the psychology of repost warriors
(or, collective knowledge building in the algorithmic age and how the algorithm makes activism a capitalistic competition)
Thank you for reading Irrational Technology. I’m Lou, a UX Designer, writer, and social media expert from Glasgow, Scotland. On this substack, I critique technology and design, mainly social media, through a lens of leftism and create a technological future for the many, not the few!
If you like what I write, please consider becoming a paid subscriber so I have more time to spend on this newsletter! Currently, I work full time and freelance alongside this Substack, so that doesn’t leave much time for writing, but I’d love to change that.
During a lunchtime scrolling break, I came across a video I strongly disagreed with. In the video posted by Teen Vogue, a young software developer is talking about how the algorithm on applications such as YouTube leads to radicalisation in young men and how she, as a software developer, was a special expert in this. Notably, she claims that “no one talks about this”
The problem wasn’t that the facts were wrong - it was that the speaker claimed that this was an issue that wasn’t discussed. This is blatantly untrue, as this is a well-documented social phenomenon that has been studied for around a decade now. I literally learnt about it when I was in High School. This example highlights broader issues: the diminishing value placed on social research, poor research literacy among STEM students, and people's apparent inability to fucking use Google.
But that's not my focus here. Instead, I want to explore this question: Why did so many of my mutuals—people whose ideas and talents I deeply admire—repost something like this?
Side note: Perhaps in 2025, people will understand that software developers aren't experts in social media interface design—because that's not their job—but we can only hope. The overemphasis on STEM and devaluation of humanities and arts means people trust someone with technical expertise over a designer, even when they've never studied the subject matter. In this case, when you know a little about the subject, you know a social researcher or a designer could explain this phenomenon better. I try not to blame individuals as I know this is how manipulative design works, but - YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO PROPAGANDA, etc.
habit forming social media platforms create habit forming content patterns
There is a rising phenomenon on the internet, particularly on TikTok, that often follows the format “Why does no one talk about X?” where X is extensively documented and researched. This is because it’s a good hook.
When you become used to habit-forming cycles, they become more effective.
The algorithm is designed to promote content that generates the most interaction and naturally favours material that follows familiar, habit-forming patterns. Repeated exposure makes These patterns deeply ingrained in viewers' expectations and behaviours. As users become increasingly conditioned to respond to these hook cycles in social media content, content that deliberately implements these patterns performs even better. And content creators and organisations use this to their benefit. When your content fits perfectly into the hook cycle, success is only a matter of time.
Trigger - some visual or auditory “hook”, often in exaggerating the issue you are discussing or, as in the case of the example at the start of the essay - over-exaggerating the value you can contribute to something by misrepresenting your expertise.
Action - You repost the video, thinking you are introducing helpful information to your friends and followers
Reward - People like the video you have reposted, making you feel useful and socially validated
Investment - Reposts are visible on your profile, making you invested in what you repost, and more likely to do it. This creates a social environment where your reposts indicate something about your personality, your views - and ultimately, your identity.
This isn’t inherently bad - but it does lead to an over-reliance on emotional reactions, leading us not to question exaggerated accounts as much as we should. This is part of the problem with my work also. “you’re probably not addicted to your phone, but no one knows, but we think attachment would describe it better. also, you should learn about social media and pay attention to what about it is good or bad for you while keeping in mind its value for spreading information about social issues” isn’t nearly as appealing on an emotional level as “YOUR PHONE IS EVIL. IT'S YOUR FAULT. USE YOUR INDESTRUCTIBLE WILLPOWER TO GET OVER YOURSELF AND HUSTLE!!!!”
Content creators who prioritise view counts and engagement metrics above all else inevitably find themselves beholden to the algorithm's preferences and patterns. This makes misinformation and disinformation more rewarding - because the more scandalous something is, the better it will perform, regardless of whether it accurately represents the issue, much like how the designers designing social media interfaces are beholden to increasing usage time through implementing the same manipulative tactics. This algorithmic dependency manifests in a complex relationship where success is measured primarily through user engagement - including likes, comments, shares, and watch time. Similarly, designers at big tech companies (many smaller design studios also replicate these patterns) depend on success measurements that rely on user engagement.
This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where successful content formats are analysed, distilled into "best practices," and then widely distributed through countless tutorials, workshops, and guides branded as "content tips" or "algorithm hacks." This process gradually establishes these patterns as the de facto standard for content creation across the platform.
It is worth noting that I am specifically talking about this in relation to activists, and the same thing can apply to infographics people post to their Instagram stories. The effectiveness of this kind of activism and your emotional response to it are two entirely separate issues. The algorithm is more likely to show you hugely reductive takes or ones that misrepresent the issue for your posters.
As I always stress, this is not a conspiracy! Never blame on malice what you can blame on incompetence. This is merely humans subconsciously replicating patterns they see - your favourite content creator who opens all their videos with a catchy, slightly exaggerated, fun fact is not out to get you. They don’t know any better. This educational project of mine is about educating people from a place of non-judgement (unless you are mean to me, then I will be very judgemental).
collective knowledge building, and the neoliberal structure of social media
But, on a deeper level - why does this particular hook cycle work? What about reposting that scratches such an itch in our brains?
While the hook cycle explains how habits form, it doesn't fully explain what draws us to specific content. The trigger section of the cycle can vary dramatically, as can its underlying psychology. It might stem from seeking social validation, soothing anxiety, or other human motivations. In this case, the trigger connects to our basic urge to share things.
Humans have a natural inclination to share things with their communities. This is especially true for people interested in social justice, where information-sharing is key to every social movement. Human knowledge is collectively built, and many leftists recognise this as extremely valuable.
However, this natural sharing instinct can morph into something more problematic in the algorithmic age.
Social media platforms are built around individual profiles and personal metrics, and their recognition systems tend to amplify this individualization. This is what recognition theory is - the importance of social recognition to our social development. Social media manipulates these processes because the reward systems on social media platforms prioritise individualisation and push content from people who align more with these ideals. So, this means two things:
We are more likely to see social media content that aligns with individualistic ideals.
We are more likely to feel an emotional reward when we engage in ideals of individualistic attitudes.
This is what leads to the prominence of virtue signalling online—people proclaiming social values for the recognition of others who also believe in those values without engaging in any meaningful action. In the case of repost warriors, reposting prioritises how you feel about your “standing” in terms of how people perceive you because of the value of the content you repost. Combined with the algorithm’s prioritisation of emotionally appealing content — you can see how the individualistic structure of social media can negatively impact the popular perception of any given social issue.
This warps our attitudes to social justice content and shapes how we react to it. The report feature, then, can hijack this. People interested in social justice are more likely to feel this emotional reward when they repost something that reflects the values of an individualistic culture.
In many cases, this prevents action rather than encourages it - seeing something as a new novel issue when it has been studied for years limits what you can learn about it and can mean the left is constantly chasing its tail and not using the information it learns to effect real change.
Related fun fact: social media algorithms function on the same logic as neoliberalism. They copied a neoliberal economist, I’m not joking. I won’t go into detail on this, but if you understand why the free market doesn’t work, you also understand the flaws in algorithmic thinking. When you think about it for a minute, it actually makes perfect sense. I think this would help a lot of leftists understand the internet better, so I wish more people knew this.
In the particular case outlined in the start of this essay, and in the case of the prevalence of similar content - it is far more appealing to the algorithm, and to a neoliberal society for an individual to characterise themselves as “not like other girls/boys/nonbinary persons” and point out how they have noticed something huge, something world-changing, that no one else has spotted before. That’s a good story for the algorithm - because it’s a good story in the neoliberal age. So, it becomes a good story to share, it becomes “repost-able.” The more extreme the view, the more “unique” - the more repostable the content.
A video that, for example, recognises the collective effort of knowledge, rejects individualism, and points people towards interesting resources on the topic - won’t have the same appeal in the algorithm or a neoliberal society.
Most of us have internalised the idea of individual success as inherently valuable, which often prevents us from harnessing the true power of collective knowledge building. This mindset affects all interactions—whether digital or analogue. Social media amplifies this individualistic impulse through its built-in neoliberal logic and bias, with algorithms making these effects exponential.
what can we do about it though?
So, we must learn from one another and celebrate collective knowledge building over prestige, competition and followers. Cool - but how?
The most important things to understand when engaging with social media activism are:
Your emotional reactions are fundamentally disconnected from the actual effectiveness of your online actions. While sharing and reposting content might trigger positive feelings and create a sense that you're contributing to positive change, this emotional response is primarily driven by the platform's carefully designed hook cycle. The satisfaction you experience doesn't necessarily correlate with real-world impact. In many cases, the content you're sharing could oversimplify complex issues, misrepresent research to gain more engagement, or simply restate widely known information in a more dramatic way.
Developing an understanding of social media platform mechanics is essential for creating a genuine impact online. This goes beyond surface-level knowledge of features and extends to understanding how algorithms work, how content spreads, and how different forms of engagement affect visibility. This deeper understanding of social media literacy - central to my work - enables you to make more strategic and effective choices in your online activism. For a more detailed exploration of these concepts, you can refer to my essay "what the left can do differently online"
One crucial aspect I've been emphasising lately is what I call the "save-ability" of content - that is, how likely users are to bookmark and return to it later. When someone saves a piece of content, it indicates a deeper level of engagement than a simple like or share. The act of saving suggests an intention to revisit, reflect upon, and potentially take meaningful action based on the material. While we know that not everyone follows through with their saved content, the save metric remains one of the most valuable indicators of potential social impact, as it represents a user's commitment to deeper engagement rather than passive consumption.
To maximise save-ability and encourage thoughtful engagement, I do two main things in my content creation: First, I deliberately include in-depth information beyond the surface level typically found in quick-consumption videos, providing context, nuance, and deeper insights. Second, I always incorporate pathways for further learning - whether through carefully curated reading recommendations, specific action steps, or links to additional resources. This approach helps transform passive viewers into active participants more likely to create lasting change.
LINKS
https://everyonesocial.com/blog/the-psychology-of-how-and-why-we-share/
Recognition in the Age of Social Media - Bruno Campanella
The Eye of the Master, Ch8