Algorithm Fantasia — What Do Platforms Dream Of?
"How to write titles that get views on note"
"Posting frequency that YouTube algorithms love"
"How to increase impressions on X"
Articles and videos with titles like these are bound to exist on every platform. As I watched these familiar sights scroll across my screen, I suddenly wondered.
What exactly are we trying to hack?
Since I've started creating content myself, I care about the numbers. I can sort of understand why such information is so abundant. It's not just about creating; I want my work to reach someone. I think that's a sentiment shared by most people who create things.
There might be an aspect where looking at strategy guides and making adjustments improves the quality of content. However, the word "hack" or "strategy" (koryaku) leaves me feeling a bit uneasy.
I decided to think a little bit about the true nature of that unease.
Strategy Thread Part 2026
The word "koryaku" carries nuances like clearing a game or conquering a castle in war. There is an enemy, there are barriers, and you break through them.
So, is the platform's algorithm an "enemy"? It doesn't seem to be a simple matter that can be associated just by looking at the surface of the words.
I suspect that the platforms themselves do not design their algorithms to be "things to be hacked." (Though they might be somewhat conscious of it.)
The words that each platform uses officially contain different dreams (something more like "a nice-sounding declaration" rather than a target for conquest).
The "Dreams" Spoken Officially
Let's look at the words each platform uses to officially explain their algorithms and recommendation systems.
YouTube
YouTube explains the purpose of its recommendations like this.
Matching viewers with highly satisfying videos that they will want to watch next
It seems that watch time used to be emphasized, but now it has shifted to a mechanism that prioritizes "viewer satisfaction" more than that. It has changed in a direction that emphasizes "whether it was truly good," such as eliciting positive actions after viewing and having viewers return to the channel.
There is also this advice for creators in their official guidance.
Look at the "people," not the algorithm
TikTok
TikTok explains the mechanics of its For You feed as follows.
A system that learns from each user's behavior (likes, comments, watch time, shares) and ranks 'things that person might be interested in.'
The emphasis is on 'completion rate,' or whether the content was watched until the end.
While Instagram has different algorithms for its feed, Reels, and Stories, they all treat 'saves' and 'shares' as important signals. In other words, they use the actions a person takes when they think 'I'm glad I saw this' as a metric.
note
The mission of note is written as follows.
To enable everyone to start creating and keep creating.
One of the core philosophies note values is 'Creator First,' and it is explained that they aim for an environment where people can 'keep creating happily, deliver content to the people who need to see it, and turn that into a business to make a living.'
In its search quality guidelines, Google puts forward 'E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness)' and asks the following as a criterion for evaluating content.
Are you creating content for users, not for search engines?
Commonalities
When you look into the famous ones, every platform speaks in words about the dream of 'delivering good things to users' . They don't explicitly say, 'I am a target to be gamed.'
Then why does information in the world use the word 'gaming' (kouryaku)?
[Aside] The nuance of 'gaming' mentioned in information circulating in the world felt closer to 'getting the true end in a dating sim' than 'clearing an RPG.' It's not about defeating the Demon King, but about winning the Demon King over. While YouTube's phrase 'look at the person, not the algorithm' separates the algorithm from the person, if you are conscious of the 'person' on the other side even while intending to game the algorithm, there might not be much point in separating them.
The Hidden Face
If you look at what platforms want to suppress, you can see their 'ideals.'
What each platform dislikes is what is generally considered not good. Spam, clickbait titles, low-quality content, misinformation, copied content, excessive commercial use, controversy, and user churn.
If you think of the opposite of this, you can see what the platform defines as 'good things.' Content that is original, sincere, satisfies the user, and keeps them on the platform.
At this point of "staying," another side emerges.
Platforms are not built on ideals alone; they also have realistic goals to continue as a business.
Want to increase time spent (directly linked to ad revenue)
Want to increase the number of creators (the platform grows)
Want to prevent churn (building engagement)
Want to show growth to investors (securing stable operating funds)
The ideal of "wanting to deliver good content" and the business goal of "wanting to maximize time spent" often align. However, they do not perfectly overlap.
Because making someone watch for a long time and making them satisfied are not the same thing.
Back when YouTube prioritized "watch time" above all else, long-form videos that simply dragged out the content were mass-produced. When Google Search prioritized click-through rates, it was flooded with clickbait titles lacking substance. Every time a platform changes its metrics, the way to "game" it changes as well.
[Aside]
It was genuinely troublesome when "How was it?" articles proliferated on Google Search, but it was also quite interesting, as it looked like the way organisms adapt and evolve in an environment.
It might be fun to name each era, like the "Era of Proliferating 'How Was It' Articles" or the "Golden Age of Clickbait Thumbnails," and create a table.
→ I made one (there is a link at the very bottom)
The Curse of Goodhart's Law
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
In 1975, British economist Charles Goodhart published this idea in a paper. The moment a number becomes a goal, that number loses its value as a guideline. It's something like, means and ends are easily reversed, and when that happens, it causes various problems.
Algorithms use proxy metrics like click-through rate, watch time, number of likes, and number of saves to measure the "invisible" thing that is user satisfaction. Since it is not realistic to measure subjective feelings individually, this is a natural method.
However, the moment those metrics become "goals to be gamed," they begin to lose their original purpose.
Dragging out content to gain watch time
Making titles extreme just to increase click-through rates
Following templates that are easy to empathize with to increase likes
These actions might increase the numbers, but they are drifting away from the essence.
The platform senses this and adjusts its metrics. Once adjusted, the hacking begins again. In this way, the cat-and-mouse game between the algorithm and the hackers continues.
Tweaking your reflection in the mirror doesn't change your real face. Lowering the number on a thermometer doesn't cure a fever. Is it something like that?
The creator's ideals and unspoken desires
There are several patterns in the language used by the user side as well.
“I have something I want to convey.”
“I want to share useful information.”
“I want to make a living doing what I love.”
Creators who focus on expression and creation itself express their motivations with words like these. In this case, desires along the lines of “I want to earn money, be recognized, or go viral” are merely drifting between the lines. One can feel a sense of Japanese reserve.
In contrast, there are also more direct patterns.
“How to earn 50,000 yen a month on note.”
“How to post content to earn income from a side job.”
“Increase followers and monetize.”
These kinds of words put talk of money and influence right at the forefront from the start. They are quite different from the “creation-focused” type mentioned earlier. However, even “money-making” information rarely just says “I want money”; it is often wrapped in a narrative shell like “making a living doing what you love,” “a free way of working that isn't tied to a location,” or “realizing a lifestyle that is true to yourself.”
Both are similar in that they do not speak of money as the final destination. Whether this is a case of using “honne and tatemae” (true feelings and public facade) is not that simple, I think. The public words are not lies, and at the same time, they are thinking of other things too. That is how humans are, and that is how the economy is, I suppose.
I was reminded of Ninomiya Sontoku’s words: “Morality without economy is nonsense, and economy without morality is a crime.”
There is also information that speaks straight about money, like “Make a serious 1 million yen/month with this!”, but since that is already half-stepping into fraud, let’s pretend we didn't see it here…
What is the difference between “hacking” and “understanding”?
Is it a “bad thing” to be conscious of the algorithm? Is looking at numbers a “degradation” of creativity?
If you know that YouTube values “viewer satisfaction,” you start to care about how people who watched the video to the end felt. If you know that Google values “E-E-A-T,” you try to carefully put your experience into words. If you know that note values “delivering to the people who need to receive it,” you start to think about who you are writing for.
In these cases, is it “hacking,” or is it “understanding”?
At the very least, knowing what the platform defines as “good” feels different from hacking. It’s an image closer to “understanding the other party” or “following the etiquette.”
The problem arises, perhaps, when you make the metrics themselves the goal—as in Goodhart’s Law—when you start moving not for “someone else’s sake” but for “the sake of the numbers.”
I vaguely thought that the difference between “hacking” and “understanding” might be whether the goal lies in “manipulating metrics” or in “realizing one’s own essence.”
A new garden called the creator economy
There is a term called the "creator economy." It refers to an economic sphere where individuals share their skills and content to earn revenue through platforms. It has enabled individuals to make a living in ways that did not exist ten years ago.
This economic sphere is built upon the "attention economy." It is based on the competition for people's "attention," which is a scarce resource.
Platforms provide the arena for this competition and earn advertising revenue by capturing users' "attention." Creators gain influence by participating in this competition and convert that influence into revenue.
It looks like everyone is facing the same direction, but it also seems like they are looking in slightly different directions.
The dream a platform sees might be a "world where the optimal content reaches the optimal person." The dream a creator sees might be "having what they created reach someone." In between those, advertisements, revenue, the desire for approval, competition, and metrics intervene.
The platform's dream and the human's dream
Platforms dream of a world where the optimal things reach everyone. However, that dream cannot escape the logic of advertising, revenue, and growth.
Creators dream of having what they created reach someone. However, in order to reach them, the means to optimize their expression flickers before them.
The gap between those things and the feeling of not knowing "who I am creating for and what I am creating for." I think that is probably where I am getting stuck.
The platform's dream and the creator's dream seem to overlap but do not. It might be that this happens not because of anyone's malice or anyone's lies, but because multiple dreams are moving in the same place.
Well, it's a matter of doing as you please.
If you want to beat the system, you can, and if you don't want to, you don't have to. There is no hierarchy in that.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic, but I felt like playing a gal game for the first time in a while, so I think I'll play "Amagami" or something.
Supplementary Note
Concepts Referenced
Goodhart's Law / Attention Economy / Creator Economy / Platform Capitalism
Related Articles
⇩ This is a document summarizing the history of platforms mentioned in the main text.
Tags
#CreatorEconomy #Algorithm #Platform #ContentCreation #GoodhartsLaw #AttentionEconomy #CreativeStruggles #SNSManagement #Essay #CreativeTheory #Strategy #Internet