The Algorithm Should Come with a Label

This image was created with generative Ai.

If your social media feed came with a warning label, what would it say?

Maybe:

⚠️ This algorithm is optimized to keep you angry for as long as possible.

Or:

⚠️ This feed has been fine-tuned to trigger envy, FOMO, and mild existential dread — all in the name of engagement.

Sounds absurd, right? But it’s not that far off. Every digital platform you use — social media, streaming, even dating apps — is governed by invisible incentives. Algorithms don’t just “show you things you like.” They show you the things that keep you hooked.

And most of us have no idea what that actually means.

The Invisible Puppeteer

Let’s start with the obvious: algorithms aren’t neutral. They’re not some benevolent force curating your favorite cat videos out of kindness. They’re math equations optimized for a goal — and that goal usually isn’t your wellbeing.

Facebook’s algorithm, for instance, was famously tuned for engagement. The more people liked, commented, and shared, the better. The unintended result? Outrage, division, and misinformation spread faster than a grandma’s chain email in 2009.

YouTube’s recommendation system once pushed users deeper into conspiracy theory rabbit holes, simply because extreme content kept viewers watching longer.

TikTok’s “For You” page is engineered to identify your psychological sweet spot — the exact mix of dopamine hits that’ll keep your thumb swiping.

Netflix optimizes thumbnails and auto-play sequences not for story quality, but for bingeability.

None of this is inherently evil. It’s just the product doing its job. But wouldn’t it be nice to know what job it’s actually doing?

Disclosure is Power

Imagine if every platform had to disclose what its algorithm was optimized for — like a nutrition label for your attention.

A Twitter-style pop-up might read:

“This feed prioritizes engagement, which may amplify emotionally charged or divisive content.”

Or Netflix could note:

“Recommendations are based on maximizing total viewing time, not user satisfaction.”

That one sentence would fundamentally change how people interact with technology. You might scroll differently if you knew the app was playing chess while you were playing checkers.

It’s not about scaring people off technology. It’s about informed consent. You can’t meaningfully choose what you consume — or how it affects your mood, beliefs, and worldview — without knowing what’s driving it.

The Case for Algorithm Labels

The truth is, we already demand transparency in other industries.

Food labels list calories, fats, and sugars because we once didn’t know that corn syrup was hiding in everything.
Cigarette packs have warnings because, for decades, companies told us smoking was glamorous while quietly optimizing for addiction.

Financial disclosures exist so we can see who’s profiting from what.

So why not the same for algorithms that shape our mental health, democracy, and sense of reality?

These systems influence how we see the world — what we believe, who we trust, and even how we vote. They deserve at least the same level of oversight as snack food.

Regulation and Responsibility

Yes, regulation has a role here. Governments could require large platforms to disclose the primary optimization goal of any algorithm that reaches a certain scale. Think of it as the digital equivalent of the FDA label:

• Optimized for: Engagement

• Potential side effects: Echo chambers, polarization, anxiety

The EU’s Digital Services Act already nudges in this direction, requiring major platforms to provide some transparency about recommender systems. It’s a start — but most of those disclosures are buried behind links no normal person reads.

Companies could also get ahead of this voluntarily. A brand that proudly declares “Our algorithm prioritizes meaningful conversations over engagement” would win trust — especially as consumers grow more skeptical of manipulative design.

Transparency doesn’t kill profit. It builds loyalty.

The Real-World Cost of Secrecy

Opaque algorithms don’t just make us cranky online — they have real consequences.

• During elections, they can distort what issues we see or which candidates get visibility.

• In public health, misinformation algorithms have worsened vaccine skepticism.

• Even in streaming, algorithms narrow our cultural experiences — feeding us more of what we already like instead of exposing us to something new.

It’s personalization at the cost of perspective.

When everything is optimized for engagement, the system naturally gravitates toward emotional extremes. Outrage and envy outperform calm and curiosity every time.

The “Truth” Approach

Remember the Truth anti-smoking campaign from the early 2000s? They didn’t lecture people to quit. They exposed how cigarette companies manipulated addiction — and let people decide for themselves.

That’s the model we need for algorithms. Not bans. Not moral panic. Just sunlight.

People don’t need protection from technology — they need protection from being unknowingly manipulated by it. Once you understand what a system is designed to do, you can make better choices about how to use it (or when to put it down).

So, What’s Yours Optimized For?

We don’t need to “fix” algorithms by making them less human. We need to fix the relationship between algorithms and us.

If social media feeds were food, most of us are living on a steady diet of emotional junk. And just like junk food, a little transparency might be enough to change our habits.

So here’s a modest proposal:

Every major algorithm should disclose what it’s optimized for — in plain language, visible to every user, before every scroll.

No dark patterns. No PR-approved doublespeak. Just the truth.

Because if outrage and envy are the main ingredients in your digital diet, maybe it’s time to read the label before you scroll.

Voting without jerseys

This image was created using generative Ai.

America loves a team. Red vs. Blue. Coke vs. Pepsi. Apple vs. Android. Somewhere along the way, we let politics join the same game — and forgot that governing isn’t supposed to be a sport.

The truth is, party loyalty has become the political equivalent of brand loyalty. We buy the same label every election because we recognize the logo, not because we checked the ingredients.

But what if we didn’t?

What if we voted like adults — comparing facts instead of jerseys, policies instead of promises? That’s what this thought experiment is about.

The Problem with Teams

Parties make politics easy to digest. They tell you who to cheer for, who to hate, and which headlines to repost. The problem is that shortcuts in thinking become shortcuts in democracy.

When you outsource your opinions to a party, you stop asking hard questions. You stop noticing when both sides quietly agree to things like unlimited corporate donations or untraceable data collection. You stop realizing that most voters — left, right, and center — actually agree on a surprising number of issues.

Parties thrive on outrage because outrage keeps you subscribed.

The Case for Going Unaffiliated

Voting without a party doesn’t mean you’re neutral. It means you’re free.

Free to support a policy that makes sense even if it comes from “the other side.”
Free to reject candidates who weaponize division instead of solving problems.
Free to change your mind when the facts change.

Nearly 40% of Americans now identify as independents — the largest voting bloc in the country. Yet the political system still treats independents like weird uncles at Thanksgiving: tolerated, but never really invited to the table.

That needs to change.

Data Over Drama

Here’s the data we rarely hear:

• A Pew study shows most voters hold a mix of conservative and liberal views.

• Local elections — often nonpartisan — have the highest correlation with citizen satisfaction.

• States with open primaries report higher voter turnout and less negative campaigning.

In other words: the more freedom voters have from the party machine, the better the results.

The Goal

The goal isn’t about abolishing Democrats or Republicans. It’s about shrinking their monopoly on our attention.

A Modest Proposal

Next election, try this: before marking your ballot, cover up the party names. Ask yourself which candidate you’d choose if you didn’t know their color.

That simple exercise might be the most radical act of patriotism left.

Welcome to The Unparty. Let’s see what happens when we stop playing teams and start voting for ideas.

Replacing Elections with Drafted Representation

Image created with generative Ai.

Imagine this: no more political texts begging you for $25, no more yard signs littering your neighborhood, no more campaign ads that somehow make you hate both candidates equally. Instead, one day you open your mailbox and — surprise — you’ve been drafted to Congress.

Yes, drafted. Like jury duty, but with better snacks.

Why We’d Do It

Elections sound noble, but let’s be honest: they’re expensive popularity contests. Money buys megaphones, lobbyists buy access, and regular people get stuck with a government made up of career politicians who’ve mastered fundraising but long forgotten what it’s like to live on a normal paycheck.

In fact:

• Congressional approval hovers around 20%, while incumbents still win reelection more than 90% of the time.

• The average member of Congress makes $174,000 a year. The median American household income is about $83,700. That’s a pretty big gap.

• Roughly 85% of Americans say politicians don’t care about people like them.

• Only 22% of Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing most of the time.

So if government feels out of touch, it’s because it is.

The Draft System

Here’s the pitch: every year, Americans are randomly selected to serve in Congress for a limited term, like jury duty.

What you get if you’re drafted:

• Competitive salary while serving (yes, you get the $250k).

• Job protection when you return home.

• Perks with staying power: tuition assistance, loan forgiveness, maybe even alumni benefits.

• Support services: relocation, child care, elder care. No one should have to choose between serving and caring for family.

One term and you’re out. No campaigns, no dynasties, no lifers. Just a rotating cast of teachers, truck drivers, coders, nurses, ranchers, and retirees, all thrown together to hash out the laws of the land.

The Problems This Solves

• Insider Trading: No more lifers quietly padding their portfolios. Short terms mean little time to game the system.

• Lobbyists: Try cozying up to someone who’s back at their day job next year. Good luck.

• Campaign Cash: If nobody runs for office, there’s nothing to fundraise for.

• Representation Gap: Congress finally looks like America, not just America’s donor class.

Why This Isn’t Crazy

Ancient Athens used sortition (random selection) to fill many public offices. Modern “citizens’ assemblies” in places like Ireland and Canada have proven that everyday people can debate complex issues and shape real policy.

And remember: most elected officials already lean heavily on staffers. You think Senator Smith personally wrote that 800-page bill? Please.

The Benefits

• Real Representation: A Congress that mirrors the demographics and financial realities of the nation.

• Fresh Ideas: Everyday logic from everyday people.

• Lobbyist Headaches: Influence networks crumble when the faces change every year.

• National Pride: Serving becomes a civic badge of honor — not a punchline.

The Flaws (Yes, There Are Flaws)

• Not everyone will want to serve. Some people will dread it, just like jury duty.

• Not everyone will be good at it. But let’s be honest: that’s already the case.

• Continuity could suffer. But career civil servants and staffers keep the machine running.

• Training is needed. You wouldn’t throw a random group into open-heart surgery; there would need to be crash courses in lawmaking, governance, and ethics.

It’s not perfect. But it’s a big step closer to true representation than the system we’ve got.

A Different Kind of Government

Picture it: a single mom from Iowa sits next to a rancher from Texas, debating healthcare with a coder from Seattle and a nurse from Alabama. That’s not chaos — that’s democracy.

Maybe the problem isn’t that Americans don’t care. Maybe it’s that we’ve handed government over to professionals and told ourselves we’re too ordinary to matter. What if the opposite is true?

Maybe democracy doesn’t need more politicians. Maybe it just needs us.