Who Decides What’s Relevant?

There’s something strange about how we live online now. You scroll, swipe, watch, react—and yet most of the time, you’re not really choosing what you see. That choice was made for you. Not by an editor. Not by a friend. But by a system. A cold, quiet, mathematical system built to predict what keeps your attention. And suddenly, relevance doesn’t look like it used to. It’s no longer about depth, or originality, or timing. It’s about engagement. Immediacy. Familiar patterns that trigger predictable reactions. Algorithms have become the new gatekeepers—not just of content, but of culture.

And the effects are everywhere. Brands once crafted stories over months; now they race to catch trends that will be gone tomorrow. Creators who once built with care now tailor their work to what the system favors. It’s easy to understand why. Everyone wants to be seen. But in trying to fit the mold, many forget who they were before they shaped themselves to please it. Campaigns feel louder, but not clearer. Posts travel further, but say less. Relevance becomes a game of survival, not expression.

But what does this really mean?

That’s the risk we rarely talk about—not that the algorithm exists, but that we surrender too easily to it. We forget that behind the metrics, there are still people. That behind the screen, there’s still a reason we started telling stories in the first place. It’s not about resisting change or rejecting tools. It’s about remembering who’s driving the message. The brand. The voice. The intention.

When we create only for the feed, we become forgettable. But when we create from within, from truth, we begin to resonate. Not because the algorithm approved—but because someone, somewhere, felt something. And maybe paused. And maybe remembered.

The algorithm doesn’t need to disappear. But it shouldn’t decide everything. It shouldn’t silence nuance or flatten bold ideas. And it definitely shouldn’t define what matters.

That’s still our job.