How Andrew Tate Broke Social Media

What does it take to go viral on social media? Simple- millions of dollars from an international human trafficking ring, a few objectionable opinions, and some vulnerable algorithms. Not to mention, a multinational pyramid scheme that makes Bernie Madoff look like a small-timer and Andrew Tate the most publicized man on the internet.

Since 2020, the omniscient, meta-brained algorithms that have run society have been in hyperdrive. Cajoling us into tossing our precious five seconds of attentiveness and the ensuing five hours of mindless dawdling out the window is arduous work. Consequently, these algorithms collectively sifted through the deluge of uploads to unearth the most pragmatic, life-changing lessons 2.2 billion people had to offer. And then they realized an angry bald guy did better for watch time. This of course is a major problem. And it’s your fault too. Most algorithms that recommend content on sites such as YouTube or twitter measure how long you spent on each video, whether you found the video amusing enough to tap twice, or even search keystrokes in the case of TikTok. These algorithms then take this data along with your previous history to find attention-grabbing videos that will keep you hooked between the ads. Despite the immense technical expertise of the developers who run these sites, no one is ever perfect. Like most systems, social media is peppered with these small problems ripe for exploitation. Unlike most systems however, social media has unparalleled influence over five billion people. With this level of coverage, even the slightest exploitation of these systems or their interactions with the end-user could have a cataclysmic effect across entire societies. But since when has that ever stopped someone from making a quick 700 million?

The crux of the matter is attention, any and all attention acquired through any and all avenues. This causes the phenomenon of ‘going viral.’ A good video, not outstanding but entertaining nevertheless, for some reason receives more views than expected. The search and recommendation algorithms are then immediately led to believe that it may be worthy of an Oscar and as such dole out a few million recommendations of which 6% will lead to a view. The interesting part is when this leads to a chain reaction where the views after the initial wave of recommendations supersede the algorithm’s expectations, warranting recommendations to be pushed to an exponentially greater number of people. The interesting part is when people engineer videos to go viral by use of an underhanded exploitation of psychology.

On a basic level, the design of recommendation algorithms makes sense. What captivates the first ten viewers will hook the next 20 million- proving that we are all goldfish by measuring watch time to issue recommendations. The assumption somewhat naïvely made is that people are only interested in the good (mischaracterizing human nature). However, there’s a tiny yet ever-so-crucial problem: people love controversy. Make a few outrageous statements using a gaudily narcissistic persona, kick back, and enjoy the free publicity. Organizations such as the BBC make you known to thousands while debates flare about your views. Ever notice how agitators such as Piers Morgan or Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez leap at the prospect of a fiery exchange? Or why tabloids are among the most successful types of physical media throughout history? These expert publicists plaster Tate’s name across the media, inundating the public mind with his views. Tate has even admitted to exploiting sensationalism, stating, “…I’ve emotionally controlled them all and upset them all. And then I do a podcast, they get billions and millions of views. It’s an emotional game.” While inflammatory remarks are the basis of the scheme, they are not the full story. Part of his Machiavellian genius is the use of ‘Hustler’s University’, a pyramid scheme that encourages members to promote clips of Tate on TikTok. This causes the clips to surpass the expectations of the algorithm, hence making them go viral artificially. Of course, the sensationalist thesis is present here too; members are routinely told “What you ideally want is a mix of 60-70% fans and 40-30% haters. You want arguments, you want war.” Even if you believe in the so-called ‘matrix’ that Tate claims to liberate the world from, the fact remains that his entire system relies on dangerous levels of polarization that have harrowing, real-world consequences.

While Tate’s meteoric rise is symptomatic of one problem, the damage he has caused is due to a far greater one within the online ecosphere. The entire idea of a recommendation algorithm is flawed on a societal level. These algorithms are the poison apple of modern society, they show each person what they want to see. This leads to a cycle of misguided opinions being reinforced by an endless stream of biased yet agreeable content. Ultimately, impressionable people are sucked into these echo-chambers which reinforce and promote extremist ideology to a religious extent (confirmation bias?). This is then furthered by a sense of belonging to the groups that espouse such ideas. These are the costs of the 21st-century social apparatus which the executives of companies such as Twitter or Facebook are more than delighted to pay. Afterall, in terms of the bottom line, the scheme has been an absolute success in making their creators some of the wealthiest and most influential people in the world at the expense of a functional society.

At this point, a single question remains standing, what do we do? Firstly, simply ignoring Tate would be a solution in name only. Due to the echo chamber, a dishearteningly large minority would be left to struggle in any way necessary against a majority completely apathetic to their view and circumstance leading to unseen amounts of chaos. Outright censorship would serve to further invigorate Tate’s following while ignoring the root problem. The truth is, that the current structure of social media is a serious danger and requires widespread, systemic change. Both the human and algorithmic issues must be addressed, there must be demand for change in how these arenas of public discourse to prioritize people over profits. Furthermore, critical thinking must be sufficiently engrained into current education to the point where carbon emissions aren’t seen as a valid boast. Although, why do frivolous things such as humanity matter when there are far more important things in life; what color is your Bugatti?