberately promote falsehoods. Every engagement-based business model does not have to be inherently exploitative either. But commercial incentives and epistemic quality are not automatically aligned. Truth is a property of claims. Engagement is a property of audience behavior. One does not entail the other.
By way of example, a carefully documented correction may attract a fraction of the attention generated by the original falsehood. On top of that, a nuanced explanation may lose to an inflammatory accusation while a scandal may damage an individual’s credibility among some audiences while increasing visibility and loyalty among others.
The platform can benefit from the resulting activity regardless of whether public understanding improves. The Hustler receives attention. The Sucker supplies trust, participation, and data. The Nobody-Cares keeps scrolling, perhaps increasingly skeptical but still sufficiently engaged to generate another advertising impression. The meta-Hustler collects revenue from the game itself.
Everything is “Content”
It is an elegant arrangement, provided one does not inquire too closely into its social consequences. The result is an information market in which the exposure of wrongdoing can become another source of monetizable engagement. The scandal becomes content. The correction becomes content too. Better still, the argument about the correction becomes content. And finally, the inevitable accusation that the correction is itself misinformation also becomes content. Beautiful.
Get Vincent F. Hendricks’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Everyone participates. Understanding is optional. And when exposure no longer reliably imposes costs, the Hustler has less reason to fear being exposed. For all that has been said, the Hustler may even welcome it. Being caught is not bad for business if being caught increases visibility. The old distinction between fame and infamy is much less important when both can be converted into attention.
Meanwhile, the Sucker continues to believe that showing people the facts should be sufficient. The Nobody-Cares knows better. This figure has watched enough revelations dissolve into entertainment and Postmanian amusing ourselves to death to conclude that another revelation is unlikely to change much. Indifference need not be a failure to understand the facts. What it may be is an accurate assessment of the expected return on acting upon them. This is the economics of not caring.
Caring requires resources. Time, attention, information, effort, emotional investment, and sometimes considerable personal risk. The benefits of caring, however, may be collective. If I investigate a public wrong, challenge institutional misconduct, or defend a shared informational standard, many people may benefit. But I may bear most of the immediate costs. That is a collective-action problem.
Let the expected benefit of caring be the probability that one’s action produces a meaningful improvement, multiplied by the value of that improvement, plus any direct rewards from participating. Subtract the costs of becoming informed, taking action, and potentially suffering retaliation.
If the resulting payoff is lower than the payoff from withdrawal, the Nobody-Cares strategy is individually rational. One may find that morally disappointing. The payoff structure remains truly unimpressed. Telling people that they ought to care does not change the cost of caring. Demanding greater civic responsibility does not automatically increase the probability that responsible behavior will be effective. It is rather like telling passengers to row harder while charging them extra for the oars.
The problem becomes especially serious when withdrawal is self-reinforcing. As more people stop participating, fewer remain to challenge misconduct, verify information, or defend institutional standards. The probability that any individual’s efforts will succeed may decline. That makes withdrawal still more attractive. The resulting feedback loop can turn disappointment into a stable social expectation: I do not act because I expect others not to act. Others do not act because they expect me not to act. Each of us finds our own behavior reasonable given the behavior of everyone else. Again: “Nobody cares!” as mobster Sonny Lospeccio routinely proclaims in A Bronx Tale.
Yet, the Nobody-Cares equilibrium does not have to be populated by people who approve of exhibited dysfunction. It may very well be populated by people who understand it perfectly — just like . This is why the conventional response to our informational predicament — more truth — is necessary but insufficient. More fact-checking — good. More transparency — indeed. More investigations, more evidence and obviously more media literacy — all useful.
But suppose we achieved perfect information about every instance of wrongdoing. Suppose every citizen knew who was lying, who was exploiting whom, and which institutions had failed. If no credible sanctions followed, if victims lacked remedies, and if acting on the information remained prohibitively costly, what would perfect information accomplish? We would have perfect knowledge of an imperfect society. An epistemic triumph. Yet an institutional embarrassment. Truth is not self-enforcing … unfortunately.
Truth does not issue fines, protect whistleblowers, repair institutions, or alter the economic incentives of those who profit from deception. These things require arrangements that make truth consequential. If the truth is to protect us, we must therefore do something more demanding than merely produce and circulate it.
Game Changer
We must change the game! In game-theoretic terms, the task is to alter the payoff structure so that caring becomes a best response to the strategies people reasonably expect others to choose.
The first requirement is to make Hustling less profitable. Deception and exploitation must carry sufficiently credible consequences. Sanctions need not be draconian, but they must be probable, timely, and consequential enough to affect expected payoffs. A penalty that is smaller than the profit from misconduct is not much of a deterrent. It is just a business expense.
The second requirement is to make cooperation more rewarding. People who contribute reliable information, honor agreements, expose wrongdoing, and support shared institutions must have reason to expect reciprocity rather than exploitation. Trust cannot survive indefinitely as a charitable donation from the trusting to the untrustworthy. It requires institutional support.
The third requirement is to reduce the cost of caring. Reporting misconduct should not routinely jeopardize a livelihood. Verifying important information should not require an archaeological expedition through twenty-seven browser tabs. Participating in public decisions should not demand more administrative stamina than applying for a mortgage. Institutions should make justified concern easier to translate into effective action.
The fourth requirement is to change expectations about what others will do. This is perhaps the most important one. Cooperation often depends not only on whether I want to cooperate, but on whether I believe others will cooperate too. Credible enforcement, transparent procedures, repeated successful collaboration, and visible institutional responses can help create the mutual expectations on which cooperative equilibria depend. A society can become trapped in a bad equilibrium because everyone expects everyone else to defect. It can also sustain a better equilibrium when enough people have credible reasons to expect cooperation.
The fifth requirement concerns the meta-Hustlers in particular. Platforms that profit from organizing attention should face incentives to account for the costs their designs impose on the informational environment. This is not to require making platforms arbiters of every disputed truth. But it requires meaningful transparency, independent scrutiny, appropriate accountability, and design choices that do not systematically reward manipulation while transferring its costs to users and society. If a platform profits from engagement regardless of its consequences, those consequences remain someone else’s problem. Usually ours …
Changing the rules means making at least some of those costs relevant to the platform’s own decisions. None of this guarantees that truth will always protect the truthful. It cannot. Truth sometimes threatens powerful interests, and speaking it can remain dangerous even in comparatively well-functioning societies.
But the credo “The truth will protect you” may acquire a defensible institutional meaning. It can mean that truthful exposure of wrongdoing has a credible chance of activating accountability. That deception is sufficiently costly to discourage it. That cooperation is sufficiently protected to make it worthwhile. And that people who act on justified concern have a reasonable expectation that their efforts will not be wasted. This is how the game changes.
The Hustler discovers that exploitation no longer reliably pays. The Sucker discovers that cooperation need not mean volunteering for exploitation. And the Nobody-Cares discovers that concern can produce results.
Notice what this does not require. It does not require everyone to become a saint. A functioning society should not depend on an endless supply of heroic citizens willing to sacrifice their private interests for the public good. It should make ordinary decency compatible with ordinary self-interest. That is the point of sound institutional design.
How to construct institutions in which caring is an individually defensible strategy and collectively beneficial behavior can sustain itself? That’s the question. We have become extraordinarily good at exposing what is wrong and increasingly accustomed to watching it continue.
The Hustler understands the opportunities. The Sucker remains hopeful. The Nobody-Cares has adjusted his expectations. The challenge is not to convince the Nobody-Cares that the truth matters. The one who couldn’t care less may already know that. The challenge is to give such a person a reason to believe that acting on the truth matters. Because the opposite of a society governed by indifference is not a society permanently inflamed by outrage. Outrage is plentiful. It has its own industry.
The opposite is a society in which people can reasonably expect their efforts to count. A society where telling the truth changes incentives, where cooperation is protected, and where manipulation carries costs that cannot simply be passed on to someone else.
The truth will not protect you merely because it is true.
The truth will protect you when caring becomes rational, deception becomes costly, and acting on what we know becomes worth the trouble.
Until then, the Hustler has a business model, the Sucker has a problem, the meta-Hustler owns the marketplace, and the Nobody-Cares has a point.
This piece is based on Vincent F. Hendricks trilogy, Zero-Sum Empire: From Egoism to Mass Indifference, including What About Me Ism (2025), SUCKER NATION: Trading Wits for Vanity (2026) and lastly Nobody Cares: The Philosophy of Indifference (2026), published by Springer Nature.
