When platforms track “success,” they rarely measure understanding, insight, or truth. Instead, they measure uptake: clicks, shares, likes, dwell time, comments.
These metrics are coordination signals, not epistemic ones. They reveal what forms, rhythms, and affects are viable — what can persist and propagate — rather than what is accurate, deep, or ethical.
Why Metrics Mislead
It is tempting to assume that high engagement indicates agreement, persuasion, or value. Relationally, this is false. Engagement only tells us that a person:
-
noticed something
-
felt it intelligible
-
could act on it efficiently within the flow of their field
Whether they believe it, care about it, or are moved by it is largely irrelevant. Engagement tracks success in alignment, not success in meaning.
Attention as a Field
Platforms convert attention into a continuous training signal:
-
repeated exposure stabilises form
-
recognition becomes a proxy for viability
-
the system reinforces patterns that survive these attentional tests
The result is a field in which some forms of coordination are easier than others. Those that survive are often simplistic, affectively salient, or rhythmically predictable — not necessarily truthful or significant.
Alignment Without Consent
This process works silently. A user may feel they are exercising choice — scrolling, liking, commenting — while actually participating in field shaping.
Engagement does not just amplify content; it shapes the conditions under which content can appear intelligible to others. In relational terms:
-
alignment precedes conscious agreement
-
affect shapes judgment before reasoning
-
coordination spreads invisibly, continuously
Why Counter-Messaging Fails
Traditional interventions assume belief is primary. Fact-checks, arguments, or counter-narratives presume that persuasion will alter engagement patterns. But platforms reward coordination, not correctness.
A message that is true but misaligned with the field is:
-
ignored
-
filtered
-
rendered invisible by lack of uptake
The system optimises for form, affect, and recognisability, not meaning.
Engagement as Ethical Pressure
Because engagement shapes what survives, every interaction carries relational responsibility. By participating, a user:
-
reinforces certain patterns
-
normalises specific forms
-
influences what others can take up effortlessly
Engagement is not neutral. It is training the possible.
Closing
Platforms do not govern what is thought; they govern what is easily thinkable, shareable, and repeatable. Engagement is the system’s feedback loop, not a measure of comprehension or truth.
Understanding this is critical before attempting any form of subversion. Intervention must target coordination and form, not content alone.
In the next post, we examine how this selection pressure compresses narrative, eroding temporal depth and revisability.
No comments:
Post a Comment