The tyranny of the eyeballs

The need to curate large audiences in the digital public square is fueling polarization and chaos across societies.

A few days ago, I got a call from an acquaintance who wasn’t thrilled with some views I’d publicly shared on a podcast. The well-meaning advice offered went something like this:

• Ninety percent of the Pakistani diaspora, especially in America, supports Imran Khan.

• People prefer to listen to and watch analysis they broadly agree with.

• This is particularly true for political discourse.

If I want to grow my audience, I should consider these points carefully. Critiquing Mr. Khan or the diaspora’s support of him, I was advised, is not an effective growth strategy.

This unsolicited advice stuck with me—not because I’m considering following it, but because it illustrates how the “tyranny of the eyeballs” has distorted reality and fueled the polarization we see today.

What this tyranny pushes content creators to do, especially if they’re driven by a desire to grow their reach, is to produce content that simply reinforces their audience’s beliefs—no matter how flawed or misguided those beliefs may be.

Platforms like X and YouTube run on algorithms that prioritize engagement, so a content creator’s goal becomes provoking reactions, especially those that make audiences feel validated in their views.

And if you can sprinkle on the “tarka” of controversy, you’re likely to go viral, drawing even more eyeballs and unlocking further monetary rewards.

These platforms are built to keep us glued to our screens by feeding us more of what we already want. In the political realm, that’s often partisan content.

Nuance and subtlety, however, don’t go viral.

As a result, creators who focus on incendiary content that aligns with their audience’s views tend to gain traction. The algorithms reward them, creating a feedback loop that reinforces existing beliefs across an entire ecosystem.

Creators make more money, while audiences feel validated, confident they’re getting “the truth” from someone they trust and admire.

Yet this feedback loop leaves audiences with increasingly distorted, uninformed views on critical issues like politics, public health, and economics. In diverse societies, this kind of echo chamber fuels polarization, which can, over time, lead to chaos and violence.

The result is a digital public square where conversation is hardly a conversation at all—just an echo chamber in disguise.

The unsolicited advice from my acquaintance was a reminder that it’s far easier and more profitable to stay inside an echo chamber, especially one as large and emotional as the Insafian universe.

But I was reminded that one must resist the urge to fall prey to the tyranny of the eyeballs.