Your Brain Is Being Hijacked for Profit. Here's the Proof.

Q: How Do I Spot Fake Engagement Bait Posts Before Sharing Them?

Look for excessive emojis, dramatic language like 'BREAKING' or 'SHOCKING', vague attribution without named sources, and claims that seem designed purely to make you angry. Real news doesn't need theatrical packaging. If a post triggers strong emotion, pause and search for the claim on fact-checking sites like Full Fact or AFP Fact Check before sharing.

In Brief:

That viral post about Australian swimmer Mollie O’Callaghan threatening to boycott the 2028 Olympics over Lia Thomas? Completely fabricated. O’Callaghan never said it, Swimming Australia officially intervened to get it removed, and Thomas can’t compete in 2028 anyway because World Aquatics already banned her in 2022 after she lost her legal challenge. The fake quote was engagement bait, designed by accounts that monetise outrage by building follower counts through inflammatory lies, then selling advertising or the entire account.

Every major social media platform uses algorithms specifically engineered to keep you scrolling by identifying what triggers your emotional responses. Research published in 2025 confirms this causes measurable psychological harm, including physical changes to brain structures related to reward and emotional regulation. Facebook’s auto-refresh feature that wipes your feed when you leave to fact-check something isn’t a bug, it’s hostile architecture that punishes critical thinking. Children aged 0-17 generated £11 billion in advertising revenue for these platforms in 2022 alone. You’re not the customer, you’re the product, and you’re most valuable when you’re emotionally activated.

The underlying debate about fairness in women’s sport is legitimate and deserves honest conversation. Peer-reviewed research shows trans women retain approximately 95% of their original muscle mass and strength after 12 months of testosterone suppression, with 48% greater strength than biological women even after two years of hormone therapy. The majority of elite female athletes support protected categories based on biological sex, and major sporting bodies including World Athletics have implemented policies prioritising fairness. The solution isn’t excluding trans people from sport entirely, it’s creating open categories alongside protected female categories, which British Triathlon pioneered in 2022.

The real problem is that genuine concerns about female athletes are being weaponised by people who profit from manufacturing outrage. Platforms know their algorithms cause psychological harm because their own internal research proves it, yet they choose profit over implementing safety features that would reduce engagement. The only defence is pausing before you react, fact-checking before you share, and recognising when your emotions are being exploited for someone else’s advertising revenue.

I saw a post on Facebook earlier. Australian swimmer Mollie O’Callaghan threatening to boycott the 2028 Olympics unless Lia Thomas competes in the men’s category.

Fire emojis.

Outrage.

Emergency talks at World Aquatics.

The whole theatrical package designed to make you react before you think.

So I paused. Left the Fakebook app open. Went away to fact-check it. After doing my research I returned to the app (I had left open) to comment with what I’d discovered, but the app had refreshed.

The post vanished.

I’ll never see it again.

That single moment contains everything that’s wrong with social media.

The fake quote designed to enrage.
The algorithm that amplifies it.
The auto-refresh that punishes critical thinking.

And underneath it all, a legitimate debate about fairness in women’s sport being weaponised by people who don’t give a toss about either women or sport.

And why?

Because they just want your clicks. Truth doesn’t matter!

The Post Was Complete Fiction

Mollie O’Callaghan never said any of this (according to my research). There is no proof.

She’s never been interviewed about Lia Thomas,
never threatened to boycott anything, and
hasn’t publicly commented on transgender athletes in sport at all.

Swimming Australia officially intervened in mid-October 2025, labelling the posts “fake news” and demanding their removal from Facebook and Instagram.

But why would Meta delete it? They don’t care! It fuels the rage and serves the algorithm.

These fabricated quotes (call it whatever you like; bullshit, bollocks, complete head f**kery) originate from engagement-farming accounts. They create inflammatory made-up stories with “BREAKING NEWS” banners and excessive emojis because they know exactly what spreads.

Once these accounts accumulate enough followers through viral outrage, they monetise through advertising services or sell the entire account to someone wanting instant reach.

Fake news like this is a business model built on lying to you.

There’s another fact missing from these viral posts. If the truth matters to you. Lia Thomas can’t compete in the 2028 Olympics anyway. World Aquatics banned transgender women who experienced any part of male puberty from elite women’s events in June 2022. Thomas challenged this through the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2024 and lost. She’s ineligible for World Aquatics competitions, which includes the Olympics. The “emergency talks” claim is complete and utter bollocks. There’s no emergency because Thomas is already banned under current rules.

Here’s some Truth:

Every Social Media Platform Is Psychologically Manipulating You

Social media algorithms analyse every interaction you make.

The pauses.
The clicks.
The likes.
How long you hover over content.

They use machine learning, natural language processing, regression analysis and clustering to build psychological profiles of what triggers you emotionally. Then they prioritise content that generates “engagement”, which platform designers know comes most reliably from outrage, fear, anxiety and moral indignation.

I must really frustrate them because I hover on beautiful wildlife posts (foxes, raccoons, etc) more than anything else. I seriously piddle in their cornflakes.

Research published in January 2025 confirms prolonged social media use physically affects the brain’s reward, attention and emotional regulation systems, creating compulsive usage patterns similar to substance addiction. One meta-analysis found a 13% increase in depression risk for every additional hour spent on social media among adolescents.

The European Union’s proposed Digital Fairness Act explicitly labels these algorithms “addictive” and links them to anxiety, depression and sleep disruption.

In 2022 alone, children aged 0-17 generated £11 billion in advertising revenue for major social media platforms.

You’re not the customer.
You’re the product being served to advertisers, and
your attention is most valuable when you’re emotionally activated.

The people behind Facebook don’t want you merrily scrolling through without action. They want you pissed off, enraged, upset. That is their business model.

That ‘Auto-Refresh’ Isn’t a Bug. It’s Hostile Architecture.

When you leave Facebook (as I did) to fact-check something, the app auto-refreshes when you return, wiping your feed and making it nearly impossible to relocate the post. Users have been complaining about this for years.

There’s no way to disable it. It’s meant to be like that!

Facebook presents it as delivering “fresh content”, but the psychological effect is punitive. You’re trained through frustration that leaving the app has consequences.

Research on infinite scroll and feed design found that these interfaces deliberately induce “normative dissociation”, a state of absorption with diminished self-awareness, reduced sense of time and control, and gaps in memory. The auto-refresh intensifies this by making thoughtful engagement functionally impossible.

You can’t pause to think.
You can’t leave the post sat there while you toddle off to verify.
You can’t go to another app to compose a rebuttal without risking the content disappearing.

Multiple users report the feed refreshing even while they’re mid-comment, wiping out partially written responses. Yep. More enragement!

When researchers tested adding “microboundaries” (small friction points that interrupt automatic scrolling), users remembered content significantly better. But 53% felt frustrated by the interruption, and 19% said they’d refuse to use platforms with such features. Facebook’s design does the opposite. It removes friction from mindless consumption while adding massive friction to critical evaluation.

In other words, they don’t want you buggering off to fact check!

Facebook has internal research proving this harm.
They have the technical capability to implement safety features.
They choose not to because healthier usage patterns reduce revenue.

Please let that last one sink in…

“healthier usage patterns reduce revenue“

To be completely blunt about this: Facebook is in the head fuck business and the bloody well know it! So do regulators. So do governments. So do you and I.

When a company knowingly deploys psychological manipulation techniques that cause measurable mental health harm, continues operating that system after being informed of the damage, and actively prevents users from engaging in ways that would reduce harm, that’s not an algorithmic oopsie. That’s designed, profitable, psychological abuse at industrial scale.

The Underlying Debate Deserves Better Than This

I’ve always supported women who say no to competing against male-bodied athletes. It’s not about what gender someone wishes they were. That’s a private matter for them, their doctors and family. But sport requires protected categories based on biological reality, not identity.

The 2020 Hilton & Lundberg study, published in Sports Medicine and cited 263 times, found that after 12 months of testosterone suppression, trans women retain approximately 95% of their original muscle mass, lean body mass and strength. The performance gap between males and females at puberty ranges from 10-50% depending on sport, with the most pronounced advantages in activities requiring muscle mass and explosive strength, particularly upper body. Even after two years of hormone therapy, trans women remained 48% stronger with 35% larger quadriceps mass compared to biological women.

A 2024 study found the majority of elite female athletes support categorisation of women’s sport by biological sex rather than gender identity.

Over 100 elite British sportswomen told BBC Sport they’d be uncomfortable with trans women competing in female categories. These aren’t bigots. They’re athletes who’ve trained their entire lives in a category that exists because male puberty confers advantages that don’t disappear with hormone suppression.

Look at what happened at the Paris Olympics. Italian boxer Angela Carini withdrew from her bout against Algeria’s Imane Khelif after 46 seconds, saying the punches hurt too much. Khelif had been disqualified from the 2023 world championships by the International Boxing Association after chromosome tests reportedly showed XY markers with male karyotype. The IOC allowed Khelif to compete anyway, calling the IBA tests “flawed” and “not legitimate”. Khelif won gold.

I applaud Carini

However, not everyone did (or does).

She has since shared screenshots of the online abuse she’s received, saying it “destroyed her career”. She’s called a coward for withdrawing. She’s called the shame of the Italy team. For what? For getting hit harder than she could withstand?

This isn’t about excluding trans people from sport entirely. British Triathlon became the first British sporting body to establish an open category in 2022 where trans athletes can compete. That’s the solution. Protected female categories plus open categories. Fairness and inclusion aren’t mutually exclusive if you’re willing to think past slogans.

But as for You and Me, We’re Being Trained Not to Think

The fake Mollie O’Callaghan post exploited genuine concerns about fairness in women’s sport. People who care deeply about female athletes saw it, felt validated, and shared it without checking because it confirmed what they already believe. That’s the danger. The manipulators don’t create beliefs out of nowhere. They identify existing tensions, manufacture inflammatory content around them, then profit from the chaos.

Every major platform operates this way.

YouTube’s algorithm prioritises watch time above all else, which means

sensational thumbnails,
provocative titles and
content that keeps you watching through anger or anxiety gets amplified.

The recommendation engine doesn’t care about accuracy. It cares about whether you’ll click the next video.

LinkedIn claims to combat misinformation, but Oscar Rodriguez, LinkedIn’s VP of Trust and Safety, admitted in 2024 that AI-generated content makes it substantially harder to identify fake profiles and misinformation. Their enforcement relies heavily on user reports and automated systems that frequently miss sophisticated manipulation.

There’s a legitimate debate about platform responsibility versus free speech. Countries like Sweden, Greece, the US and Germany emphasise free expression, while South Africa, Brazil and France lean towards stronger moderation. When faced with a trade-off, most respondents favour moderation over unrestricted speech to curb misinformation, but it’s deeply contested.

Civil liberties groups warn against creeping censorship even while acknowledging harm reduction needs.

I’m a big believer in free speech (I think my articles demonstrate that) but we have to be able to read without being manipulated, watch without being lied to, and spend time online without being intentionally enraged for the pleasure of the algorithm.

But here’s what isn’t debatable: social media can facilitate connection and reduce loneliness, particularly for marginalised groups. Nearly half of individuals receiving mental health services who use social media reported using platforms at least weekly (most daily) to feel less alone.

Recent Harvard research suggests routine social media use may compensate for diminishing face-to-face interactions. The platforms aren’t inherently evil. Damn I can’t believe I just said that.

What’s evil is knowing your design causes measurable psychological harm and choosing profit over safety.

A 2023 systematic review analysing 232 independent studies confirmed Facebook use directly correlates with

anxiety,
depression,
loneliness,
eating disorders,
reduced self-esteem,
reduced life satisfaction,
insomnia and stress, plus
measurable physiological changes including altered brain structure.

Internal documents leaked in 2021 revealed Meta’s own research showed Instagram made body image issues worse for one in three teenage girls.

They knew.

They didn’t change.

What You Do Next Matters

I came here to fact-check before engaging. That pause, that refusal to react immediately, is the only defence we have against this machinery. But it shouldn’t be this hard. Platforms could implement friction points that improve memory and reduce compulsive scrolling. They could stop auto-refreshing feeds when users return from other apps.

I’ve been in and around tech for 40 years and I know they could so easily place a button next to posts that, when clicked, wold freeze the feed while the user goes off to do something else (fact checking, perhaps). But hey won’t.

They could deprioritise engagement bait in favour of accurate information. They won’t, because it would cost them money.

So it falls to you, me, us.

Pause before you share.
Check the source.
Look at whether the post uses excessive emojis, dramatic language and vague attribution.
Ask yourself “is this here just to piss me off?”

Real news doesn’t need that much theatrical dressing. And when you encounter posts designed to enrage you about issues you genuinely care about, ask who benefits from your anger.

The debate about fairness in women’s sport matters. Female athletes deserve protected categories based on biological reality. Trans people deserve inclusion through open categories and thoughtful policy. But none of that gets sorted when algorithms amplify fake quotes and reward emotional reactions over honest conversation.

Your brain is worth more than their profit margins.

Remember that.

Questions You’re Probably Asking

Why Does Facebook’s Feed Refresh When I Leave the App to Check Something?

Facebook’s auto-refresh is a deliberate design feature that keeps you scrolling through fresh content rather than returning to where you left off. Users have complained about this for years, but there’s no way to disable it. The effect is that fact-checking or thoughtful engagement becomes functionally impossible because the content vanishes when you return.

Look for excessive emojis, dramatic language like “BREAKING” or “SHOCKING”, vague attribution without named sources, and claims that seem designed purely to make you angry. Real news doesn’t need theatrical packaging. If a post triggers strong emotion, pause and search for the claim on fact-checking sites like Full Fact or AFP Fact Check before sharing.

Yes, and the evidence is overwhelming. Algorithms analyse every interaction you make, then use machine learning to identify what triggers your emotional responses. Research from 2025 confirms prolonged use physically alters brain structures related to reward, attention and emotional regulation, creating compulsive usage patterns similar to addiction.

Are Trans Women Actually Stronger Than Biological Women After Hormone Therapy?

The peer-reviewed research shows yes, significant advantages remain. After 12 months of testosterone suppression, trans women retain approximately 95% of their original muscle mass, lean body mass and strength. Even after two years of hormone therapy, trans women remained 48% stronger with 35% larger quadriceps mass compared to biological women, according to the 2020 Hilton & Lundberg study published in Sports Medicine.

Is Lia Thomas Allowed to Compete in the 2028 Olympics?

No. World Aquatics banned transgender women who experienced any part of male puberty from elite women’s competitions in June 2022. Thomas challenged this policy through the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2024 and lost, meaning she’s ineligible for World Aquatics events including the Olympics.

Doesn’t Banning Trans Women from Women’s Sport Mean Excluding Them Entirely?

Not if sporting bodies create open categories where anyone can compete regardless of sex or gender identity. British Triathlon became the first British sporting body to establish an open category in 2022. This approach protects female categories based on biological reality while still providing competitive opportunities for trans athletes.

Are Platforms Legally Responsible for the Misinformation Spread on Their Sites?

It’s contested and varies by country. The European Union’s proposed Digital Fairness Act explicitly labels social media algorithms as addictive and harmful, whilst countries like the US emphasise free speech protections that limit platform liability. What’s not debatable is that platforms have internal research proving psychological harm and choose profit over implementing safety features that would reduce engagement.

Sources

Your Brain Is Being Hijacked for Profit. Here’s the Proof.

In Brief:

Social Media Algorithms Hijack Your Brain for Profit

The Post Was Complete Fiction

Every Social Media Platform Is Psychologically Manipulating You

That ‘Auto-Refresh’ Isn’t a Bug. It’s Hostile Architecture.

The Underlying Debate Deserves Better Than This

But as for You and Me, We’re Being Trained Not to Think

What You Do Next Matters

Questions You’re Probably Asking

Why Does Facebook’s Feed Refresh When I Leave the App to Check Something?

How Do I Spot Fake Engagement Bait Posts Before Sharing Them?

Can Social Media Algorithms Actually Change My Behaviour?

Are Trans Women Actually Stronger Than Biological Women After Hormone Therapy?

Is Lia Thomas Allowed to Compete in the 2028 Olympics?

Doesn’t Banning Trans Women from Women’s Sport Mean Excluding Them Entirely?

Are Platforms Legally Responsible for the Misinformation Spread on Their Sites?

Sources

Fact-Checking and Verification

News and Reporting

Academic Research and Peer-Reviewed Studies

University and Research Institution Publications

Official Policy and Governance Documents

Specialist Analysis and Research Institutes

User Experience and Community Reports

More posts