Over the last few days, we have put out videos with the word "care" in the thumbnail, title, or description. None has worked well, especially when we thought there was nothing much wrong with any of them. In each case, we expected them to get much more traffic than they did.
When analysing this situation, that word "care" jumped out as the common feature we were looking at, and this is important for us, as I spend a lot of time talking about the politics of care. The obvious question we asked is whether this is the wrong term for the thinking I am developing.
I decided to ask ChatGPT, and got this answer:
"Is there a YouTube trend around words like “care”?
Yes. And it is not primarily ideological censorship. It is semantic saturation plus behavioural signalling.
Words like care, kindness, well-being, compassion, community, empathy, and hope have acquired three properties that algorithmic systems dislike:
First, they are overused by low-engagement content.
A great deal of corporate DEI material, NGO messaging, HR videos, lifestyle coaching, and generic “uplifting” content uses these terms. Most of that content performs poorly in watch time and retention. The algorithm learns this association.
Second, they signal low urgency.
“Care” sounds worthy, reflective, and slow. YouTube's system prioritises anticipated watch duration and emotional arousal. Words that imply calm, repair, or thoughtfulness correlate statistically with early drop-off.
Third, they are politically ambiguous.
Unlike “tax”, “crisis”, “failure”, or “collapse”, “care” does not clearly indicate conflict. The algorithm favours content that implies tension, stakes, or opposition, because that predicts comments, rewatches, and sharing.
So the issue is not that YouTube dislikes care in a moral sense. It is that the platform has learned that videos labelled with those words usually do not keep people watching.
That is a structural, not personal, judgement."
What does this mean? Three things, I think.
First, as our further research has shown, there is nothing wrong with the term "politics of care," but we need another term to flag the thinking. The politics of care can be the theoretical spine of what I am talking about, but another name is required for marketing purposes, or the idea will not travel.
Second, we are working on the marketing name and already have some strong ideas. This is the advantage I now have of working with a team, none of whom is the slightest bit worried about challenging me on anything.
Third, when we do start refining the message, you will know why.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Weaponise the algorithm: hate inequality, hate unfairness, hate corruption.
“Neoliberalism is how the ruling class conspires to keep you poor”
Conspiracy fact 🙂
All noted.
Your comment got into our discussions this morning. Thank you.
Call it Politics of neglect. Neglect describes what the world is like right now. People feel neglected. Weaponise the algorithm by using the opposite word. It gets the message across.
Noted.
“Combatting illth” ?
But no one will understand it – however appropriate it is.
And I must finish my article on John Ruskin.
‘………..And I must finish my article on John Ruskin…’
How wonderful!
Bugger the algorithm.
Are you saying things that are worth saying, even if the algorithm predicts they are “low engagement”, or worthy, reflective, slow, calm, and thoughtful? Better that than being thoughtless, impulsive, ignorant and angry.
Or are you trying to attract eyeballs by pandering to their model that wants to provoke tension and conflict? Good luck persuading people to listen to anything advocating “care” once you’ve done that.
a) I need to pay people.
b) I want people to get the message.
c) I do not think understanding the algorithm is wrong – because politics will use the same kinds of language, so we need to get this right.
d) And yes, I do think we can talk about care as a solution to failure; very much so, in fract.
That is a shame. I really like the concept of a Politics of Care. It’ll be tricky to convey the same message through the language of conflict. Best of luck finding something that fits.
We’re working on it…
And the term is not being dropped. But there have to be other ways to frame it.
“No man is an island” vs “yer must learn to stand on yer own two feet”
“work together” vs “every man for himself”
etc.
Humans emerged from Africa as tribes – small collections of people – working together & by definition caring for each other (survive collectively, or die individually).
(Hypothesis) Collective care is relatviely easy to sustain with smallish numbers – it becomes more difficult in … towns/cities – & (broken record starts).. we know this given the struggles concerning what makes a good politco (needed in large socieites) and how to keep them honest. I’m not sure that this helps developing your message –
All comments here so far are helping. Getting this right is pretty important to us.
Equality. Is this a word which grabs people’s attention?
I doubt it.
It’s not a verb.
It’s an aspiration.
And “with whom?” is the inevitable question that has to be answered to contextualise it, so it does not work.
I’m watching other youtube creators having similar problems. Some of them adapted to the algorithm by give negative titles to the videos.
We are looking at that, and how to do it constructively.
Proof again that if the ‘Deux ex Machina’ is some human software developer, you can be sure it will have the biases of its creator. So much for AI and algorithms. In fact, the ‘artificial’ bit becomes more pronounced and worryingly so because of human bias.
The same trend is seen on Substack. This is human preference reaffirmed by algorithm.
You can bet your life that if you were making videos about a great new way to make loads of money, you wouldn’t be having this problem!
Or Bitcoin…
You’ve got to hand it to Chatgpt – a very cogent analysis. – ‘ “Care” sounds worthy, reflective, and slow.’
I’ve always preferred something which sounds more challenging, but not really sure what. A phrase that would encapsulate something like ‘anything we can actually do we can afford’, or encapsulating the real economy and real society – people, inequality, food , housing, shelter, as opposed to the financial overlay which is the neoliberal perspective.
We’re working on it.
I admire your persistence in seeking the language.
Sad that it seems good language like hope and care and kindness and community has been weakened by overuse in mission statements and various ethics-washing……
I recently read The Invisible Doctrine and really liked the phrase ‘Private Sufficiency and Public Luxury’.
But I’m not sure that in an era of Austerity for the many the private sufficiency angle is the most appropriate…. sounds perhaps too much like belt tightening for the poor and luxury for the politicians.
I think I see what you mean about the verbs….
‘Make America Great Again’
‘Dig For Victory’
‘Build For Britain’
I hope you succeed in working out some really positive catchy language…..
‘Reform’ seem to have captured a good word in service of terrible aims.
Infuriating on so many levels…
I hope we can reclaim the words we need.
I think we will have something to say quite soon…
At least to sound out opinion
Success (whatever that might mean) is not measured in “Clicks” or “likes”…. but in change in the real world.
Now, this does require ideas to broadly disseminated and clicks might be a way to measure this… but altering content just to get clicks is a slippery slope.
We won’t alter ideas. But how we frame them does matter.
“A Politics for all” ? …..Maybe too neutral?
Would “Fighting for a Politics of Care” change the algorithm? Just wondering which word would carry most weight.
Seems very sad that one should have to avoid the very concepts that sustain human life.
Thanks
We have, we think, cracked this already, but there is some testing to do.
I’m not 100% sure if it corresponds to the meaning of your ‘politics of care,’ but there is also humanism.
Maybe this fits better as a label for YouTube.
Thanks
But too (bizarrely) religeous to work, I think.
Sadly the opposite is true. Words like ‘hate’ are algorithm friendly and drive traffic on YouTube and social media. ‘Rage-bait’. Rightly YouTube has strict hate speech policies and using words like hate can be double edged. Short term traffic boast, but long term corrosive to ‘brand’ value.
That said ideas may be shaped and better understood when compared with their opposites. For me the politics of care represents an antidote to the worse of so much current politics…which might be labeled as the politics of hate.
Clearly the majority are done with current politics.
We have been discussing this in a meetung this morning….now lots of ideas to test
Terms such as the politics of neglect, organised neglect, systemic neglect, normalised neglect may work better for YouTube than politics of care, as far as algorithmic grabbing goes.
From a Lakoff framing point of view, care reads as a moral intention. It signals values and virtue, which tends to invite agreement rather than attention. Platforms and large audiences respond more strongly to problem frames, language that points to something going wrong.
Neglect immediately does that work. It names absence, failure, and things being missed. It raises questions about who or what is being neglected and why it keeps happening. Care can then sit underneath as the moral logic, rather than being the headline.
We have tried neglect but think we can do better. But that will take a little research.
I wonder if the algorithm would have the same response if you turned “care” into an acronym? E.g., off the top of my head, C.A.R.E. = Compassion, Altruism, Recognition and Empathy.
Thinking of your video today, it seems like The Algorithm might be the cyber equivalent of GDP – boosting everything except that which makes life worthwhile. I wish you well in your struggles with both!
It would produce the same result: people don’t respond to the word.
How about a Politics of Need vs a Politics of Greed?
I asked chatGPT about what words or titles can enhance SEO while describing a poilitics and economics of fairness and altruism.
The following single-words are suggested to improve Titles and Thumbnails:
Solidarity ⭐ (very strong in political/economic contexts)
Fairness (clear, neutral, algorithm-safe)
Equity (good for economics, policy-focused audiences)
Justice (powerful but slightly more charged)
Mutualism (great for economics/history niches)
Cooperation (widely positive, low emotional risk)
Social Responsibility (institutional, advertiser-safe)
Collective Well-Being (less emotional than “care”)
Solidarity is suggested as the strongest replacement followed by Equity.
It provided some alternative titles:
“The Politics of Solidarity”
“Why Solidarity Is Missing From Modern Politics”
“An Economy Built on Fairness (Not Just Growth)”
“What a Fair Economy Would Actually Look Like”
“The Case for a More Human Economic System” (great CTR)
Instead of “Economics of Care”
“The Economics of Solidarity”
“A Fairness-First Economic Model”
“Why Cooperation Beats Competition in Economics”
“An Economy Designed for People, Not Profits”
“What Altruism Looks Like in Economic Policy”
It provided algorithm-savy framing tricks:
You can encode “care” implicitly without naming it:
Use verbs instead of values:
protects
supports
reduces harm
prevents inequality
Focus on outcomes, not ethics:
lower inequality
shared prosperity
economic stability
social trust
Example:
❌ “Why We Need a Politics of Care”
✅ “Why Politics Fails Without Solidarity”
It concludes:
If the goal is fairness + altruism + broad appeal:
“Solidarity”
It:
avoids health/mental-health flags
signals collective responsibility
works across politics, economics, history, and sociology
performs well in thumbnails and titles
Thanks.
Noted. I am working on this right now.
ChatGPT reviewed the title, description and thumbnail or your video – “ What do we want? Care or fascism? That’s the economic choice we now face”:
Strong intellectually, but it’s doing YouTube zero favours (SEO + CTR). Content is compelling; packaging is holding it back.
Why:
The word “Care”
Flags health / emotional classification
Lowers advertiser friendliness
Reduces recommendation spread outside core audience
Binary framing
Intellectually sharp
Algorithmically risky
YouTube suppresses content that looks normative + political + moral
Long abstract phrasing
Good for essays, not scroll-stopping.
High-performing title rewrites
Best (CTR + SEO + integrity)
“Fascism or Solidarity? The Economic Choice Defining Our Future”
Why:
“Solidarity” (better reach)
“Defining Our Future” = urgency + curiosity
Keeps the moral stakes without sounding therapeutic
Confrontational:
“Why Neoliberal Economics Keeps Sliding Toward Fascism”
“How Neoliberalism Turns Into Fascism”
Academic (algorithm-safe)
“Two Economic Models: Fear-Based Power vs Human-Centred Economics”
“An Economy Built on Fear — And the Alternative”
Outcome-focused (YouTube-friendly)
“An Economy of Fear or an Economy of Solidarity?”
“Fear-Based Economics Is Winning — Here’s the Alternative”
SEO-optimized description – keeps the argument but reads algorithmically clean:
We are facing a stark economic and political choice — one that will shape democracy itself.
On one side is fear-based economics: a system rooted in extreme neoliberalism, where markets are treated as moral authorities, punishment replaces protection, austerity becomes permanent, and state power is used to enforce inequality while insulating wealth.
This is not history. It is happening now — and it has a recognisable economic logic.
The alternative is solidarity-based economics: a framework that puts human needs first, treats security as a public responsibility, and insists that markets must serve society rather than dominate it.
This is not sentimentality. It is economic realism, social resilience, and democracy’s strongest defence.
The structures we build today will determine whether our society is organised around fear and exclusion — or around fairness, shared security, and democratic accountability.
There is no neutral ground.
Improvements:
Replaces “care” with solidarity / human needs
Front-loads searchable terms
Keeps moral clarity without triggering soft moderation
Tags & hashtag cleanup (important)
Replace
#PoliticsOfCare
#CareEconomy
#HumanNeeds (keep once, not primary)
Try:
#PoliticalEconomy
#EconomicJustice
#Neoliberalism
#Authoritarianism
#DemocraticEconomy
#Solidarity
#EconomicPolicy
#Inequality
#PublicInvestment
Early tags and description words most important
Thumbnail tweak (CTR lever)
Current:
What’s the choice? Care or fascism?
Alternatives:
“Fear or Solidarity?”
“An Economy of Fear?”
“This Is the Economic Choice”
“Two Futures. One Choice.”
Big text. Fewer words. Let the title do the explaining.
Noted, but any revision would not be in that direction.
“Computer says NO” really does blight our lives.
Good luck beating the Alphabet algorithm and well done for spotting the problem.
Clearly you need to do more cat videos…
Am currently sat in an outsourced health/diagnostic clinic the far side of Bristol while my wife receives austerity health care.
This wouldn’t work for YouTube, but the USA used to have a Latin motto “e pluribus unum” (since ditched for “In God we Trust”), and I’d like to be living in a country which believed in “omnibus curantes” i.e. caring for all.
That would definitely not work on YouTube.
The most up to date phrase I can think of is: giving a shit about something. It is immediate, but might detract from the seriousness of the message.
e.g. Why people/you/they don’t give a shit about caring?
Or: They don’t give a shit about you. Why?
They(other people) or the establishment would be my preferred pronoun.
That would get us banned fairly quickly.
Care does have the ring of ‘would you like a cup of tea’ and modifying it with politics of doesn’t leap out as your intended meaning.
My take is you can’t really modify ‘politics’, which has an essential standalone meaning of tension/competition between interest groups. As everything is political, maybe dump the word politics anyway.
I guess you’ve arrived at the same conclusion.
Maybe a strong brand name – a made up word perhaps – always qualified with ‘For a fairer and sustainable economy’ – would work.
I think we got there in intense doscussion today.
We may be seeking opinion on our suggestion tomorrow.
Father Mike Schmitz and the Ascension team produced a podcast called “Bible in a Year with Father Mike Schmitz,” and it was a smash hit. It was the #1 podcast for i don’t know how long. That was 5 years ago and it’s still going strong.
Perhaps you could talk to them and find out what they did.
I am not sure there is much overlap.
I’m possibly coming to this too late in your thinking today …..
Chat GPT’s assessment is interesting — so you want ‘doing words’ that are ‘positive’ and with a ‘call to action’…..
Well, It could be framed in terms of what it is that you are trying to achieve (not the motivations).
So it would be expected to achieve a Happier, healthier, more robust and coherent society? Less susceptible to whims. I’m assuming it would be less corrupt and more transparent. Good/Bette Governance can turn countries around quickly (look at post war Europe, Botswana, etc)
Inclusive Contentment
Spiv-free governance
Good luck!
Thanks.
There will be more on this tomorrow, I hope.
It’s an unfortunate sign of the times. As an avid consumer of YT videos I was aware of this. YT content makers putting emotive urgent titles for their content and gurning with a mix of shocked and baffled faces because that’s what generates clicks from a sizeable section of the audience (it does the opposite for me and I avoid a lot of videos because of this.)
It also explains why Reform are so popular. I got a leaflet from them today and the title was ‘Britain is Lawless’. I scratched my head as although I live in an area which isn’t that well to do, I have experienced absolutely zero crime apart from a few attempted walk in burgularies (comitted by someone who Reform would consider fully ‘english’).
And I said to my wife do people actually believe this stuff referring to the rest of the leaflet which made claims about crime going of the charts (a violent crime is committed every 17 seconds and yet all statistics show that all violent crime has fallen to it’s lowest level since 1977) how they’d put 30,000 more police on the beat (so more poorly vetted candidates that will lead to more Wayne Cousins being hired) and repatriate 10,000 foreign criminals (I dread to think how they will achieve that, likely rid ourselves of those pesky ECHR laws).
And my wifes response was ‘Yes of course they do’. And she was right. Fear and sensationalism sells far better with many than the idea of ‘care’ for our fellow citizens who may be less fortunate then ourselves. I just hope that people wake up before the next general election.
So do I. Thanks.
I favour inclusion as opposed to exclusion, but maybe it would have just as little impact as care. Good luck with finding the right language.
Thanks
“crisis”, “failure”, or “collapse” all seem pretty usable starters to me
In titles yes.
To describe my thinking, no.
Understood
[…] mentioned yesterday the issues we have encountered on social media when using the phrase the politics of care to […]