The confirmation nobody wanted to hear
Elon Musk publicly confirmed what researchers, whistleblowers, and anyone who's worked in social media long suspected: algorithms exponentially reward content that generates anger. The more a post sparks furious debates, heated back-and-forth exchanges, and outrage, the more it gets amplified. Quality, depth, actual value? Irrelevant to the machine.
This isn't news for industry insiders. In 2021, Frances Haugen, a former Facebook data scientist, revealed internal documents to the US Congress proving that Meta knew its algorithm amplified divisive, harmful content — and chose not to intervene because engagement was rising. In 2023, an MIT study published in Science quantified the phenomenon: false news spreads six times faster than true news on social media, precisely because it triggers more intense emotional reactions. And when X (formerly Twitter) open-sourced its recommendation algorithm, researchers confirmed: content that provokes negative responses gets amplified up to 5x more than content that calmly informs.
My personal laboratory
I see it every day in my own numbers. My most thoughtful, well-researched posts — the ones where I condense weeks of study — get a fraction of the visibility of posts where I make someone angry. When I dismantle the Dubai myth with human rights data, when I explain to crypto enthusiasts that they're gambling dressed up as finance, when I point out to extremists on every side that reality never sits entirely in one camp: that's when the numbers explode.
It's my job to study human behavior, test it, and then apply what I learn to generate results for my clients. So yes, I'm fully aware of the mechanics. But this brings us to the question that actually matters.
The question the gurus forget to ask you
To what extent does polarization actually work for your brand and your reputation?
Here's the truth the snake-oil marketers will never tell you: polarization only works if you genuinely believe it. Only if you're defending something you feel in your bones, not something you chose at a strategy meeting because "it drives engagement."
People have an incredibly fine-tuned radar for distinguishing authentic conviction from performance. And when they catch you faking it — and they will — the reputational damage is devastating.
Why I can afford it (and maybe you can't)
Every "divisive" position I take is the product of years of research, data, reasoning, and often painful personal choices. I genuinely believe Dubai is a problematic model: I've studied human rights reports for years and know from the numbers that reality is even worse than I describe. I genuinely believe our dietary choices have a catastrophic environmental impact. I genuinely believe that most of the marketing training circulating online is harmful to those who follow it, to the economy, and to serious professionals who pay the consequences.
Being consistent with what you know, when what you know puts you against the majority, is not easy at all. It means being the different one, the uncomfortable one. I could easily manipulate, tell people what they want to hear, live a simpler, softer life. It's literally among my professional competencies. But I chose to give meaning to my life by answering only to facts and conscience.
People either love me or hate me. Offline exactly as online. It's not a strategy: it's who I am.
The advice that actually matters
If you don't feel the fire in your gut, don't try to fake it. Not everyone needs to exploit polarization to succeed on social media. And the effect of simulated rage would be counterproductive: people immediately sense when there's no substance behind the performance.
The good news? You can do social media in a calm, collaborative, constructive way. The algorithms will reward you less in the short term, but results come anyway — and they're more solid, more lasting, and healthier for you and your audience.
Rage is powerful fuel. But if it's not yours, it will burn your hands.
