The Algorithm as an Ontological Device in Opposition to Subjectivity

In the paradigm of the “algorithm of reality,” code is not a neutral tool. It is a device that concerns the nature and knowledge of being as an object in itself. The new virtual world is governed by algorithms: today, they select what appears;

• establish priorities and relevance

• modulate collective attention

• shape the formation of consensus

• determine social models to be followed
  

What does not emerge within the informational flows of algorithms is, in effect, marginalized. Algorithms promote predetermined narrative content, and if content is introduced online that does not fit within this predetermined framework, it is effectively marginalized. Hence the difference between constructive and degrading algorithms.

A classic example is TikTok, created by the Chinese for the Western market, whose algorithm is centered on the promotion of degrading or, if one prefers, ephemeral content, consisting of pure uselessness and mass distraction.

Paradoxically, however, TikTok does not exist in China. The Chinese social platform equivalent to TikTok is Douyin, which, in accordance with the social narrative and social structure of China, is built around algorithms that generate constructive content, aligned with that country's productive model, state framework, and social organization.

All of this may lead someone to make a legitimate observation: on social media, I can publish whatever I want. Obviously, this is both true and subtle. Algorithms do not inhibit freedom of expression, but they marginalize—that is, they make less visible—anything that falls outside their narrative framework.

One only has to ask why videos or content that we might simply define as foolish receive millions of views, while a video containing thoughtful reflections and running counter to the prevailing narrative receives only a few thousand. Since today it is no longer enough merely to speak—one must also become visible—people are compelled, so to speak, not to leave the track.

All of this, especially among younger generations, causes us to lose sight of the difference between notoriety (virality) and credibility (structured authenticity).

This image helps us understand how the central circle represents the moment in which we are born and come into the world with a primordial individual consciousness still free from superstructures and external conditioning. We spend the first years of life affirming the Self.

However, as we come into contact with our first social reference group—the second circle (family, relatives, first friends, and so on)—we begin to assimilate rules and social models, developing our first shared social consciousness. Very quickly, as we grow, this consciousness is itself influenced by ever broader interactions (school, social relationships, sporting activities, relationships with the opposite sex, the development of sexuality, and so forth). As our relationships expand, we find ourselves immersed in the influence of the collective imagination.

That is, our opinions become mixed with those of everyone else and gradually begin to lose their own identity. Eventually, they become part of the final circle, that of the Noosphere, where everything is absorbed into the prevailing narrative that develops the virtual world and reintroduces it as a social model to be followed. However, within this line of reasoning, one must also consider a variant of "contamination" that evolves differently within each individual cognitive circle.