Making all political activity visible to algorithmic analysis changes behavior in subtle, degrading ways; some anonymity and hiddenness serves political health.
Algorithms require data; data requires measurement; measurement requires visibility. Yet Taoist wisdom suggests that constant observation changes what is observed in harmful ways. In political contexts, comprehensive visibility creates chilling effects: people self-censor, moderate their authentic expression, perform for audiences they believe are watching. This produces a hollow political sphere of curated compliance rather than genuine engagement. Some political goods—experimentation, vulnerability, risk-taking, authentic disagreement—flourish only in relative obscurity. Algorithmic systems should recognize that not all political activity benefits from transparency and optimization. Strategic hiddenness—spaces where people can think, fail, and develop positions without algorithmic surveillance—strengthens rather than weakens political systems. This means creating technical and institutional protections for political privacy, allowing some activities to occur beyond algorithmic visibility and optimization. The paradox is that restricting what algorithms can see and measure often produces healthier political outcomes than attempting comprehensive observation and responsiveness.
Peri can explain this concept, give practical examples, help you decide whether it applies to your situation, or recommend a journey if appropriate.
Explore related journeys or tell Peri what you're working through.