Why Your Dick of an Uncle is Actually an Edgelord (and ruined Thanksgiving)

Algorithmic feeds reward borderline extremity and bury the middle. Meet the edgelords and the corridor they exploit.

👋🏼 In celebration of Thanksgiving, a quick reminder why you don’t speak to your dick of an uncle any day but yesterday: he’s an engagement algorithm in a cardigan, optimised for lowest-common-denominator outrage. Because (your dick of an) uncle isn’t debating but field-testing edgelord moves (quote, wink, deny) while passing the cranberry sauce and asking if the Jan 6 rioters really “were treated fairly”.

Here’s part 2 of our politics series. Part 1 is here. Happy (belated) Thanksgiving.

Politics is downstream of the feed

Whether you’re cinema, a skincare brand or a constitutional crisis, algorithmic feeds reward whatever gets quick reactions. Detailed, nuanced posts are shown less. Blatantly extreme posts are easy to throttle or ban. So the content that spreads fastest sits just inside the rules: provocative enough to light up the comments, careful enough to avoid a clear policy violation.

This means:

• Mid-arousal, high-context (balanced explainers that need background) mean less distribution.

• Overt extremes (explicit slurs, threats, direct incitement) mean down-ranked/removed.

• One notch inside the line (insinuations, questions, sarcasm, quotes) mean highly reactive but technically permissible (“just asking…”).

You’re already familiar:

• Policy:

  • Middle: “Here’s a 700-word breakdown of the bill.”

  • Extreme: “Shut their offices down tomorrow.”

  • Edge: “Twelve seconds of the minister whispering. ‘Nothing to see here,’ right? 👀”

• Corruption:

  • Middle: “Procurement rules changed in 2019; see the PDF.”

  • Extreme: “They’re criminals—storm it.”

  • Edge: “Not saying it’s rigged, but why did the contract go to his mate? Just asking.”

• Elections:

  • Middle: “Turnout by ward explains the result.”

  • Extreme: “Fake ballots—take matters into your own hands.”

  • Edge: “10,000 ballots at 3am? Totally normal, I’m sure.”

• Public health:

  • Middle: “Here are three studies and the base-rate issue.”

  • Extreme: “Doctors are lying—ignore guidance.”

  • Edge: “People keep getting sick after the rollout. No idea why. 🤔”

• Crime/immigration:

  • Middle: “Long-run trends are mixed.”

  • Extreme: “Target this group.”

  • Edge: “How many ‘isolated’ incidents make a pattern?”

• Corporate:

  • Middle: “Layoffs follow capex cycles; see page 14.”

  • Extreme: “Harass the CEO.”

  • Edge: “CEO takes a bonus; staff out next week. Must be coincidence.”

That’s the mechanic. Borderline, high-reaction posts spread and the blatant stuff gets clipped. The careful middle gets buried. The algorithm isn’t backing a side. It is simply rewarding the stimulus that travels furthest without tripping enforcement.

Welcome to edgelording.

Why left/right keeps missing it, and why that lens breaks for younger cohorts

The feed isn’t optimised for ideology, but for reaction within the rules. The winning post hits hard and stays technically compliant. That’s the edge corridor: the playable space between platform policy and the law where distribution is highest without handing moderators or prosecutors easy proof. Moral–emotional language travels and explicit violations get clipped. Peak reach sits just before the line, not beyond it.

Two referees create the edge corridor

There are two referees on this pitch, and they use two different rulebooks.

• Platforms enforce policy

• Prosecutors enforce law

The space between those books is playable.

Platform policy is built to catch harmful but legal content: harassment rules, “borderline” hate, health/election claims. The law is built to catch illegal content: true threats, direct incitement, defamation, fraud.

Stay inside both lines, but close enough to spark a strong reaction, and you’re in the growth zone. That’s where the fastest distribution lives. (This applies to everything mediated by algorithms. So, in other words, this applies to everything.)

Why left/right is a weak proxy for under-30s

• Different media diet. Algorithmic by default and phone-first, it produces an “extremely online” operating class: networked, format-native, and incentivised by reach, not party lines.

• Issues are mix-and-match. Younger voters choose per topic, not by party bundle (e.g., climate urgency and pro-nuclear; free-speech maximalism and LGBTQ rights; pro-creator markets and a stronger safety net). Frames beat programmes. (Another way to flip this: legacy/dynastic parties do not reflect the concerns of the younger generations.)

• Networks beat parties. Belonging is built via follows, group chats and Discords, not membership cards. Coordination is real, but networked, not institutional.

• Format beats process. Long, negotiated compromises are low-arousal and die in feeds. Short, high-energy clips win the opening minute, whatever the party label.

The net effect? Left/right is a Boomer-obsessed, broadcast-era shortcut. The feed era sorts by order vs chaos (what escalates or pacifies attention), not centre-left vs centre-right manifestos. This is why (and better saved for its own piece) I would argue the Extremely Online is now its own political class completely outside of left vs right and helpful media interpretation.

The edgelord as rational actor (max reach, low risk)

It’s actually a simple strategy = push reaction up, keep proof down. It has a pretty simple set of rules, too.

The deniability playbook

1. Language cover: use hypotheticals like “just asking”, quotation and parody.

2. Network cover: make sure quote/duet/retweet so the audience does the speech act.

3. Timing cover: spike it, then delete or post “context”; the footprint remains, the evidence weakens.

4. Audience cover: the Invitation to act is performed by followers, not stated by the account.

It isn’t chaos, but predictable expected value: high reaction, low provability.

Rename the axis or keep missing the play

Edgelords aren’t a glitch as much as exactly what you get when systems are optimised for engagement (and monetised accordingly). With two referees (policy and law) and a playable strip between them, the rational move is simple: run high-arousal, low-proof content the audience can take and do the work for you. Truth, safety and intelligence are all completely unimportant.

That’s why the feed feels like permanent brinkmanship, and why the left/right reads don’t totally hit the mark.

I know: uplifting, right?

If we keep using left/right, we’ll keep chasing ghosts. The live axis is order vs chaos, and the “winners” live one notch inside the line. Seeing the corridor becomes the most important exercise then. At that point the trick stops being magic.

Pass the cranberry sauce.