In August 2022, I agreed with the idea that the most entertaining outcome was the most likely one. My explanation was that people want drama, and social media gives it visibility. There was a missing step in that argument: attention does not establish probability.
What a recommendation system is responding to
In its explanation of For You recommendations, TikTok lists factors including what people watch, like, share, comment on and search for. It also describes adjusting recommendations when people indicate they are not interested.
That is a more specific account than my original claim that an algorithm simply makes the most entertaining content viral. It is also TikTok’s description of its own system, not an explanation of every platform.
Separate the clip from the claim
A dramatic prediction can be interesting to watch without being well supported. If a video predicts an event, two different questions matter: why did I keep watching, and what evidence supports the prediction?
The first concerns my attention. The second needs information beyond the video’s popularity. Repetition in a feed does not supply that missing evidence.
The part of my reflection worth keeping
I wanted to question my own role in what I watch. That remains a useful starting point, but it does not make viewers solely responsible for platform design or everything a feed contains.
Before sharing an entertaining claim, find its original source, check when it was made and distinguish an opinion from a report of something that happened. If those checks do not support it, being compelling is not a reason to present it as fact.
The corrected distinction is simple: a story can win attention without becoming more likely to happen.
