In many cases, it is what we see that ends up building us. Today there are multiple bubbles where each group inhabits its own narrative. In Mexico, we are beginning to see the same thing. With tears still in my eyes, I remember her with affection and the greatest gratitude for her love and companionship. Or more precisely, the part that someone decided you would see. This is where the algorithm comes in. It remains in the hearts of all of us who loved her so much. Not because it is the entire reality, but because it is the part that was meant for you to see. Shaping opinions, calibrating emotions, expanding or closing the world based on what someone else optimized to retain you. Without you noticing. A hug to Angélica, Jorge, Isabela, and Jorge, my godson. And yes, it's also more addictive. This has political consequences. In the United States, the public debate ceased to be a single one long ago. Because whoever enters there, enters your head, and from there it operates (even if it hurts) without permission. And now the paradox that should most concern us. We believe we choose what we see. If what you see is progress, you perceive advancement. Because these generate interaction, and interaction is the business. Conversations that run in parallel but never cross, perceptions so distinct that they ignore reality. In that context, the question is no longer who is right. The question is who is managing to get on your screen. He called it the availability heuristic. If what you see every day is insecurity, you perceive an insecure country. Without you being able to protest. We have long been living on the ground where reputations are built, careers are destroyed, and, in many cases, elections are won or lost. Understanding the algorithm has gone from being a technical issue to a power issue. In filigree. A week ago, in peace and surrounded by her family, Carmelita Calzada Urquiza said goodbye to this earthly plane. There is a form of power that is not voted on, but it campaigns all the time. It decides what topic outrages you, what story moves you, which character you find relevant, and which one doesn't even exist for you. For years, we learned that the public conversation was built in squares, in the media, or in debates. Human beings do not think in probabilities, we think about what is available in our minds. Touche! That is why, when we open the phone, we are entering a version designed to retain us emotionally and immediately. And what hooks you the most may not be the most balanced. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt tells us that networks not only amplify emotions, they amplify the most profitable ones. Today, a large part of that conversation passes through a silent filter: the algorithm. This is where it gets interesting, because that filter is not neutral. The oft-quoted Daniel Kahneman explained it without talking about digital politics, but perfectly describing its effect. Without you voting for it. As an 'attention optimizer' that shows you what hooks you the most. Indignation, fear, anger.
