top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Algorithmic Anarchy

The NEET paper leak protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar should have remained a legitimate expression of student anger over the collapse of examination integrity. Instead, as the agitation escalated into clashes with the police, abusive sloganeering and an increasingly radical political campaign, Meta’s algorithms emerged as an invisible force multiplying the unrest. The controversy surrounding the brief removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message to the youth in the aftermath of the...

Algorithmic Anarchy

The NEET paper leak protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar should have remained a legitimate expression of student anger over the collapse of examination integrity. Instead, as the agitation escalated into clashes with the police, abusive sloganeering and an increasingly radical political campaign, Meta’s algorithms emerged as an invisible force multiplying the unrest. The controversy surrounding the brief removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message to the youth in the aftermath of the protests only reinforces that concern. Meta has attributed the takedown to a “technical glitch” and apologised. But when the world’s largest social media platform can temporarily suppress the message of the elected leader of the world’s largest democracy during a politically charged moments, the issue extends well beyond a single deleted post. Who decides what India sees? That question has become impossible to ignore during the Cockroach Janta Party’s protests. Across Instagram and Facebook, users have reported being inundated with CJP videos, reels and protest clips despite never following the organisation or engaging with similar political content. Whether this resulted from coordinated paid collaborations, recommendation algorithms or both deserves a thorough investigation. But the larger democratic concern is that public opinion is increasingly being mediated not by citizens, journalists or elected representatives, but by opaque algorithms designed in Silicon Valley and optimised for engagement rather than democratic responsibility. Meta’s recommendation engine is not a passive notice board. Every piece of political content that reaches millions has first been selected by an algorithm whose workings remain largely hidden from public scrutiny. This is hardly unique to India. Around the world, Meta has repeatedly been accused of amplifying polarisation, misinformation and political extremism because outrage keeps users engaged. From elections to ethnic conflicts and episodes of civil unrest, the company has faced persistent criticism that its commercial incentives reward divisive content over balanced discourse. Democracies cannot afford to outsource the architecture of public debate to corporations whose primary obligation is to shareholders rather than constitutional values. While citizens are entitled to challenge governments and demand accountability, there is an important distinction between a movement that expands because people are persuaded and one that appears to be algorithmically amplified into omnipresence. Equally disturbing has been the normalisation of abusive political language during the protests. When such content is repeatedly amplified through recommendation systems, platforms cease to be neutral intermediaries and become active participants in degrading democratic discourse. Platforms that influence elections, protests and public opinion must explain how political recommendations are generated and why particular narratives receive extraordinary amplification. Silicon Valley companies insist they are merely technology platforms. But their algorithms increasingly exercise editorial power. When software determines which protests dominate national conversations and whose voices disappear, technology has already become politics.

Your Price Is Not The Problem

Every time a client pushed back on his price, he folded. Not immediately — he had enough experience to hold for a moment, to pause, to appear as though he was considering. But he always folded. A ten percent reduction here. A complimentary add-on there. A revised proposal that quietly gave away more than it should have. He told himself it was strategy. It was not. It was fear wearing the costume of flexibility.


He was a founder with over a decade of experience, a business turning over well above five crores, a team that believed in him, and clients who genuinely valued his work. On paper, everything looked right. And yet, every negotiation felt like a battle he was losing before it began. The moment a client said “can you do better on the price,” something shifted inside him. The confidence that carried him through everything else simply disappeared.


“He was not discounting his fees. He was discounting himself — and the client could sense it before he said a word.”


This is where most founders misread the problem. They believe pricing resistance is a market issue, a competition issue, or an economic issue. Rarely do they consider that it might be a personal brand issue. But here is the truth that changes everything — when your personal brand is strong, your price becomes a reflection of your perceived value. When it is weak or absent, your price becomes a negotiation. Every single time.


When we began working together, the first thing I noticed was not his business. It was him. The way he entered a conversation. The way he presented himself — online and in person. He was accomplished, no question. But nothing about his presence said so before he opened his mouth. His online profiles were generic. His communication was hesitant in moments that called for conviction. He had built a strong company but had never invested a single day in building himself as a brand.


We started from the inside. His sense of authority, how he carried himself, how he communicated his value without apologising for it. Then we moved outward — restructuring how he showed up digitally, aligning his narrative across every touchpoint so that by the time a potential client sat across from him, they already believed in his worth. The price conversation changed not because he rehearsed a script, but because he had stopped being invisible.


“The strongest negotiation tool a founder can carry into any room is a personal brand that has already done the convincing.”


Within weeks, something shifted. A client who would have previously pushed back accepted his proposal without a question. A partnership discussion he expected to be difficult closed faster than any before it. He did not change his fees. He changed how people perceived the person behind those fees. That is the leverage a personal brand gives you — it negotiates on your behalf before you say a single word.


If you are a founder or business owner who has ever reduced a price you knew was right, asked yourself honestly — was that a market problem, or a brand problem? Because if the right people truly understood your value, the number would never be the obstacle.


I work with founders and business owners to build personal brands that command the room, hold the price, and convert the right opportunities. If you have been questioning your positioning or wondering why deals that should close easily are not — let us have a focused thirty-minute brand consultation. I take a maximum of four of these conversations each week. Book yours at: https://calendly.com/divyaaadvaani/founder-brand-audit


(The writer is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries.

Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page