Virality Is a Business Model

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — May 26, 2026

Reporting

On Facebook, viral content is often described as accidental or organic. In practice, virality is not a side effect. It is a feature.

Facebook is designed to identify, amplify, and recycle content that spreads quickly. Posts that move rapidly through networks—especially videos—are rewarded with additional visibility. This process increases user activity, which in turn increases advertising value.

Virality is not evidence of importance. It is evidence that content performs well inside Facebook’s engagement system.

Structural Context

Facebook measures success by time spent, interactions generated, and repeat exposure. Content that spreads quickly keeps users active and attracts advertisers seeking large audiences.

To support this, Facebook’s systems:

• boost posts that receive early engagement,
• promote content that encourages resharing,
• and deprioritize material that resolves issues or discourages further interaction.

The faster content spreads, the more valuable it becomes to the platform—regardless of whether it is accurate, current, or useful.

Facebook Is Not the Internet

This distinction must be repeated clearly:

Facebook is not the internet.
It is a closed system that selects what users see based on business incentives.

On the open internet, information competes on relevance, timeliness, and credibility. On Facebook, information competes on shareability. What spreads best is what survives.

When Filipinos rely on Facebook as their primary source of information, they are not seeing a representative view of events. They are seeing what travels well inside a commercial network.

Viral Videos and the Illusion of Urgency

Video content is especially effective in this system. Videos autoplay, generate longer viewing times, and provoke emotional reactions. As a result, they are frequently recycled.

A video recorded months earlier can resurface repeatedly as different pages repost it with new captions. Context is often removed. Dates are rarely emphasized. To users, the material appears urgent and current even when it is not.

Each resharing creates the impression that “everyone is talking about this now,” even if the underlying event is long past.

Analysis

Virality rewards repetition, not resolution. Content that spreads widely is kept in circulation because it continues to generate reactions. Content that explains outcomes, corrections, or follow-ups tends to slow engagement and is quietly deprioritized.

This creates a feedback loop:

• old material reappears as new,
• emotional responses are reactivated,
• and public attention remains fixed on unresolved narratives.

When Facebook functions as a dominant information channel, this loop distorts how time, relevance, and importance are perceived.

Practical Implications

Breaking the influence of viral distortion requires restraint rather than participation.

Practical steps include:

• Pausing before resharing viral videos.
• Checking when and where content was originally recorded.
• Searching outside Facebook to confirm whether an issue is current.
• Understanding that high share counts reflect performance, not urgency.

Choosing not to reshare is often more informative than amplifying outdated material.

Conclusion

Virality on Facebook is not a measure of public need. It is a measure of commercial success.

Facebook is not the internet.
Treating viral content as inherently important allows old, incomplete, and misleading information to dominate attention. Recognizing virality as a business model is essential to restoring perspective in the Philippine information environment.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Archived as part of the WPS News Monthly Brief Series (Amazon).

References
Meta Platforms, Inc. (2023). Transparency Center reports.
Independent academic and investigative reporting on viral media and engagement-based distribution systems.

"In the new algorithm, that mechanism is vastly demoted: reposts - like every post - need to go through the retrieval and ranking stage mentioned above, so a repost from a big account is a long way from the boost it used to be.

This is especially brutal for low-effort quote tweets, which used to function as cheap amplification: now they often can't even clear the retrieval stage - they simply don't contain enough novel semantic content for the system to match them to anyone's interests.

So, putting it all together, the reach collapse comes from many forces stacking at once:
- Auto-translate makes your posts compete for attention against an order of magnitude more content
- The retrieval stage matches posts by topic, not by who follows you
- The ranking stage scores purely on predicted engagement with no weight for credibility, expertise, or track record
- The bloom filter narrows every post's window to one strong shot
- The diversity scorer penalizes prolific posting
- Reposts no longer carry much distribution power

Each of these alone would dent your reach. Combined, they amount to a complete reset: your audience that you built painstakingly over years basically doesn't matter much anymore, and it's much - much - harder to stand out even if you're a big account.

People structurally rewarded by this algorithm are folks who:
- Post visually (videos/images)
- Post on globally popular topics because they clear the retrieval stage easily
- Provoke strong emotional reactions - likes, replies, reposts
- Don't care about accuracy or seriousness because the algorithm doesn't measure it
- Don't care about their existing audience because every post is judged in isolation anyway

In short this new algorithm, like so many on social media, is all about maximizing whether people will engage with something - not about whether they should."

https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2058450505630716013

#SocialMedia #Engagement #Twitter #Virality

How Any Event Becomes a Viral Outrage - Marc Andreessen on The a16z Show

#media #virality #outrage

Original timestamp: 00:10:10

Why Viral Words Are Identity Signals - Chris Williamson and Adam Aleksic

#language #virality #algorithm

Original timestamp: 00:04:59

Is Flappy Bird a good game?

https://piefed.blahaj.zone/c/games/p/641975/is-flappy-bird-a-good-game

One of the saddest movies—this montage hits hard.😭😭😭😭😭

#status #optimized #virality #typography #intelligence #imagery #introduction #hashtag #content #image #amplify #snapshot #promote #niche #ReelTrends #ReelTrendsApp

A military dad sees his transgender son for the first time. His facial expressions tell a story of love, confusion, and acceptance.

#status #optimized #virality #typography #intelligence #imagery #introduction #hashtag #content #image #amplify #snapshot #promote #niche #ReelTrends #ReelTrendsApp

I saw this on Mastodon and almost had a stroke.

@davidgerard wrote:

“Most of the AI coding claims are conveniently nondisprovable. What studies there are show it not helping coding at all, or making it worse

But SO MANY LOUD ANECDOTES! Trust me my friend, I am the most efficient coder in the land now. No, you can’t see it. No, I didn’t measure. But if you don’t believe me, you are clearly a fool.

These guys had one good experience with the bot, they got one-shotted, and now if you say “perhaps the bot is not all that” they act like you’re trying to take their cocaine away.”

First, the term is falsifiable, and proving propositions about algorithms (i.e., code) is part of what I do for a living. Mathematically human-written code and AI-written code can be tested, which means you can falsify propositions about them. You would test them the same way.

There is no intrinsic mathematical distinction between code written by a person and code produced by an AI system. In both cases, the result is a formal program made of logic and structure. In principle, the same testing techniques can be applied to each. If it were really nondisprovable, you could not test to see what is generated by a human and what is generated by AI. But you can test it. Studies have found that AI-generated code tends to exhibit a higher frequency of certain types of defects. So, reviewers and testers know what logic flaws and security weaknesses to look for. This would not be the case if it were nondisprovable.

You can study this from datasets where the source of the code is known. You can use open-source pull requests identified as AI-assisted versus those written without such tools. You then evaluate both groups using the same industry-standard analysis tools: static analyzers, complexity metrics, security scanners, and defect classification systems. These tools flag bugs, vulnerabilities, performance issues, and maintainability concerns. They do so in a consistent way across samples.

A widely cited analysis of 470 real pull requests reported that AI-generated contributions contained roughly 1.7 times as many issues on average as human-written ones. The difference included a higher number of critical and major defects. It also included more logic and security-related problems. Because these findings rely on standard measurement tools — counting defects, grading severity, and comparing issue rates — the results are grounded in observable data. Again, I am making a point here. It’s testable and therefore disproveable.

This is a good paper that goes into it:

In this paper, we present a large-scale comparison of code authored by human developers and three state-of-the-art LLMs, i.e., ChatGPT, DeepSeek-Coder, and Qwen-Coder, on multiple dimensions of software quality: code defects, security vulnerabilities, and structural complexity. Our evaluation spans over 500k code samples in two widely used languages, Python and Java, classifying defects via Orthogonal Defect Classification and security vulnerabilities using the Common Weakness Enumeration. We find that AI-generated code is generally simpler and more repetitive, yet more prone to unused constructs and hardcoded debugging, while human-written code exhibits greater structural complexity and a higher concentration of maintainability issues. Notably, AI-generated code also contains more high-risk security vulnerabilities. These findings highlight the distinct defect profiles of AI- and human-authored code and underscore the need for specialized quality assurance practices in AI-assisted programming.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.21634

The big problem in discussions about AI in programming is the either-or thinking, when it’s not about using it everywhere or banning it entirely. Tools like AI have specific strengths and weaknesses. Saying ‘never’ or ‘always’ oversimplifies the issue and turns the narrative into propaganda that creates moral panic or shills AI. It’s a bit like saying you shouldn’t use a hammer just because it’s not good for brushing your teeth.

AI tends to produce code that’s simple, often a bit repetitive, and very verbose. It’s usually pretty easy to read and tweak. This helps with long-term maintenance. But AI doesn’t reason about code the way an experienced developer does. It makes mistakes that a human wouldn’t, potentially introducing security flaws. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use for where it works well, which is not everywhere.

AI works well for certain tasks, especially when the scope is narrow and the risk is low. Examples include generating boilerplate code, internal utilities, or prototypes. In these cases, the tradeoff is manageable. However, it’s not suitable for critical code like kernels, operating systems, compilers, or cryptographic libraries. A small mistake memory safety or privilege separation can lead to major failures. Problems with synchronization, pointer management, or access control can cause major problems, too.

Other areas where AI should not be used include memory allocation handling, scheduling, process isolation, or device drivers. A lot of that depends on implicit assumptions in the system’s architecture. Generative models don’t grasp these nuances. Instead of carefully considering the design, AI tends to replicate code patterns that seem statistically likely, doing so without understanding the purpose behind them.

Yes, I’m aware that Microsoft is using AI to write code everywhere I said it should not be used. That is the problem. However, political pundits, lobbyists, and anti-tech talking heads are discussing something they have no understanding of and aren’t specifying what the problem actually is. This means they can’t possibly lead grassroots initiatives into actual laws that specify where AI should not be used, which is why we have this weird astroturfing bullshit.

They’re taking advantage of the reaction to Microsoft using AI-generated code where it shouldn’t be used to argue that AI shouldn’t be used anywhere at all in any generative context. AI is useful for tasks like writing documentation, generating tests, suggesting code improvements, or brainstorming alternative approaches. These ideas should then be thoroughly vetted by human developers.

Something I’ve started to notice about a lot of the content on social media platforms is that most of the posts people are liking, sharing, and memetically mutating—and then spreading virally—usually don’t include any citations, sources, or receipts. It’s often just some out-of-context screenshot with no reference link or actual sources.

A lot of the anti-AI content is not genuine critique. It’s often misinformation, but people who hate AI don’t question it or ask for sources because it aligns with their biases. The propaganda on social media has gotten so bad that anything other than heavily curated and vetted feeds is pretty much useless, and it’s filled with all sorts of memetic contagions with nasty hooks that are optimized for you algorithmically. I am at the point where I will disregard anything that is not followed up with a source. Period. It is all optimized to persuade, coerce, or piss you off. I am only writing about this because this I’m actually able to contribute genuine information about the topic.

That they said symbolic propositions written by AI agents (i.e., code) are non-disprovable because they were written by AI boggles my mind. It’s like saying that an article written in English by AI is not English because AI generated it. It might be a bad piece of text, but it’s syntactically, semantically, and grammatically English.

Basically, any string of data can be represented in a base-2 system, where it can be interpreted as bits (0s and 1s). Those bits can be used as the basis for symbolic reasoning. In formal propositional logic, a proposition is a sequence of symbols constructed according to strict syntax rules (atomic variables plus logical connectives). Under a given semantics, it is assigned exactly one truth value (true or false) in a two-valued logic system.

They are essentially saying that code written by AI is not binary, isn’t symbolically logical at all, and cannot be evaluated as true or false by implying it is nondisproveable. At the lowest level, compiled code consists of binary machine instructions that a processor executes. At higher levels, source code is written in symbolic syntax that humans and tools use to express logic and structure. You can also translate parts of code into formal logic expressions. For example, conditions and assertions in a program can be modeled as Boolean formulas. Tools like SAT/SMT solvers or symbolic execution engines check those formulas for satisfiability or correctness. It blows my mind how confidently people talk about things they do not understand.

Furthermore that they don’t realize the projection is wild to me.

@davidgerard wrote:

“But SO MANY LOUD ANECDOTES! Trust me my friend, I am the most efficient coder in the land now. No, you can’t see it. No, I didn’t measure. But if you don’t believe me, you are clearly a fool.”

They are presenting a story—i.e., saying that the studies are not disprovable—and accusing computer scientists of using anecdotal evidence without actually providing evidence to support this, while expecting people to take it prima facie. You’re doing what you are accusing others of doing.

It comes down to this: they feel that people ought not to use AI, so they are tacitly committed to a future in which people do not use AI. For example, a major argument against AI is the damage it is doing to resources, which is driving up the prices of computer components, as well as the ecological harm it causes. They feel justified in lying and misinforming others if it achieves the outcome they want—people not using AI because it is bad for the environment. That is a very strong point, but most people don’t care about that, which is why they lie about things people would care about.

It’s corrupt. And what’s really scary is that people don’t recognize when they are part of corruption or a corrupt conspiracy to misinform. Well, they recognize it when they see the other side doing it, that is. No one is more dangerous than people who feel righteous in what they are doing.

It’s wild to me that the idea that if you cannot persuade someone, it is okay to bully, coerce, harass them, or spread misinformation to get what you want—because your side is right—has become so normalized on the Internet that people can’t see why it is problematic.

That people think it is okay to hurt others to get them to agree is the most disturbing part of all of this. People have become so hateful. That is a large reason why I don’t interact with people on social media, really consume things from social media, or respond on social media and am writing a blog post about it instead of engaging with who prompted it.

Users Are Too Dependent on Centralized Techno-Fascist Corporate Structure to Ever Leave Discord

I’m watching people scatter into countless real-time chat alternatives to Discord after Discord started pulling the age-verification and age-gating card.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/09/discord-to-roll-out-age-verification-next-month-for-full-access-to-its-platform/

It’s very frustrating because people are entirely missing the point of a community and how social networks work. Real-time platforms and social media networks only work well when a large number of people share the same space at the same time. If everyone creates separate servers or competing apps, the result is fragmentation that makes it unviable.

One reason why Bluesky became so successful is the invitation and starter-pack move. It essentially allowed people to move collectively as cliques. Bluesky used invitations and starter packs to move groups of friends together. This kept communities intact. Moving as cliques preserves network structure, whereas random scattering does not. People aren’t do not seem to intend to move as cliques or subgraphs of networks off of Discord. And the whole reason people were on Discord was to host their communities, so an alternative becomes pointless if your community doesn’t remain intact.

Instead of an active, strongly connected, possibly distributed network, you get dozens of small pockets. I am referring to a potential distributed network rather than a single centralized platform, because Matrix is an example of a decentralized chat protocol. Not all alternatives have to be centralized like Discord. Technically, many older chat protocols, such as XMPP and IRC, are examples of federated real-time synchronous messaging. They allowed communication between users on different, independently operated servers. Federation means that multiple servers can interconnect so that users from separate networks can exchange messages with one another seamlessly.

Decentralized alternatives would not be a problem if people moved to the same distributed network as cohesive groups. However, what I am seeing is that people move in disconnected and stochastic ways to entirely separate distributed networks, so communities are not kept intact. For example, when people move to XMPP servers or Matrix servers, it bifurcates and disconnects social networks. Notice I said XMPP or Matrix, which logically means people are on Matrix but not XMPP, or they are on XMPP but not Matrix. That implies a person would need to be on both Matrix and XMPP to speak to their original community from Discord if it split down the middle. To synchronize conversations in chats, there would need to be a bridge. It’s a pretty complicated solution.

The likely outcome is that people will remain on the dominant platform because of its scale and structure. The deeper irony is that while people may want independence from corporate platforms, they often struggle to organize effectively without the centralized structure those platforms provide. They’ve become so dependent on corporate structures to support their communities that they have no clue how to organize their own social networks in a sustainable way.

I’ve always been an internet nerd, but most of my social life has been offline. I view my interactions with the social app layer of the internet as a game, so losing that domain of the Internet is not devastating to me.

I’ll give you an example. This is a WordPress site. You hear this insincere nostalgia from Millennials and Gen X for a simulacrum that never was, especially concerning forums. Check this out: when you go into the plugin installation section of WordPress, this is on the second row you see:

https://bbpress.org/

That means any WordPress site has the capability to host a forum. They’re nostalgic for a setup where you can use a simple install script on any hosting service to install WordPress. After that, you can then just add a plugin to turn it into a forum. Hell, they can do this on WordPress.com if they don’t want to self-host.

You can make a forum, but no one will use it because they’d rather use a centralized platform like Reddit. Users have become so dependent on corporations to structure and organize communities that they can’t do it themselves. It’s sort of like the cognitive debt that accrues when people outsource their thinking to AI.

The issue is not that forums are hard to host or create; rather, the issue is that people have become so dependent on centralized corporate structures that they can’t maintain or organize their own communities, which is why everyone ends up on Reddit or Discord. A reason I keep hearing for why people don’t want to leave Discord is that it’s hard to recreate the community structure that Discord’s features provide. They claim that they want independence from corporate platforms, but rely on the centralized structure those platforms provide to function socially.

People say they want decentralized freedom, but in practice they depend on centralized platforms to maintain social cohesion. Stochastically scattering to the digital winds of the noosphere destroys the very communities they’re trying to preserve.