Mika learned the hard way that attention on the internet is a wild beast — fast, hungry, and happiest when it smells blood.
She ran a small PR shop in Osaka that helped local makers sell abroad. One autumn, a client begged her for a quick visibility spike: “Do something big. Even if it’s messy.” Mika remembered a lesson from grad school — bad things stick harder than good ones — and for a moment the math looked irresistible. Psychologists have shown that humans give negative events and information more weight and process them more deeply than positive ones. That tendency — “bad is stronger than good” — helps explain why an insult, a scandal, or a scandalous rumor lodges in the mind longer than a compliment.
She also knew the platform mechanics. Studies of Twitter data had shown false and sensational stories travel farther and faster than truthful ones; novelty and emotional arousal drive people to share. In other words: people — not bots alone — amplify shock, outrage, and surprise because sharing them raises their social signal.
So Mika sketched the plan her client wanted — a sharp, negative thread that would highlight a rival’s misstep. But she paused to check more recent research. The pattern held: negative language in news posts gets more reposts and engagement, and outlets that post negative stories often see higher distribution on social feeds. Algorithms reward engagement; engagement rewards salience. The platforms’ recommender systems thus tend to amplify content that provokes strong responses, including anger and contempt.
As she read, another fact cooled her excitement: amplification is not neutral. University studies in 2024 found recommendation systems can disproportionately surface extreme or harmful content — the sort of material that normalizes bad behavior or inflames real-world harms. Regulators and watchdogs were already circling; lawmakers had introduced proposals to hold platforms responsible for foreseeable harms caused by their algorithms. A viral hit that used outrage as its engine could trigger brand damage, legal exposure, and long-term trust loss far greater than any short-term spike.
Mika imagined two possible futures.
In the first, she produced the negative campaign exactly as requested. It hit hard: clicks soared and the rival’s name trended for a day. The client smiled at the dashboard — impressions, CTR, spikes. But within a week the backlash began: journalists found the thread’s exaggerations, influencers called out the tactic, and long-time partners privately withdrew inquiries. The viral moment proved brittle; the client’s reputation slipped in durable ways the dashboard didn’t show.
In the second future, Mika spent the same budget differently. She invested in documenting real stories — extended interviews with customers, transparent data about product quality, and a small paid boost to seed those stories into niche communities that valued depth over drama. She built relationships with a few trusted creators and let authentic, shareable assets accumulate. Growth was slower, but more stable: mentions rose steadily, return customers increased, and when something negative did surface it was cushioned by a larger base of positive context. The campaigns weren’t flashy, but they were resilient.
The science whispered the same moral both futures tested: negativity spreads quickly because it’s psychologically and mechanically favored, but virality is often shallow and can cause amplification of low-credibility content — which in turn invites scrutiny, correction, and regulation. In short, a negative campaign may buy short-term visibility, but it often costs the long-term trust that matters for sustainable influence.
Mika pitched the second path to her client with candor instead of bravado. She showed them the studies, the likely trade-offs, and a plan that used what we now know about attention: create emotionally resonant but truthful narratives, seed them into communities that value them, and design for endurance rather than a single explosive spike. They grumbled about patience — until sales and inquiries rose month after month.
On a chilly evening she closed her laptop and stepped outside. Neon washed the pavement in syrupy colors. She thought about the web as an ecology: quick predators, slow builders, and new rules being written at the edges. Winning the attention war was possible, she decided, but only by honoring that ecology — by choosing strategies that built a reputation able to survive the inevitable storms.
All names of people and organizations appearing in this story are pseudonyms
Comments