Algorithmic systems wield substantial influence in contemporary society. Since it is mostly unknown how algorithms specifically work, content creators (CCs) on YouTube who rely on them for economic reasons are in a constant state of sensemaking regarding the characteristics and perceived preferences of the algorithm. To understand these perceptions, we draw from previous research on technological agency and examine the ways in which CCs view the algorithm as an independent entity with agentic features. We do this by conducting a thematic analysis of 30 interviews with German CCs on YouTube. We find that CCs do perceive agentic qualities of the algorithm and that their assessment depends on their experience and exposure to it. Four key themes were identified: The algorithm is perceived as (1) non-transparent and largely unpredictable; (2) intentional, autonomous, and human-like; (3) number-based and communicating through metrics; and (4) exerting a great deal of power while constantly reinforcing hierarchies.
AndersenJVLindbergALindgrenR, et al (2016) Algorithmic agency in information systems: research opportunities for data analytics of digital traces. In: 49th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, 5–6 January, pp. 4597–4605. New York: IEEE.
2.
ArayaAA (1995) Questioning ubiquitous computing. In: CSC ‘95: Proceedings of the 19 ACM 23rd annual conference on computer science (eds CJ Hwang, BW Hwang and R Brice), Nashville, TN, 28 February–2 March, pp. 230–237. New York: ACM.
3.
ArriagadaAIbáñezF (2020) “You need at least one picture daily, if not, you’re dead”: content creators and platform evolution in the social media ecology. Social Media + Society6(3): 2056305120944624.
BandyJ (2021) Problematic machine behavior: a systematic literature review of algorithm audits. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW1): 74.
6.
BanksJ (2019) A perceived moral agency scale: development and validation of a metric for humans and social machines. Computers in Human Behavior90: 363–371.
7.
BeerD (2017) The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society20(1): 1–13.
8.
BergemannDBonattiAGanT (2022) The economics of social data. The RAND Journal of Economics53(2): 263–296.
9.
BermanRKatonaZ (2020) Curation algorithms and filter bubbles in social networks. Marketing Science39(2): 296–316.
10.
BishopS (2018) Anxiety, panic and self-optimization: inequalities and the YouTube algorithm. Convergence24(1): 69–84.
11.
BishopS (2019a) Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society21(11–12): 2589–2606.
12.
BishopS (2019b) Vlogging Parlance: Strategic Talking in Beauty Vlogs. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
13.
BishopS (2020) Algorithmic experts: selling algorithmic lore on YouTube. Social Media + Society6(1): 2056305119897323.
14.
BrattonBH (2016) The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
BraunVClarkeV (2012) Thematic analysis. In: CooperHCamicPSherK, et al (eds). APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology. Volume 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological. Washington, DC: APA Books, pp. 57–71.
16.
BrinkKAWellmanHM (2020) Robot teachers for children? Young children trust robots depending on their perceived accuracy and agency. Developmental Psychology56(7): 1268–1277.
17.
BucherT (2017) The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society20(1): 30–44.
18.
BunzM (2012) Die stille Revolution. Wie Algorithmen Wissen, Arbeit, Öffentlichkeit und Politik verändern, ohne dabei viel Lärm zu machen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
19.
BurkittI (2016) Relational agency: relational sociology, agency and interaction. European Journal of Social Theory19(3): 322–339.
20.
BurrellJFourcadeM (2021) The society of algorithms. Annual Review of Sociology47(3): 213–237.
21.
ButlerAECopnellBHallH (2018) The development of theoretical sampling in practice. Collegian25(5): 561–566.
22.
CarrCTHayesRA (2015) Social media: defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication23(1): 46–65.
23.
ChristinALewisR (2021) The drama of metrics: status, spectacle, and resistance among YouTube drama creators. Social Media + Society7(1): 1–14.
24.
CochoyFLicoppeCMcIntyreMP, et al (2020) Digitalizing consumer society: equipment and devices of digital consumption. Journal of Cultural Economy13(1): 1–11.
25.
CormenTHLeisersonCERivestRL, et al (2009) Introduction to Algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
CotterK (2019) Playing the visibility game: how digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society21(4): 895–913.
27.
CotterK (2024) Practical knowledge of algorithms: the case of BreadTube. New Media & Society26(4): 2131–2150.
28.
CotterKRitchartADeA, et al (2024) If you’re reading this, it’s meant for you: the reflexive ambivalence of algorithmic conspirituality. Convergence30(6): 1893–1918.
29.
CurchodCPatriottaGCohenL, et al (2020) Working for an algorithm: power asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Administrative Science Quarterly65(3): 644–676.
30.
DąbrowskaJAlmpanopoulouABremA, et al (2022) Digital transformation, for better or worse: a critical multi-level research agenda. R&D Management52(5): 930–954.
31.
DavisS (2023) What is Netflix imperialism? Interrogating the monopoly aspirations of the ‘World’s largest television network.’Information, Communication & Society26(6): 1143–1158.
32.
DeALuZ (2024) #PoetsOfInstagram: navigating the practices and challenges of novice poets on Instagram. In: Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 11–16 May, p. 162. New York: ACM.
33.
DeVitoMA (2021) Adaptive folk theorization as a path to algorithmic literacy on changing platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW2): 339.
34.
DeVosADhabaliaAShenH, et al (2022) Toward user-driven algorithm auditing: investigating users’ strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behavior. In: Proceedings of the 2022 chi conference on human factors in computing systems, New Orleans, LA, 29 April–5 May, p. 626. New York: ACM.
35.
DimriSCMalikPRamM (2021) Algorithms: Design and Analysis. Berlin; Boston, MA: de Gruyter.
36.
DorschelR (2022) Reconsidering digital labour: bringing tech workers into the debate. New Technology, Work and Employment37(2): 288–307.
37.
DuffyBE (2020) Algorithmic precarity in cultural work. Communication and the Public5(3–4): 103–107.
38.
DuffyBEMeisnerC (2023) Platform governance at the margins: social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility. Media Culture & Society45(2): 285–304.
39.
FuchsC (2014) Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime of time. Time & Society23(1): 97–123.
40.
FyfieldMHendersonMPhillipsM (2021) Navigating four billion videos: teacher search strategies and the YouTube algorithm. Learning, Media and Technology46(1): 47–59.
41.
GlaszeGCattaruzzaADouzetF, et al (2023) Contested spatialities of digital sovereignty. Geopolitics28(2): 919–958.
42.
GranA-BBoothPBucherT (2021) To be or not to be algorithm aware: a question of a new digital divide?Information, Communication & Society24(12): 1779–1796.
43.
GrayLMWong-WylieGRempelGR, et al (2020) Expanding qualitative research interviewing strategies: zoom video communications. The Qualitative Report25(5): 1292–1301.
44.
GruberJHargittaiE (2023) The importance of algorithm skills for informed Internet use. Big Data & Society10(1): 20539517231168100.
45.
HabibGSharmaSIbrahimS, et al (2022) Blockchain technology: benefits, challenges, applications, and integration of blockchain technology with cloud computing. Future Internet14(11): 341.
HödlTMyrachT (2023) Content creators between platform control and user autonomy. Business & Information Systems Engineering65(5): 497–519.
48.
HortensiusRHekeleFCrossES (2018) The perception of emotion in artificial agents. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems10(4): 852–864.
49.
KaiserJRauchfleischA (2020) Birds of a feather get recommended together: algorithmic homophily in YouTube’s channel recommendations in the United States and Germany. Social Media + Society6(4): 2056305120969914.
50.
KangHLouC (2022) AI agency vs. human agency: understanding human–AI interactions on TikTok and their implications for user engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27: zmac014.
51.
KingsleySSinhaPWangC, et al (2022) “Give everybody [..] a little bit more equity”: content creator perspectives and responses to the algorithmic demonetization of content associated with disadvantaged groups. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6(CSCW2): 424.
52.
KitchinR (2017) Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society20(1): 14–29.
53.
KlawitterEHargittaiE (2018) “It’s Like learning a whole other language”: the role of algorithmic skills in the curation of creative goods. International Journal of Communication12(0): 3490–3510.
54.
KlingerUSvenssonJ (2018) The end of media logics? On algorithms and agency. New Media & Society20(12): 4653–4670.
55.
KotrasB (2020) Mass personalization: predictive marketing algorithms and the reshaping of consumer knowledge. Big Data & Society7(2): 205395172095158.
56.
LamMSPanditAKalickiCH, et al (2023) Sociotechnical audits: broadening the algorithm auditing lens to investigate targeted advertising. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7(CSCW2): 360.
57.
LatourB (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
LuptonD (2016) The Quantified Self. Bristol: Polity Press.
59.
MaRKouY (2021) “How advertiser-friendly is my video?” YouTuber’s socioeconomic interactions with algorithmic content moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW2): 429.
60.
MaRKouY (2022) “I am not a YouTuber who can make whatever video I want. I have to keep appeasing algorithms”: bureaucracy of creator moderation on YouTube. In: Companion publication of the 2022 conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Virtual Event, Taiwan, 8–22 November, pp. 8–13. New York: ACM.
61.
MacDonaldTW (2021) “How it actually works”: algorithmic lore videos as market devices. New Media & Society25(6): 14614448211021404.
62.
MauS (2019) The Metric Society: On the Quantification of the Social. London: Wiley.
63.
McCarthyJ (1959) Programs with Common Sense: Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of Thought Processes (Proceedings). Teddington: National Physical Laboratory.
64.
MohriMRostamizadehATalwalkarA (2018) Foundations of Machine Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65.
MonahanTMurakami WoodD (2018) Ubiquitous surveillance. In: MonahanTMurakami WoodD (eds) Surveillance Studies: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 239–242.
66.
NeylandDMöllersN (2017) Algorithmic IF . . . THEN rules and the conditions and consequences of power. Information, Communication & Society20(1): 45–62.
67.
Oeldorf-HirschANeubaumG (2023) What do we know about algorithmic literacy? The status quo and a research agenda for a growing field. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 1 July. DOI: 10.1177/14614448231182662.
68.
OliffeJLKellyMTGonzalez MontanerG, et al (2021) Zoom interviews: benefits and concessions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods20: 16094069211053522.
PetreCDuffyBEHundE (2019) “Gaming the system”: platform Paternalism and the politics of algorithmic visibility. Social Media + Society5(4): 2056305119879995.
71.
RachM (2021) A qualitative study on the behavioral impact of TikTok’s platform mechanics on economically driven content creators. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity11(4): 146–150.
72.
RagneddaMRuiuMLAddeoF (2022) The self-reinforcing effect of digital and social exclusion: the inequality loop. Telematics and Informatics72: 101852.
RiederBMatamoros-FernándezACorominaÒ (2018) From ranking algorithms to “ranking cultures” Investigating the modulation of visibility in YouTube search results. Convergence24(1): 50–68.
75.
SallesAEversKFariscoM (2020) Anthropomorphism in AI. AJOB Neuroscience11(2): 88–95.
76.
SavolainenLRuckensteinM (2024) Dimensions of autonomy in human–algorithm relations. New Media & Society26: 3472–3490.
77.
SeeberIWaizeneggerLSeidelS, et al (2020) Collaborating with technology-based autonomous agents: issues and research opportunities. Internet Research30(1): 1–18.
78.
ShahinSNakaharaJSánchezM (2024) Black Lives Matter goes global: connective action meets cultural hybridity in Brazil, India, and Japan. New Media & Society26(1): 216–235.
79.
SharmaSRanaVMalhotraM (2022) Automatic recommendation system based on hybrid filtering algorithm. Education and Information Technologies27(2): 1523–1538.
80.
ShinD (2022) The perception of humanness in conversational journalism: an algorithmic information-processing perspective. New Media & Society24(12): 2680–2704.
81.
SilvaDEChenCZhuY (2024) Facets of algorithmic literacy: information, experience, and individual factors predict attitudes toward algorithmic systems. New Media & Society26: 2992–3017.
82.
SinglerB (2020) “Blessed by the algorithm”: theistic conceptions of artificial intelligence in online discourse. Ai & Society35(4): 945–955.
83.
SlackJDWiseJM (2015) Culture and Technology: A Primer. New York: Peter Lang.
84.
SpachosPPlataniotisK (2020) BLE Beacons in the Smart City: applications, challenges, and research opportunities. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine3(1): 14–18.
85.
SrbaIMoroRTomleinM, et al (2023) Auditing YouTube’s recommendation algorithm for misinformation filter bubbles. ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems1(1): 6.
86.
SrnicekN (2017) The challenges of platform capitalism: understanding the logic of a new business model. Juncture23(4): 254–257.
87.
SundarSS (2020) Rise of machine agency: a framework for studying the psychology of Human–AI Interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(1): 74–88.
88.
TarnoffBWeigelM (2020) Voices from the Valley: Tech Workers Talk About What They Do and How They Do It. New York: FSG Originals.
89.
TaylorSHBrisiniKSC (2024) Parenting the TikTok algorithm: an algorithm awareness as process approach to online risks and opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior150: 107975.
90.
Van DijckJ (2021) Seeing the forest for the trees: visualizing platformization and its governance. New Media & Society23(9): 2801–2819.
91.
VerbeekP-P (2014) Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In: KroesPVerbeekP-P (eds) The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 75–88.
92.
VerwiebeRHagemannS (2024) Bourdieu revisited: new forms of digital capital—emergence, reproduction, inequality of distribution. Information, Communication & Society27: 1–23.
93.
WayneMLUribe SandovalAC (2023) Netflix original series, global audiences and discourses of streaming success. Critical Studies in Television18(1): 81–100.
94.
WitzelA (2000) The problem-centered interview. Forum Qualitative Social Research1(1): 22.
95.
WitzelAReiterH (2012) The Problem-Centred Interview. London: Sage.
96.
WuEYPedersenESalehiN (2019) Agent, gatekeeper, drug dealer: how content creators craft algorithmic personas. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3(CSCW): 219.
97.
YuBVahidovRKerstenGE (2021) Acceptance of technological agency: beyond the perception of utilitarian value. Information & Management58(7): 103503.
98.
ZuboffS (2023) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. 3rd ed.New York: Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
