Over the past year, many young creators who use the Chinese-owned social networking platform TikTok have claimed that its underlying algorithm surveils and suppresses the reach of content by Black, brown, fat, queer, and disabled creators. However, despite these algorithmic biases, these marginalized creators have continued to find new and ingenious ways to not only create but also successfully share anti-racist, anti-misogynistic, LGBTQIA+supportive, and body-positive content on the platform. Using this tension, this essay engages visual content analysis and critical technocultural discourse analysis to examine the innovative ways marginalized creators employ TikTok’s various medium and technological affordances to evade algorithmic surveillance and oppression. Building on Simone Browne’s concept of dark sousveillance, I theorize these practices as acts of digital dark sousveillance, defined within the essay as the use of digital tools to enact surveillance subversion, obfuscation, inversion while operating within systems of racializing surveillance.
BandyJDiakopoulosN (2020) #TulsaFlop: a case study of algorithmically-influenced collective action on TikTok. Facctrec Workshop on Responsible Recommendation.
3.
BenjaminR (2019) Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
4.
BernsteinR (2011) Racial Innocence: Performing American Childhood from Slavery to Civil Rights. New York: NYU Press.
5.
BenthamJ (1787) The panopticon letters. In: BožovičM (ed.) Jeremy Bentham: The Panopticon Writings. London: Verso, pp. 29–97.
6.
BishopS (2019) Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society21(11–12): 2589–2606.
BrockA (2018) Critical technocultural discourse analysis. New Media & Society20(3): 1012–1030.
9.
BrockA (2020) Distributed Blackness: African American Cybercultures. New York: NYU Press.
10.
BroussardM (2018) Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
11.
BrowneS (2015) Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
12.
BucherT (2017) The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook Algorithms. Information, Communication & Society20(10): 30–44.
13.
CaplanRGillespieT (2020) Tiered governance and demonetization: the shifting terms of labor and compensation in the platform economy. Social Media + Society6(2): 1–13.
14.
ChristmannGB (2008) The power of photographs of buildings in the Dresdan urban discourse. Towards a visual discourse analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Science Research9(3). DOI: 10.17169/fqs-9.3.1163.
15.
ClarkMD (2020) DRAG THEM: a brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture.”Communication and the Public5(3–4): 88–92.
16.
CraigDCunninghamS (2019) Social Media Entertainment: The New Intersection of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. New York: NYU Press.
DeVitoMBirnholtzJHancockJT, et al. (2018) How people form folk theories of social media feeds and what it means for how we study self-presentation. In: PerryMCoxA (eds) Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1–12.
19.
DryerR (1997) White: Essays on Race and Culture. New York: Routledge.
EslamiMKarahaliosKSandvigC, et al. (2016) First, I “like” it, then I hide it: folk theories of social feeds. In: LampeCMorrisDHourcadeJP (eds) Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 2371–2382.
22.
EubanksV (2018) Automated Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
23.
FergusonA (2017) The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement. New York: NYU Press.
FoucaultM (1975) Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
26.
GandyO (2019) The algorithm made me do it! predictive policing, cameras, social media and affective assessment. In: Paper presented at the IAMCR 2019 conference in Madrid, Spain, 7–11 July.
GillespieT (2014) The relevance of algorithms. In: GillespieTBoczkowskiPFootK (eds) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 167–194.
29.
GillespieT (2018) Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
LyonD (2003) Surveillance as social sorting: computer codes and mobile bodies. In: LyonD (ed.) Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Digital Discrimination. New York: Routledge, pp. 13–30.
36.
McCluskeyM (2020) These TikTok creators say they’re still being suppressed for posting Black lives matter content. Time, 22July. Available at: https://time.com/5863350/tiktok-black-creators/
37.
McIlwainC (2019) Black Software: The internet and racial justice from the Afronet to Black lives matter. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
NakamuraL (2007) Digitizing Race: Visual Cultures of the Internet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
39.
NakamuraL (2015) The unwanted labour of social media: women of color call out culture as venture community management. New Formations: A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics86(86): 106–112.
VickeryJR (2014) The curious case of confession bear: the reappropriation of online macro-image memes. Information, Communication & Society17(3): 301–325.
