Here is the feature article, written from the persona of Julian Vance.

*

# The Outrage Algorithm: Analyzing the ROI of Performative Blessings and Slights

Two seemingly disconnected events recently generated predictable waves of digital outrage. In one instance, the artist Bad Bunny remained seated during the singing of "God Bless America" at Yankee Stadium. In another, Pope Leo XIV blessed a block of ice at a climate summit. On the surface, these incidents share little in common—one is an act of omission, the other an act of commission.

Yet, my analysis suggests they are functionally identical data points. Both serve as inputs into a highly efficient outrage algorithm, where the performance of, or refusal to perform, a public ritual is merely a catalyst. The subsequent reaction is not a byproduct of the event; it is the entire point. We’re not observing spontaneous public anger. We are observing a well-oiled system that manufactures conflict for engagement, and these episodes are simply the raw materials.

The Anatomy of Non-Compliance

Let’s first deconstruct the Bad Bunny incident. The variables are straightforward: a high-profile celebrity, a quasi-sacred patriotic song, and a public venue synonymous with American culture. The failure to comply with the expected ritual—standing—produced an immediate and negative output.

The primary source data, from eyewitness Laurence Leavy (better known as "Marlins Man"), suggests the narrative of intentional disrespect is flawed. Leavy reports Bad Bunny arrived late, left early, was in disguise, and remained focused on his phone (Bad Bunny Did Nothing Wrong By Sitting During ‘God Bless America,' Says Sports Superfan). This points less to a calculated political statement and more to a simple operational failure in public relations. The artist was present, but not present. The optics were, to put it mildly, suboptimal.

This is the part of the cycle that I find genuinely puzzling from a risk-management perspective. The cost of standing for 90 seconds is effectively zero. The cost of not standing, however, is a multi-day negative news cycle that requires active mitigation from your publicity team. Why would an entity as meticulously managed as a global superstar's brand leave such a variable to chance? Was it a genuine oversight, or a miscalculation of the public’s sensitivity to ritual compliance? The data remains incomplete, but the market for outrage filled in the blanks with the most inflammatory explanation possible.

The incident is a perfect case study in signal processing. The intended signal from Bad Bunny's camp was likely "low-profile attendance." The received signal, amplified by the surrounding noise of stadium patriotism, was "active disrespect." The discrepancy between the two is where the outrage-as-a-product is generated. One has to ask: does the algorithm that drives online discourse even permit nuance anymore, or does it automatically round every action up or down to the nearest available culture war talking point?

The Calculus of Symbolic Action

Now, consider the Pope. The event was the 10th-anniversary celebration of Laudato Si, a papal letter focused on ecology. In front of over a thousand people—to be more exact, "more than 1,000 people," according to the National Catholic Reporter—Pope Leo blessed a large block of ice. The act was symbolic, designed to signal the Church's commitment to addressing climate change.

The reaction from a specific demographic of commentators was, again, perfectly predictable (Pope Leo Blessing Ice Sparks Anger: ‘Pagan Earth-Worship Ritual’). Matt Walsh called it a "weird pagan Earth worshipping hippy ritual." Ian Miles Cheong labeled it a "circus." This response vector was not an unforeseen bug; it was a known feature of the action.

The blessing of the ice is best understood not as a theological act, but as an economic one. It’s like a corporate ESG initiative. The primary goal isn’t necessarily the direct, tangible outcome (the ice will still melt), but the signal it sends to key stakeholders. In this case, the stakeholders are progressive Catholics, environmental groups, and global political bodies. The negative reaction from conservative and traditionalist factions is a known, and likely accepted, cost of doing business. The Vatican made a calculated trade-off, betting that the goodwill generated with its target audience would outweigh the criticism from its detractors.

This is where a methodological critique is necessary. How much of this online "outrage" is an authentic representation of sentiment, and how much is manufactured by a small number of high-volume nodes in a network? Commentators like Walsh and Cheong have built entire brands on identifying and amplifying these events. Their business model depends on a steady supply of symbolic acts to condemn. The Pope provides the stimulus; they provide the response. The algorithm that powers platforms like X (formerly Twitter) then rewards the ensuing conflict with reach and engagement. The system is perfectly symbiotic. It begs the question: is the Vatican playing a spiritual game, or has it simply learned the rules of the new media game?

The Signal Has Become the Product

Ultimately, these two events reveal a core truth about our current information ecosystem. Both the refusal to bless America with a standing posture and the decision to bless a block of water are just inputs. The actual product being created, monetized, and consumed is the schism itself. The outrage isn't a flaw in the system; it's the system working as designed.

For Bad Bunny, it was an unforced error that fed the machine. For the Vatican, it appears to be a deliberate, calculated move that understands the machine's appetites. In both cases, the ritual—whether patriotic or religious—was secondary. The primary function was to generate a signal potent enough to cleave an audience into two warring camps. The act is irrelevant. The reaction is everything.