Mattia Marangon recently shared something that caught my attention: "What do a streamer and the President of the United States have in common? Both are willing to do anything to please the algorithm and go viral." He adds that whether it is adopting an almost alien language or turning serious issues into memes, the number one goal becomes staying at the center of global attention.

I want to expand on that idea, because it explains a lot about what we see online right now: creators, brands, and even political leaders often behave less like humans communicating and more like systems optimizing for distribution.

The uncomfortable similarity Mattia points out

Mattia is essentially describing a shared incentive structure. Streamers live and die by recommendation systems. Public figures increasingly do too. When attention is the currency, the algorithm becomes the market maker.

Key insight: If the algorithm rewards novelty, outrage, and speed, many people will produce novelty, outrage, and speed, even when it distorts the message.

The result is a weird convergence. A streamer might invent new slang, exaggerated reactions, or hyper-specific formats because those patterns keep viewers watching. A politician might use punchy memes, simplified slogans, or inflammatory soundbites because those patterns travel farther than nuance.

Why "pleasing the algorithm" changes what we say

Algorithms rarely optimize for truth, civic health, or learning. They optimize for measurable engagement signals such as watch time, retention, comments, shares, and repeat sessions. That distinction matters.

When you aim your content at those signals, three shifts happen:

1) You prioritize performance over meaning

If a topic is complex, the "performable" version is often a flattened version. You select the most reactive angle, not the most accurate one.

2) You adopt the platform's dialect

Mattia mentions an "almost alien language." I know exactly what he means. Each platform has patterns that act like spells: hooks, abrupt cuts, stitched reactions, caption pacing, keyword stuffing, and familiar narrative templates.

This is not inherently bad. Format helps people understand quickly. The problem begins when the format starts dictating the thought.

3) You escalate because the baseline keeps moving

Once everyone learns the same tricks, the bar rises. What used to feel bold becomes normal. So the pressure increases to be louder, faster, more shocking, and more polarizing.

If yesterday's hook no longer works, today's hook has to be sharper. That is how attention inflation happens.

The attention economy is not neutral

Mattia's comparison becomes sharper when you remember that virality is not just a marketing outcome. It is a social force.

For creators, the cost may be burnout, identity distortion, or shallow work. For public discourse, the cost can be much higher: misinformed audiences, heightened outrage, and a reward system that favors theatrics over responsibility.

When Mattia references making memes about deportations, he is pointing at a line that gets crossed when human consequences become raw material for reach. That is not a "left vs right" problem. It is an incentive problem: if the system rewards provocative packaging more than careful context, people will keep packaging.

Streamers and presidents: the same funnel, different stakes

A streamer chasing virality is typically optimizing within entertainment. A president chasing virality can shape policy narratives, public trust, and social stability.

Still, the mechanics look similar:

A/B testing messages in real time through posts and reactions
Using conflict as a distribution engine
Speaking in short, repeatable units that travel well
Treating visibility as proof of legitimacy

The biggest danger is confusing attention with mandate.

Virality is not consensus. Reach is not trust. Engagement is not understanding.

What a healthier content strategy looks like

If Mattia's post feels a little cynical, I read it more as a warning. We can acknowledge the game without letting it swallow our values. Here are practical ways to do that.

1) Define a "non-negotiables" list

Before you optimize, decide what you will not do for reach.

Examples:

No dehumanizing humor about vulnerable groups
No false urgency or manipulated statistics
No rage bait replies just to drive comments

Write it down. Share it with your team. This makes ethics operational.

2) Optimize for the right metric, not the available metric

Platforms make it easy to chase what is measurable. But you can create internal metrics that track outcomes you actually want.

Instead of only:

views, likes, shares

Also track:

saves and meaningful replies
qualified inbound messages
newsletter signups
time-to-trust signals such as repeat readers and long comments

3) Use "translation" without surrendering the message

Adopting platform language is sometimes necessary. The key is to translate your idea into the format without amputating the nuance.

A simple test:

Can I state the core claim in one sentence?
Can I add one sentence of context that prevents misinterpretation?
Can I link to a deeper explanation for people who want more?

4) Build an off-platform home base

Mattia mentions a newsletter. That is not just a distribution tip. It is a sovereignty strategy.

If your relationship with your audience depends entirely on an algorithm, you will eventually be forced to serve the algorithm. An email list, community space, or website gives you a place where depth is not punished.

5) Slow down the cycle on purpose

Not everything needs a hot take. Consider designing a cadence that makes room for:

weekly synthesis instead of daily reaction
fewer posts with higher intentionality
content that ages well, not just content that spikes

This is also a competitive advantage, because most people cannot resist the dopamine loop.

A simple question to keep you honest

When you are about to publish, ask:

Am I saying this because it is true and useful, or because it is likely to travel?

You can still care about distribution. You can still write strong hooks. But you should know which part is craft and which part is compromise.

Closing thought

Mattia Marangon’s comparison works because it is not really about streamers or presidents. It is about what happens when the algorithm becomes the invisible editor of public life. Once you see that, you can start designing your content strategy with clearer intent: use the platforms, do not let them use you.

This blog post expands on a viral LinkedIn post by Mattia Marangon, Founder di Ugolize | The Content Kitchen | Parlo di consapevolezza digitale. View the original LinkedIn post →