You’re Angry About AI? Social Media Already Owns Your Brain.

Americans are increasingly concerned that artificial intelligence will manipulate their opinions, influence their decisions, and eventually control how they think.

Naturally, they express these concerns on social media.

Usually immediately after spending three hours scrolling through an endless procession of political outrage, conspiracy theories, celebrity gossip, and videos of people doing things that would have gotten them removed from the gene pool a few generations ago.

Then they post something about the dangers of AI and how much they hate it.

The irony apparently requires more processing power than most of them possess.

Congratulations. You’ve Already Been Programmed.

There’s a growing fear that artificial intelligence will become so sophisticated that it can influence human behavior without people realizing they’re being manipulated.

I have some unfortunate news.

That particular horse left the barn years ago, opened accounts on Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, and YouTube, and is currently arguing with strangers about something it knows absolutely nothing about.

Social media companies have spent years perfecting algorithms that determine what content appears on your screen. These systems analyze your interests, your interactions, what you click, what you watch, and how you respond.

And they don’t simply show you what your friends or the accounts you follow have posted.

They decide what you’re likely to engage with.

There’s an important difference.

Your friends might post photographs of their grandchildren, a fishing trip, or their latest home improvement disaster.

But the algorithm has discovered that you’re much more likely to spend 20 minutes arguing with some complete idiot in Nebraska about a subject neither of you understands.

Guess which one gets your attention?

Congratulations. You’ve just participated in the world’s largest voluntary behavioral experiment.

And you brought your own phone.

Outrage Is a Feature, Not a Bug

If you’ve spent any time on social media, you’ve probably noticed that people seem increasingly angry.

Every issue becomes an existential crisis. Every disagreement becomes a moral failing. Every minor inconvenience becomes evidence that civilization is collapsing.

Someone posts a picture of a hamburger, and within 15 comments there’s an argument about politics, religion, climate change, or whether the cow gave informed consent.

This isn’t entirely accidental.

Engagement-based recommendation systems can favor content that provokes strong emotional reactions. Research has found that such algorithms can amplify divisive and hostile material compared with chronological feeds.

Think about that.

A system designed to keep people engaged may expose them to more material that makes them angry.

And what do angry people do?

They comment. They argue. They share. They return to see whether the moron they’ve been debating has responded.

Every time they do, another little engagement counter ticks upward.

The platform doesn’t necessarily care whether you’re having a wonderful time or considering throwing your phone through a window.

You’re still there.

And while you’re furiously composing a seven-paragraph response to a stranger whose profile picture is a cartoon frog, the advertising machinery continues operating.

It’s a brilliant business model.

Create an environment where people become emotionally invested in arguments that accomplish absolutely nothing, then sell advertising space alongside the resulting spectacle.

It’s like running a bar where the customers fight constantly, except instead of throwing them out, you sell tickets, encourage the fighting, and put things on your flat screens that will make them angry.

The World’s Most Profitable Free Product

Most major social media platforms are free to use.

That’s one of their greatest selling points.

You can connect with friends, share photographs, participate in communities, watch videos, and enjoy an endless buffet of information without paying a subscription fee.

How generous.

Of course, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, reported approximately $201 billion in revenue in 2025, with advertising accounting for roughly $196 billion.

And Meta is hardly alone. Advertising is a major source of revenue for YouTube, TikTok, and numerous other social media services.

Apparently, free is an extraordinarily profitable business.

And there’s nothing inherently wrong with advertising. Businesses need revenue. Servers cost money. Engineers expect paychecks.

But we should at least recognize the transaction taking place.

You’re not handing these companies money every time you open their apps.

You’re handing them something else.

Your attention.

Your time.

Your interests.

Your behavioral patterns.

And, occasionally, the last remaining fragments of your sanity.

The longer you remain engaged, the more opportunities advertising-supported platforms have to display advertisements.

So perhaps we shouldn’t be terribly surprised when their systems become remarkably effective at keeping us engaged.

Even when we’d be happier doing practically anything else.

The Thought Police Have a Customer Service Problem

Then there’s content moderation.

The major social media platforms have developed elaborate rules governing what people can post, what constitutes acceptable behavior, and what kinds of material deserve reduced distribution.

Some of those rules serve legitimate purposes.

But anyone who has operated a reasonably large social media page or account knows that enforcement can feel like dealing with a bureaucratic organization run by a malfunctioning vending machine.

You post something harmless.

The system announces that your content has issues.

You request an explanation.

The system provides a description so vague that it could apply equally well to a stolen photograph, a political manifesto, or a picture of your dog.

Meanwhile, open the comments under virtually any controversial post and you’ll encounter a level of hostility that would embarrass a bunch of drunks arguing in a bus station.

Apparently, maintaining a civil online environment is complicated.

Particularly when the environment’s economic incentives can reward people for refusing to shut up.

And there’s another fascinating feature of this arrangement.

You can spend years building an audience, only to discover that having followers doesn’t necessarily mean those followers will see what you publish.

The platform controls distribution.

You provide the content.

It decides who gets to see it.

What a delightful partnership.

But Artificial Intelligence Is the Dangerous Part?

Now let’s return to the supposed menace of conversational AI.

People worry that systems like ChatGPT will tell them what to think, distort information, and gradually undermine independent reasoning.

Those are legitimate risks worth examining.

But here’s an amusing distinction.

When you interact with a chatbot, you generally know you’re interacting with an AI system.

You ask a question. It provides an answer.

You can challenge the answer, demand supporting evidence, point out errors, or tell the machine that its response is complete nonsense.

Trust me. It can happen.

With social media recommendation systems, however, the manipulation (more precisely, the shaping of your information environment) is much less obvious.

Nobody announces:

“Good morning. Based on your previous behavior, we’ve determined that displaying six inflammatory political posts before breakfast will maximize your engagement.”

Instead, you open your favorite social media app and discover that the world has apparently gone insane overnight.

Again.

You scroll through carefully selected fragments of human behavior and gradually develop an impression of what everyone is thinking.

Except you’re not seeing everyone.

You’re seeing what a recommendation system has selected for you. And it is designed to keep you engaged, even if that makes you angry.

It’s rather like asking a newspaper editor to explain the state of the world, except the editor has been monitoring your behavior for years and knows exactly which headlines will make you spit coffee across the kitchen and write an angry email to the editor.

And the editor gets paid when you keep reading.

Psychological Operations Without the Uniform

Anyone familiar with military psychological operations understands a basic principle.

You don’t necessarily have to tell people what to think.

Sometimes it’s enough to influence what information they encounter, how frequently they encounter it, and the emotional context in which it’s presented.

Repetition matters.

Presentation matters.

Selection matters.

Control the information environment, and you can influence perceptions without issuing a single direct instruction.

Now consider the extraordinary information-delivery device most Americans voluntarily carry everywhere.

It knows what interests them.

It learns what provokes them.

It identifies what keeps them engaged.

And it continually adjusts what appears on their screens.

I’m not suggesting that social media companies are conducting military psychological operations. There is no need to invent a conspiracy to explain systems whose commercial incentives are already plainly visible.

I’m suggesting that the mechanisms capable of influencing human perception don’t magically become harmless simply because their primary purpose is selling advertising.

The machine doesn’t need a political ideology.

It needs an engagement metric.

And your anger is apparently quite valuable.

The Most Effective Manipulation Is the Kind You Don’t Notice

Perhaps the strangest aspect of this entire situation is the confidence with which people insist they cannot be manipulated.

They recognize propaganda when someone else believes it.

They recognize bias when someone else expresses it.

They recognize misinformation when it contradicts their existing opinions.

But their own social media feed?

That’s simply an accurate representation of reality.

What are the odds?

Out of billions of people, countless competing perspectives, and an almost unimaginable volume of daily information, the algorithm has somehow assembled a personalized collection of material that repeatedly confirms what you already suspected about the world.

How reassuring.

And when it doesn’t confirm your beliefs, it conveniently supplies someone sufficiently obnoxious to argue with.

Either way, you keep scrolling. And if you slow your scrolling or pause on something, the algorithm adds that to your file.

Of course, not everyone is equally susceptible, and no algorithm exercises absolute control over human judgment.

But absolute control isn’t necessary to influence behavior.

A slight nudge, repeated thousands of times, can eventually move something a considerable distance.

Especially when the person being nudged insists nobody is touching them.

The Machine You Should Be Watching

I’m not particularly interested in joining the crowd predicting that artificial intelligence will inevitably enslave humanity.

AI certainly presents real dangers. It can generate convincing falsehoods, enable fraud, and be used to influence people at an unprecedented scale.

Those concerns deserve serious attention.

But perhaps we should also examine the technologies we’ve already welcomed into our lives without much resistance.

We willingly allow automated systems to organize enormous portions of our daily information.

We spend hours consuming whatever those systems decide to place in front of us.

We argue with strangers selected for our attention.

We confuse popularity with credibility, repetition with truth, and emotional intensity with importance.

Then we express profound concern that artificial intelligence might someday begin influencing human thought.

Someday?

That’s adorable.

The next time you find yourself furiously arguing with a complete stranger on Facebook, X, Reddit, or any other social media platform about an issue you hadn’t even considered 10 minutes earlier, ask yourself a simple question.

Who decided you needed to see that argument in the first place?

And while you’re pondering that question, remember that somewhere, in a data center, a computer is evaluating your behavior and determining what you’re most likely to click next.

You can be certain of one thing.

It isn’t doing it because it cares about your intellectual development.

You’re worried that artificial intelligence might someday start thinking for you.

Maybe you should first ask who’s deciding what you’re thinking about.

_____________________________

Dave Chamberlin runs a consulting and training company and brings more than 40 years of civilian and military aviation experience to his work. He retired as a Chief Master Sergeant after 38 years as an aircraft crew chief in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard, and has also worked in technical, instructor, consultant, and leadership roles. He holds an FAA Airframe and Powerplant license and a master’s degree in aeronautical science, and his writing often focuses on military issues, especially those affecting aircraft maintenance personnel.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.