How not to die an algorithmic death
And actually maintain your sanity as a creator on any platform.
There’s a rumor going viral on TikTok right now.
The more you post, the more the algorithm will reward you.
Seems simple enough, right? The algorithms need content, because more content means more engagement, longer sessions, more ads served, more money made.
Except that if you create content in any capacity, the thought of posting even more is laughable. Because you’re already on a freaking hamster wheel.
And what’s worse - you can’t afford to stop.
So what’s actually going on? Is every person who creates content just stuck in a revolving door forever?
How social media algorithms work in 2025
Capitalism has incentivized social platforms to prioritize attention above all.
While users try to stave off gambling-like addictions, creators, the true machines behind the algorithms, have grown more frustrated than ever.
And that’s because traditional social media platforms have “black box” algorithms, meaning there’s no REAL way to know how they work.
At a high level this is necessary - nobody wants to watch content gamed for the algorithms.
But this perpetuates a never-ending cycle of stress and addiction for users and creators.
AND it facilitates a system where creators are always posting so as to not die an algorithmic death.
Does this mean we hit a dead end? No.
I decided to conduct research far and wide and get to the bottom of what the algorithms are doing right now.
Here’s what I found:
Research shows that over 50% of an Instagram user’s feed at any given point is populated with content from accounts that they don’t follow.
Yes, more than half of what users see comes from strangers. Meaning - follower counts are increasingly irrelevant. Creators are competing in a recommendation lottery where every post fights against infinite content from accounts the algorithm thinks your followers might like.
Head of Instagram Mosseri has also confirmed that “sends per reach” i.e. how often your posts get DMed/shared relative to impressions carries heavy algorithmic weight.
That’s right. Not likes, not saves - whether strangers share it, at the end of the day, determines whether a creator’s content is “feed worthy”. So followers can’t determine the success of posts alone. Aside from Stories, followers just don’t matter that much, according to data.
Beyond Instagram, platforms are tweaking their algorithms weekly. In the last three weeks LinkedIn users have noted their reach absolutely tank. And between late 2021 and 2023, 95% of creators saw their reach on the platform drop 50%. This happens often with algorithm changes, there’s no heads up. Call it the TikTok FYP effect.
Speaking of TikTok - Buffer recently conducted a mega study analyzing 11.4 million TikTok uploads from 150,000 accounts - and discovered that posting 2-5 times per week generates on average 17% boost in views per post - the most efficient gain per post out of any posting frequency.
In fact, posting 11+ times weekly only nets creators a 34% total increase in reach. So technically, by posting more, you’re working harder for diminishing returns.
Lastly, Meta’s Q4 2024 Transparency Report revealed that 97.9% of Facebook views targeted posts without external links - up from 86.5% in Q3 2021. They’re systematically suppressing anything that takes users off-platform, another trend that is noted across platforms like Instagram and TikTok.
While each platform is different, the patterns are mostly the same: more creator content equals more feed options, more ad insertion opportunities, and better targeting data for personalization.
So even without explicit confirmation from the platforms themselves, we can gather that social media algorithms likely prioritize the following in 2025:
Suggested content, as it garners more engagement and attention than just a feed of people you follow (despite what users say they want)
Highly shareable content (which turns into suggested content)
Posts without external links
Creators posting at least somewhat frequently
The platforms train creators to optimize for metrics that don’t serve them while reducing their organic reach to keep them on that hamster wheel.
Who are the biggest losers of social media algorithms?
But what about users? Don’t they suffer the worst effects of social media?
Not entirely.
The creator economy is booming. Research projects that by 2034, creators will grow from $149.4 billion to $1,072.8 billion, a +21.8% CAGR.
Yet somehow, 71% of creators earn less than $30,000 a year.
The demand for creators will continue to expand because the supply of content will increase as more enter the game.
But thanks to the ongoing abundance of content, platforms can increase their “algorithmic demands” without losing content volume.
This means that individual creator reach will continue to decline due to competition. The platforms vastly benefit from this virtuous cycle: organic reach decreases for creators, but there’s more content for ad placements - then the platforms profit, while handing over pennies to creators.
And when I say pennies, I mean literal pennies.
Right now, what we’re witnessing on social media is an extraction economy where platforms and agencies capture value growth while creator compensation stagnates.
The creator economy will hit $1 trillion by 2034. And guess who captures that growth?
Not the 71% of creators earning poverty wages.
Not the 34% making under $5,000 despite working full-time hours.
The platforms bank billions while paying creators poverty wages for the content that makes those billions possible.
These platforms have a monopoly. These platforms are for profit. And right now, there are no mandates that creators be compensated fairly, even though creators are the fuel that keeps these platforms afloat.
In my opinion, social media platforms have become the virtual creator sweatshops of the internet.
Social media isn’t sustainable (for anyone)
The research tells a very clear story outside of the creator disadvantages.
Algorithmic optimization creates documented psychological harm.
One 2025 report from Billion Dollar Boy shows that 52% of creators have experienced burnout, with 37% actively considering leaving content creation altogether.
The primary causes? Creative fatigue (40%….go figure), demanding workloads (31%) and constant screen time (27%).
But financial instability is the top severity factor of those experiencing burnout at 55%.
Creator burnout happens regardless of income level, showing that algorithmic demands, not just money stress, drive creator stress.
Awin’s 2024 study found that 70% of creators identified constant algorithm changes as their top anxiety source, which is higher than any content creation challenge itself.
They’re not stressed about making content. They’re stressed about the invisible, constantly shifting rules that determine whether anyone sees it.
It’s also not just creators, either. BMC Psychiatry published the most rigorous quantitative evidence of social media’s cognitive impact - studying 5,314 people and documenting that platform engagement directly impairs everyday cognitive functioning. Social media users reported significantly higher cognitive failures than non-users.
Both creators and users are at the mercy of unregulated platforms that have structurally incentivized harmful patterns through reach reduction and constantly modified algorithms.
And these algorithms will never care that you’re burned out or need a break - just that you decide to stop paying attention with your eyes or stop feeding it with content.
How to rise above algorithmic dependence
Social media platforms, as noted above, are not dissimilar to slot machines.
And there’s always the hope that your next post as a creator could be “the big one” that makes it. But these feed boosts are fleeting, and often result in very little ROI.
So if you’re a creator genuinely trying to make it, how do you shift from algorithmic dependence to sustainable strategy?
Here’s what actually matters:
Take the rose-colored glasses off about follower counts and recognize that no data anywhere supports that more followers equals better engagement rate or more engagement. It’s a vanity metric that will trap you into thinking you need to post more to get less. I’ve watched accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers get modest likes per post while accounts with small followings actually move product - this is why you have to build a real audience, just not rented attention.
Accept that more content doesn’t equal better results. Spending time creating more content does NOT mean you’re going to have a hit piece on social media. Buffer’s research proves it - posting 2-5x weekly gets you 17% boost per post. Don’t work harder for a tiny bit more of a return.
Not to mention meta analysis from the Journal of Marketing examined 134 studies covering 5,370 brands and found content quality is the strongest predictor of both engagement and sales performance, significantly outweighing posting frequency.
Please note that I’m not talking about cool production value (although it’s nice)…at the heart of this is really storytelling and value.
If you’ve worked with me before, you know how much I harp on content value as the #1 focus. By honing in on the value you can deliver, you’re serving people who need what you know, which ultimately creates a funnel of customers - but in a meaningful, organic way.
Post 2-5 times per week if you can on short-form video/carousel platforms. Not because the algorithms demand it, but because that’s where efficiency peaks.
Strategically diversify your platforms. Instead of only focusing on Instagram, exist on 2-3 platforms that all stem from the same piece of content creation. I call this content cycling so you’re not reinventing the wheel each time.
Focus on gathering first-party data. You don’t own your followers anywhere right now (that will soon change with decentralized social). But you do own your email list.
Before you argue with me about the viability of email, think outside the box for a second. Multiple independent studies document email marketing ROI of $36-42 return per dollar spent.
Email subscribers represent direct access independent of algorithm changes, platform policy shifts, or competitive content flooding.
A creator with 100,000 Instagram followers but zero email subscribers has a rented audience subject to algorithmic volatility. A creator with 10,000 email subscribers has an owned asset that compounds over time.
And technically, Substack (while being under the social platform umbrella) does give you the email addresses of those who subscribe. First-party data collection is important, and the mediums are just evolving.
As a marketer, this is just another shift in a never-ending landscape of attention. Except now I see that the one thing that matters more than attention right now is trust.
And that’s something the platforms have failed to deliver on.
The strategic imperative
This crisis is systemic, not personal. Trust me…you’re not failing. Individual creators cannot solve structural extraction by working harder, even though every social media guru will tell you otherwise.
The platforms need you posting constantly because their business model REQUIRES it. Your business model requires the opposite.
You have a choice: optimize yourself into burnout chasing metrics that don’t pay your rent, or build something that any algorithm simply just cannot touch.
If you don’t diversify and focus on delivering value via quality, an algorithmic death just might be your fate.
But it doesn’t have to be.
Great article as always. There is also a study that says that users are slowly leaving popular social media. So maybe it's time to invest in a group chat, newsletter or even gatherings that don't involve the big platforms.