Below a political video, alongside a critique of the PP or Vox or accompanying an electoral message, the same request appears: copy the link. The gesture consists of pressing the share button on an X publication and saving its address to spread it later. What’s new is the purpose attributed to it by those promoting it: to make that content reach more people and change which messages receive attention.
The slogan circulates among supporters and left-wing accounts ahead of the elections of November 29. Various political groups and usarios have celebrated their supposed effects on the platform’s recommendations.
Para quienes piden las fuentes oficiales de todo el tema del algoritmo que comentábamos ayer, aquí lo tenéis todo: https://t.co/2szA5hRF75 Soy rubia, pero quienes me conocéis de hace tiempo sabéis que contrasto la información y uso mi altavoz con responsabilidad. 🩷 https://t.co/KNWw6NB3Vl
— La Vecina Rubia (@lavecinarubia) November 6, 2026
Behind there are two different ideas. One is to move posts to other users, for example via WhatsApp. The other holds that the mere act of copying its address makes the algorithm value them more. The first assumes a direct distribution pathway; the second depends on a more complex recommendation system than some viral messages suggest.
What does “copy and paste” mean in this campaign
The expression does not necessarily refer to reproducing the text of a post. In this case, what is copied is its link: the address that allows you to open the original message.
X includes that function among the sharing options. By selecting “Copy link,” the address is placed on the device’s clipboard and can be pasted elsewhere. Copying it and sending it are different actions: the first does not, by itself, deliver the message to any contact.
In the political campaign, the request also works as a call to participate. Quien receives the content does not need to record a video or write an original argument: they can help distribute a post that they consider relevant.
What is true in the table that attributes more weight to copying links
Text to paste before the table:
X’s public code includes a specific signal for sharing by copying the link. Its coefficient is 20, above other parameters such as replying, reposting, or liking. However, these figures weight behaviors that the system predicts for each user: they are not points that a post automatically accumulates upon receiving interactions.
The difference is decisive. The algorithm calculates the probability that a person will respond, share, or mark a post as a favorite and combines those predictions. The scoring code confirms that the copy-link signal is part of that operation. It does not show that repeatedly pressing that button causes a specific increase in views.
Copy link: this is how this signal works on X
The algorithm weighs what it predicts that each user will do. These numbers are neither click points nor visit multipliers.
| Predicted action | Published weight |
|---|---|
| Share by copying the link Signal "share_via_copy_link" | 20 |
| Reply Base weight; may receive adjustments | 5 |
| Quote a post | 5 |
| Share via direct message | 5 |
| Follow the author | 4 |
| Share —general signal— | 2,118 |
| Repost —retweet— | 1 |
| Like | 0,708 |
| Click on the post | 0,274 |
| Open an external link | 0,2 |
| Enlarge a photo | 0,05 |
| Open a video —specific signal— | 0 |
| Qualified video view VQV signal | 0 |
What it shows and what it does not show
The value 20 exists in the code. It applies to a prediction, not to the count of people who have copied the link. It does not allow saying that one click equals 40 likes or that it multiplies by 20 the reach.
Illustrative example: a predicted probability of 1%, multiplied by 20, adds 0,2 to that term of the calculation. It does not mean 20% more reach.
Does copying a link really influence X’s algorithm?
As we say, the action is present in the technical documentation published by X and xAI. Its system accounts for the probability that a person shares a post by copying its link, along with other actions such as replying, reposting, opening content, or following the author.
That provides a real basis for talking about the importance of shared links. But there is a decisive difference: the system combines predictions about what each user will do, not a simple accounting in which each copy buys a fixed amount of reach.
The repository itself warns against interpreting the weights of the algorithm as equivalences between actions. Therefore, from those values it cannot be deduced that copying once replaces a certain number of “likes” or guarantees more impressions.
The conclusion is more limited than the slogan: copying links is part of the signals contemplated by the system, but an automatic diffusion multiplier for this campaign has not been credited.
Why replying with indignation can provide more visibility
A contrary reply is still an interaction. A post quoted in order to criticize it can end up exposed to people who hadn’t seen it yet.
X explains that it selects recommendations using different signals, including the popularity of the content and the activity of the people who are part of each user’s network. That is why expressing disagreement and reducing the diffusion of a post are not necessarily the same thing.
This is the part of the method that affects political behavior: deciding which messages to spend time on and which to share. Its promoters consider that continuously responding to the adversary allows this one to determine the topics of conversation.
That does not mean that any refutation is counterproductive. Correcting a falsehood can provide relevant information to those who receive it. The effect will depend on the content, on the audience reached, and on the way it is published; there is no rule that turns all refutations into favorable publicity for the original author.
Silencing an account does not make its messages disappear
Another common confusion mixes personal experience with a post’s overall reach.
Silencing serves to remove certain content from one’s own timeline. The “Not interested” option provides information to the system so that it recommends fewer posts of that kind to the user who selects it, as X explains.
Those tools allow adjusting what a person sees. They do not equate to an order for a post to disappear from the screens of all the others.
That is why noticing a more aligned timeline after modifying interactions does not show that the political balance of the entire platform has changed. It may have changed, above all, the personalized selection that that account receives.
What role does WhatsApp play
WhatsApp allows distributing links among people who are already connected through groups, channels, or conversations. That is why the parallel channel to the official one, for example, of the PSOE, called La Fuerza de la Gente and which already has nearly 60,000 followers, is used as a distributor of those links.
This mechanism has a use independent of any alleged algorithmic trick: someone receives a link because another person or a channel has sent it.
It also forces a separation between distribution and persuasion. That a post circulates a lot among supporters does not prove that it has reached undecided voters nor that it has changed their preferences. Views, clicks, and votes measure different things.
Where does the Janones method come from
The strategy takes as its reference André Janones and his activity on support networks for the Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
It is an approach that combines mobilization via WhatsApp and a deliberate reduction in the attention given to hostile content. The proposal consists of preventing anger from ending up generating more responses, re-posts, and diffusion for those messages that it is intended to combat.
It is not only about sharing more of one’s own posts. It also asks to stop getting drawn into certain controversies. The logic is that a discussion can give visibility to the original message even if those who participate do so to reject it.
The Brazilian reference provides that strategy with a name and a political precedent. However, it does not allow isolating how much this practice influenced an electoral outcome nor transferring that supposed effect to Spain. In fact, perhaps it is more the emotion of discovering a new “method” than the reality that it has an effect, as many users on the social network X indicate, who have tried to dissect the technique behind it.
Buenas Desde que X publicó su algoritmo corre un consejo: «copiad todos el enlace, que es lo que más puntúa». He seguido ese botón por el código, línea a línea, para ver qué pasa de verdad cuando alguien lo pulsa https://t.co/gX2QpMZJfy
— mmadrigal (@SoyMmadrigal) November 6, 2026
Who is promoting it in Spain
Winning Alcorcón is one of the identifiable examples. The municipalist training has spread a campaign about how interactions can help amplify messages that seek to provoke outrage.
On its own website, the party highlights that the video has been shared by Gustavo Petro and translated for distribution in Italy. Its approach includes reducing interactions with certain content and paying more attention to other posts.
Multiple socialist sympathizers are also taking part. It is useful to distinguish between official channels, follower initiatives, and users who adopt a practice on their own. That several profiles repeat an instruction does not prove that there is a common direction.
What we still do not know about its effect on 29N
The “copy link” campaign is observable, and the action appears among those that the X recommendation system considers. What has not been shown is how much additional reach this mobilization produces, which audiences it reaches, or whether it modifies voting decisions. At least, for now.