The Age of Enter-Train-Ment
The shift from “art that moves you” to “content that keeps you”
Enter-train-ment feels like a fitting term for what the algorithm is designed to do. Here’s why:
The algorithm entertains us…
just enough to stay hooked.
But it does so in the lowest-effort, highest attention-grab format possible - if it moved you deeply, you might leave the app and actually do something.
So it leaves you with…
Just enough insight to feel informed, without wanting to exit the app to read more.
Just enough motivation to inspire you to “Subscribe”, but not enough to inspire action outside the app.
Just enough outrage to drive an angry comment, but not enough to drive any real action.
And while the goal of the algorithm may exist under the large umbrella of ‘entertainment’ – the motivation of entertainers today vs. historically is much different.
I explored this idea by contrasting interviews with MrBeast and Martin Scorsese.
I know it’s a sort of ridiculous comparison – they’re clearly not doing the same thing, or trying to. But I do think that they are clearly two of the most well-recognized entertainers of their time, and so it brings up some interesting points.
From his Diary of a CEO interview, it becomes very clear that MrBeast’s priority is to capture attention, get shown by the algorithm, and improve metrics.
It’d be odd to find a Scorsese interview where he’s worried about that. He seems much more interested in the art he’s creating and its emotional impact on the audience.
These direct quotes exemplify this:
MrBeast explained how he aims for video ideas that “make people go ‘holy shit’ – and then they tell their friends.”
Scorsese: “You hear a young couple talking about a movie they’ve just seen… you can really hear how important it is for them to get something out of the film — it helps illuminate their own life.”
In separate instances, both spoke about trying to make an impact with their art that extends beyond the actual viewing. But they speak about it in very different ways.
MrBeast aims for sharability so that “they tell their friends” – the goal is to generate more views, so the algorithm puts it in front of more people.
Scorsese aims for sharability so that his movie starts a conversation and expands the viewer’s life in some way.
This isn’t to say MrBeast doesn’t care about his audience – his philanthropy suggests otherwise – but his creative priority is high engagement. He isn’t aiming for a life-changing epiphany; he’s optimizing for a ‘holy shit’ moment that forces the algorithm to recognize video as a winner and push it out to more people.
And I’m not trying to knock any person or any particular way of doing things – this is simply a comment on the incentives and what rises to the top in our culture.
The algorithm trains us…
both as consumers and communicators.
As consumers, it trains us to:
→ Crave novelty, otherwise things feel slow or boring
→ Instinctively scroll our feeds whenever we feel a slight bit of discomfort or boredom
→ Expect immediate payoffs, eroding our attention span
→ Avoid silence. Avoid presence. And avoid reality, if we’re being honest.
I think that anyone with a smartphone in 2026, if they’re being honest with themselves, can recognize these. And I’m sure any of us could relate to this experience:
You pick up your phone to check something. Ten minutes later, you realize you’ve been scrolling on social media and have no clue why you picked up your phone in the first place.
That’s a sign that the algorithm is working. Some of the world’s smartest minds have designed it to do exactly that.
And research shows they’ve done a pretty good job, since ‘internet addiction’ shares many of the same traits as substance addiction (Kudos to the dev team!):
Loss of control, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms when unable to access, neglect or loss of interest in other hobbies and activities (source).
And this isn’t new or groundbreaking information – people seem to be well aware of the way social media negatively impacts us as consumers.
But we seem to ignore how the people creating on these platforms are also trained to become cogs. ‘Cus as creators/communicators, it incentivizes us to:
→ Shape our message around what the audience will respond to – instead of what we want to say.
→ Speak in a way that spreads through the algorithm (outrageous claims, rage-bait, etc.), even when it flattens nuance or dumbs down a point.
→ Consider metrics (likes, views, subscribers) that used to only be important to the Corporate Suits… now these are top of mind for every solo creator trying to make a living.
So while the algorithm is designed to manipulate consumers to stay on the platform and keep scrolling, it’s also manipulating creators to conform to feed it what it wants.
And what it wants is whatever will keep people glued to the screen the longest.
So congrats on 1 million followers, Mr. Creator Sir. You’re doing your part in feeding the beast!
This isn’t inevitable
The upside to this shift is obvious: accessibility.
Scorsese’s world was guarded by elite gatekeepers and multi-million dollar barriers. The algorithm has democratized fame, allowing someone like MrBeast to reach a billion people without getting permission from some guy in a suit.
Now that ‘permission’ has been traded for a different kind of master: the Algorithm.
But it doesn’t have to be this way – there are still creators who make things simply because they are worth making, not because they’ll be preferred by the algorithm.
Take the 2025 documentary (released on YouTube) Listers: A Glimpse Into Extreme Birdwatching.
It’s a feature-length film about a ‘big year’ in birding – hardly a sexy, algorithm-optimized topic. Yet, it found an audience and moved people deeply because it was an honest piece of work.
And it proves that you can still create something for its own sake, provided you’re willing to prioritize the human on the other side of the screen over the algorithm that sits between you.