0 → The self-destructive loop
A single hostile comment on Facebook, 'why does the algorithm show me this crap,' turns into a small theory of how feeds trap the people who hate them. The algorithm doesn't read your comment; it can't tell praise from insult. It reads time and engagement: this person spent an extra minute here, typing, therefore they like this, therefore show them more. So the hater who stops to complain has done two things at once, wasted their own time and trained the machine to feed them the very thing they hate, and they'll likely be back under the next video, more locked in each round. The correct move against something you dislike is the opposite of engagement: swipe fast, or hit 'not interested.' Writing an angry comment is the one action guaranteed to summon more of it.
// trace: where this idea came from
- ↳ video diary @ 1:08:24 (el único comentario en Facebook fue por qué el algoritmo me muestra esta mierda)
- ↳ video diary @ 1:09:12 (termina siendo un ciclo autodestructivo; el algoritmo cuenta el tiempo y el engagement, no lee el comentario)
- ↳ video diary @ 1:09:50 (el hater pierde tiempo y entrena el algoritmo; queda enganchado en un feedback loop)
- ↳ video diary @ 1:09:30 (lo correcto contra algo que no te gusta es swipe rápido o darle no me interesa)
- ↳ Entry 269-1: Reach was never the problem (la misma máquina de atención vista desde el otro lado, la de quien publica)
Juan’s earthquake-magnitude diagram did well on Facebook, thousands of views, a few dozen likes, and drew exactly one comment, hostile: why does the algorithm show me this crap? ▸ 1:08:24 The insult itself he shrugs off. What it left him thinking about is the trap it reveals, which he works out into a small, sharp theory.
It ends up being a self-destructive loop ▸ 1:09:12. How does an algorithm work? It counts the time you spent on the video, the extra time you spent doing engagement in the comments, whether you liked or disliked. It does not read your comment. It cannot tell whether the words are praise or an insult. It reads one thing: a minute here was enough for this person to do extra engagement on this video, therefore this person likes this content, therefore serve them more.
el algoritmo no lee el comentario; lee el tiempo →
So the hater who stops to type has done two things at once, and both work against him. He’s wasted his own time, and he’s trained the machine to feed him precisely the thing he hates ▸ 1:09:50. Juan half-expects that if he posts another video, the same man will be there again in the comments, because the engagement already linked them: the algorithm keeps putting the same thing, the same thing, the same thing, and each angry reply tightens the knot.
The correct move against something you dislike is the exact opposite of what feels satisfying. Swipe fast, or hit “not interested,” the button built for this ▸ 1:09:30. Starve it of time and engagement. Writing the angry comment is the single action most guaranteed to summon more of the thing you were angry about. It’s the same attention machine the analytics measured from the creator’s side, seen now from the viewer’s: the feed doesn’t serve what you say you want. It serves what you can’t help giving your seconds to…
// continued in
no entry has continued this idea yet: the arc is still open