Social Media Algorithms: What Pushes All Your Buttons?
Social Media Algorithms: What Pushes All Your Buttons?
By Micah Smith
Published 29 June 2026
How does social media function? Why do users see the posts, comments, reels, and pictures that they do? The answer is both simple and complicated: it is determined by algorithms. Unfortunately, no one knows exactly how these pesky algorithms function. Not even the programmers (e.g., Fisher). This raises some important questions regarding democratic engagement, including how are social media algorithms influencing political discourse on social media? While it is tricky to nail down exactly what is going on behind the scenes, this blog post will address some of the ideas floating around scholarly discussions of social media algorithms.
At its most basic function, the algorithm shows users what it thinks they want to see. It decides what is worth our attention and what is not (Lupinacci). The algorithm is designed to maximize the time users spend online, because the more time you are online, the more money the company makes off ads (Fisher). This means it will push content that it thinks will engage you more. On YouTube, this might mean longer videos. (Fisher). What tends to happen is that the more aggressive and controversial the posts, the more the algorithm will push them to users, and, as Jadyn Nolen discusses in “You and Social Media: A Relationship Glow Up,” throw nuance to the four winds. This makes sense. The more outraged you are, the more likely you will be to engage in a long stream of comments—escalating the controversy and making the platform even more money. Each time a user clicks the “Like” button, joins a suggested Facebook group, or reposts a recommendation, it affirms to the algorithm that it made the right choice: you’re hooked (Fisher).
“This makes sense. The more outraged you are, the more likely you will be to engage in a long stream of comments—escalating the controversy and making the platform even more money.”
On the surface, this seems like it would boost democratic engagement. Long threads of debating comments is a good thing, right? Yes and no. The issue is that our brains tend to assume that something we view as a consensus is the truth (Fisher). Simply put, if I tell you that the sky is purple, you will most likely call me crazy. But if every single person showing up on your social media feed tells you that the sky is purple, you might start to question yourself. Everyone else seems to know that it is absolutely true. You must be missing something. While this is a silly example, it becomes a lot more serious when the online discussion moves to fake headlines that address extremely controversial issues. Social media algorithms are able to push highly contested, radical rumors until we believe that a consensus has been reached and assume that it must be true. Algorithms have the power to push us into extreme views (Fisher).
Keeping people interested has its benefits and disadvantages, especially when thinking about how people engage with political issues. A lot of people rely on social media for news (Eg). On a global scale, this means that the algorithms have the power to shape and change social and political interaction (Eg). The algorithm knows whether to suggest a conservative or liberal post to users, and it also knows which one will make you engage in comments. Which post pushes all your buttons? Which post necessitates a hearty “Amen!”? Those posts are the ones the algorithm will put in your feed.
“Our brains tend to assume that something we view as a consensus is the truth. . . . Algorithms have the power to push us into extreme views” (Fisher).
ChatGPT Image: “Make me a picture of the sky. The left half of the sky is purple and the right half of the sky is green.” 6.18.26
This entire process leads to false polarization (Fisher). The algorithm wants me to spend more time on the platform, so it gives me a post it knows I’ll have to comment on. The sky is purple. Well, I say the sky is green. As the debate develops, the algorithm pushes more and more people into the thread, and it becomes aggressive. I only see two views: purple or green. I start to think that these are the only two possibilities, that the sky being purple would result in something too terrible to consider (alien invasion, zombie apocalypse, you name it). It is easy to get sucked up into these kinds of debates (usually about something a lot more serious than the color of the sky), and forget that the world is likely not as polarized as it appears on this one discussion. Not to mention the fact that I, and everyone else on the thread, failed to consider the possibility of the sky being another color, say blue.
“Perhaps we need to be aware that algorithms cannot replace human judgement” (Healey).
Now we come to the crux of the issue: how does this affect democratic communication and discussion? Researchers find it hard to align this complex knowledge of social media algorithms with democracy (Swart). How can we truly discuss in both a rational and passionate way if the computer makes the critical decisions for us (Fisher)? It would be a long and hard road to remove social media algorithms altogether, and that is not what I am suggesting. Perhaps we need to be aware that algorithms cannot replace human judgement (Healey). We have the ability to process information rationally, asking good questions about sources, biases, and truth. There must be a way to sidestep algorithms that try to tell us what to believe, pushing post after post about the color of the sky in our faces. Perhaps all it takes is understanding that the process is happening.
Works Cited
Eg, Ragnhild, et al. “A Scoping Review of Personalized User Experiences on Social Media: The Interplay between Algorithms and Human Factors.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports, vol. 9, no. 100253, March 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100253.
Fisher, Max. The Chaos Machine: The Inside Story of How Social Media Rewired Our Minds and Our World. New York, Hachette Book Group, 2022.
Lupinacci, Ludmila. “Phenomenal Algorhythms: The Sensorial Orchestration of ‘Real-Time’ in the Social Media Manifold.” New Media + Society [London, England], vol. 26, no. 7, July 2022, pp. 4078–98, https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221109952.
Swart, Joëlle. “Experiencing Algorithms: How Young People Understand, Feel about, and Engage with Algorithmic News Selection on Social Media.” Social Media + Society, April 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211008828.
Home > Democracy in the Comments > Social Media Algorithms: What Pushes All Your Buttons?
Social Media Algorithms: What Pushes All Your Buttons?
Social Media Algorithms: What Pushes All Your Buttons?
By Micah Smith
Published 29 June 2026
How does social media function? Why do users see the posts, comments, reels, and pictures that they do? The answer is both simple and complicated: it is determined by algorithms. Unfortunately, no one knows exactly how these pesky algorithms function. Not even the programmers (e.g., Fisher). This raises some important questions regarding democratic engagement, including how are social media algorithms influencing political discourse on social media? While it is tricky to nail down exactly what is going on behind the scenes, this blog post will address some of the ideas floating around scholarly discussions of social media algorithms.
At its most basic function, the algorithm shows users what it thinks they want to see. It decides what is worth our attention and what is not (Lupinacci). The algorithm is designed to maximize the time users spend online, because the more time you are online, the more money the company makes off ads (Fisher). This means it will push content that it thinks will engage you more. On YouTube, this might mean longer videos. (Fisher). What tends to happen is that the more aggressive and controversial the posts, the more the algorithm will push them to users, and, as Jadyn Nolen discusses in “You and Social Media: A Relationship Glow Up,” throw nuance to the four winds. This makes sense. The more outraged you are, the more likely you will be to engage in a long stream of comments—escalating the controversy and making the platform even more money. Each time a user clicks the “Like” button, joins a suggested Facebook group, or reposts a recommendation, it affirms to the algorithm that it made the right choice: you’re hooked (Fisher).
On the surface, this seems like it would boost democratic engagement. Long threads of debating comments is a good thing, right? Yes and no. The issue is that our brains tend to assume that something we view as a consensus is the truth (Fisher). Simply put, if I tell you that the sky is purple, you will most likely call me crazy. But if every single person showing up on your social media feed tells you that the sky is purple, you might start to question yourself. Everyone else seems to know that it is absolutely true. You must be missing something. While this is a silly example, it becomes a lot more serious when the online discussion moves to fake headlines that address extremely controversial issues. Social media algorithms are able to push highly contested, radical rumors until we believe that a consensus has been reached and assume that it must be true. Algorithms have the power to push us into extreme views (Fisher).
Keeping people interested has its benefits and disadvantages, especially when thinking about how people engage with political issues. A lot of people rely on social media for news (Eg). On a global scale, this means that the algorithms have the power to shape and change social and political interaction (Eg). The algorithm knows whether to suggest a conservative or liberal post to users, and it also knows which one will make you engage in comments. Which post pushes all your buttons? Which post necessitates a hearty “Amen!”? Those posts are the ones the algorithm will put in your feed.
This entire process leads to false polarization (Fisher). The algorithm wants me to spend more time on the platform, so it gives me a post it knows I’ll have to comment on. The sky is purple. Well, I say the sky is green. As the debate develops, the algorithm pushes more and more people into the thread, and it becomes aggressive. I only see two views: purple or green. I start to think that these are the only two possibilities, that the sky being purple would result in something too terrible to consider (alien invasion, zombie apocalypse, you name it). It is easy to get sucked up into these kinds of debates (usually about something a lot more serious than the color of the sky), and forget that the world is likely not as polarized as it appears on this one discussion. Not to mention the fact that I, and everyone else on the thread, failed to consider the possibility of the sky being another color, say blue.
Now we come to the crux of the issue: how does this affect democratic communication and discussion? Researchers find it hard to align this complex knowledge of social media algorithms with democracy (Swart). How can we truly discuss in both a rational and passionate way if the computer makes the critical decisions for us (Fisher)? It would be a long and hard road to remove social media algorithms altogether, and that is not what I am suggesting. Perhaps we need to be aware that algorithms cannot replace human judgement (Healey). We have the ability to process information rationally, asking good questions about sources, biases, and truth. There must be a way to sidestep algorithms that try to tell us what to believe, pushing post after post about the color of the sky in our faces. Perhaps all it takes is understanding that the process is happening.
Works Cited
Eg, Ragnhild, et al. “A Scoping Review of Personalized User Experiences on Social Media: The Interplay between Algorithms and Human Factors.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports, vol. 9, no. 100253, March 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100253.
Fisher, Max. The Chaos Machine: The Inside Story of How Social Media Rewired Our Minds and Our World. New York, Hachette Book Group, 2022.
Healey, Kevin. “Digital Proverbs for Responsible Citizens.” The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society, May 13, 2020. https://youtu.be/ptR4lGtOMk0?si=s1Jd7gdZ8TwH1Srm.
Lupinacci, Ludmila. “Phenomenal Algorhythms: The Sensorial Orchestration of ‘Real-Time’ in the Social Media Manifold.” New Media + Society [London, England], vol. 26, no. 7, July 2022, pp. 4078–98, https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221109952.
Swart, Joëlle. “Experiencing Algorithms: How Young People Understand, Feel about, and Engage with Algorithmic News Selection on Social Media.” Social Media + Society, April 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211008828.
Micah Smith