In the attention economy, narrative moderation is interpreted by recommendation systems as a lack of relevance. What do political parties competing in contexts of extreme polarization do to make themselves heard?
Political parties no longer use social media merely to publish announcements or propaganda. Instead, they have fundamentally transformed the way they speak and communicate in order to adapt to how these platforms operate.
In this environment, dominated by mathematical formulas that determine what we see—and what we do not—are politicians crafting their messages simply to please social media algorithms, or do they dare to ignore them? Reality is not black and white. There is a relationship of mutual convenience in which, unfortunately, serious debate and substantive policy proposals are often the greatest casualties.
Speaking the language of the Feed
To understand whether political discourse favors the algorithm, we must first define what the algorithm rewards. The architectures of platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and X are designed to maximize users’ time on the platform and their interactions—a concept commonly known as engagement. Optimization models have discovered that high-arousal emotions, particularly outrage, fear, and identity-based antagonism, are powerful fuels for sustaining attention.
Faced with this reality, most party discourse around the world has moved away from offering explanations of governing projects, educational narratives, or complex debates. Instead, political communication has been reformulated to fit algorithmically favored formats. As a result, political messaging is fragmented into soundbites (brief, attention-grabbing snippets, also applicable to short-form videos), confrontation is standardized through rage-baiting (the deliberate provocation of angry reactions), and programmatic complexity is replaced by spectacle.
Today’s political party does not fight the algorithm. It cooperates with it because it understands that digital visibility is the prerequisite for political existence. Party discourse is therefore largely pro-algorithmic in both structure and logic, even when it projects an image of rebellion in its content. Some even speak of an “algorithmic dictatorship,” since, in the end, algorithms decide what succeeds and what does not, forcing political actors to conform to their mechanics.
Between fragmentation and digital neopopulism
In Latin America, this dynamic takes on particular intensity due to structural factors such as the crisis of representation affecting traditional parties, profound social inequalities, widespread mobile phone penetration—including among lower-income populations—and a political culture historically inclined toward personalism.
In the region, embracing algorithmic logic is no longer merely an electoral strategy; it has become a form of digital governance. The phenomenon of digital neopopulism perfectly illustrates this formal submission to the algorithm.
Political figures from across the ideological spectrum demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of transmedia narratives and niche online cultures. Political discourse increasingly mirrors the native language of digital platforms, with the strategic use of memes and shitposting becoming commonplace. This can be seen, for example, in the campaign of Abelardo de la Espriella in Colombia, where even highly personalized visual aesthetics blur the boundary between political leader and digital content creator. Generative AI has further accelerated this process by merging propaganda with slop—low-quality AI-generated content—to create a new phenomenon known as slopaganda.
This algorithmic adaptation has transformed political discourse. Rather than appealing to broad and stable majorities through long-term ideological platforms, parties now rely on algorithms to segment grievances and aspirations into highly targeted micro-audiences, further fragmenting the public sphere.
Instead of a shared national debate, parallel filter bubbles coexist, with each audience receiving a version of reality tailored to reinforce its existing biases. This phenomenon was already evident during Donald Trump’s first presidency, particularly with the emergence of Cambridge Analytica and its use of Facebook for political targeting. Ultimately, Latin American party discourse has learned that feeding the confirmation bias rewarded by algorithms is far more electorally profitable than building broad-based consensus—or even persuading people across ideological divides.
At the same time, the attention economy has elevated the role of influencers. Whether paid or acting organically in pursuit of content creation, they increasingly incorporate political messaging into their conversations with followers, amplifying its reach to new audiences. One could argue, for instance, that New York City’s current mayor, Zohran Mamdani, might not have won office had he not actively participated in conversations and interviews with a wide range of digital influencers. He embraced unconventional formats, including casual conversations on the city’s subway during rush hour and street-level storytelling designed to connect with Latino voters in a more personal and authentic way.
The myth of digital resistance
To be sure, some political narratives rhetorically position themselves against algorithms or the technology corporations that sustain them. They denounce censorship, criticize platform bias, speak of technological oligarchies, or warn about the dangers of automated disinformation. Yet this resistance is, to a large extent, both illusory and paradoxical.
For a message criticizing the algorithm to become visible and gain traction, it must itself be packaged according to the same rules of spectacle and conflict that the algorithm rewards. In other words, it fights the platform’s logic using the platform’s own weapons. Otherwise, the content simply fails to circulate through these channels. One illustrative example is Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez recommending books on TikTok while simultaneously criticizing technology leaders in political forums.
Any political proposal that genuinely attempts to go against the current—through moderation, nuanced argumentation, technical rigor, and the rejection of personal attacks—faces the invisible but relentless punishment of digital ostracism. In the end, hatred remains one of the emotions most heavily rewarded by algorithms.
Within today’s attention economy, moderation is interpreted by recommendation systems as a sign of irrelevance. Going against the current is therefore not a viable option for parties competing in highly polarized environments. On the contrary, it often becomes a ticket to communicative irrelevance.
The challenge of restoring substance
Today’s party discourse is subordinated to algorithmic logic because the most politically active—and potentially persuadable—voters are primarily found on digital platforms.
This is not the result of a technological conspiracy but rather a rational adaptation by political actors to the rules of an unregulated attention market. Political parties have concluded that it is more effective to become producers of content optimized for the feed than institutional intermediaries fostering public deliberation.
Against this backdrop, the challenge for journalism, academia, and institutions committed to democratic quality is not to demand the utopian digital disengagement of political parties, but to critically examine how these dynamics erode substantive policy debate. As long as political success is measured by metrics of virality and engagement, rather than by the strength of proposed public policies, party discourse will remain both a hostage and a willing accomplice to the next algorithmic update in content recommendation platforms—simplified, decontextualized, emotional, and ephemeral.
Change is possible if all political actors demonstrate the will and determination to shift the tone of their messaging, engaging their audiences with less condescension and far greater pedagogical purpose. For now, however, that still seems more like a utopian aspiration.
*This article was originally published by Diálogo Político.
Autor
Ph.D in Communication and a Master's degree in Social Communication. He has conducted several research projects on new narratives and technologies in journalism, advertising, marketing, and corporate communication.
