Bravo Johnson
@bravojohnson
It’s like you’re building a LinkedIn masked as social media optimizing for professional signaling and network effects that ultimately serve capital allocation. The social media layer provides the ideological cover—all the discourse about decentralization, censorship resistance, community ownership. But the underlying architecture is designed to optimize for the same outcomes as LinkedIn: sorting people into hierarchies based on their access to capital, their ability to perform the right signals, and their willingness to advance narratives that serve existing power structures. The “social” part becomes a way to gamify compliance. Instead of explicitly asking people to conform to institutional expectations, you create a system where the highest status rewards naturally flow to those who advance institution-friendly narratives while maintaining the appearance of grassroots authenticity.
2 replies
2 recasts
9 reactions
Bravo Johnson
@bravojohnson
So you get this weird dynamic where people are larping about revolutionary decentralization on platforms designed to identify and elevate the most institutionally compatible voices. The algorithm doesn’t need to explicitly censor anti-institutional content—The opportunities flow to whoever can code-switch between revolutionary rhetoric and institutional palatability. It’s not a conspiracy or a deliberate design choice—it’s just that when you build on existing structures and fund through existing capital networks, you get existing outcomes with. The selection pressure toward institutional compatibility is built into the foundation, not the algorithm.
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
