“Algorithmic Social Knowledge”——Algorithmic Interpretation and Collective Knowledge Construction of Short-video Content Creators

LAI Chuyao

Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2022, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (12) : 109-131.

PDF(1581 KB)
PDF(1581 KB)
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2022, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (12) : 109-131.
Research Articles

“Algorithmic Social Knowledge”——Algorithmic Interpretation and Collective Knowledge Construction of Short-video Content Creators

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Algorithm has become a cultural logic in today’s world. Due to the structural concealment of algorithm technology, the algorithmic knowledge is framed as pure technical expertise of the system, which ignores the social interpretation of algorithm. In a dialogue with previous studies on user perception of algorithms and the sociology of knowledge, this study conceptualizes “algorithmic social knowledge” to refer to the interpretation of algorithm-related problems that users collectively construct in algorithm-structured social media, as opposed to technical algorithmic knowledge. Through the online and offline ethnography of short-video content creators, this study reveals the process by which algorithmic knowledge fragments emerge from specific everyday situations of algorithm-user interaction, where these fragments can be distinguished as operational and prescriptive. These algorithmic knowledge fragments are collaged in relation by means of “private verification”, and are collectively constructed as “algorithmic social knowledge” in the loose folk algorithmic knowledge community. “Algorithmic social knowledge”, as social rather than cognitive knowledge, guides people to negotiate the relationship with the algorithm to develop the action strategy. Therefore, it is incorporated into the recursive feedback loop of the algorithm and changes rapidly with the whole unstable algorithm ecology.

Key words

algorithmic knowledge / knowledge community / everyday situation / knowledge construction / Short-video content creator

Cite this article

Download Citations
LAI Chuyao. “Algorithmic Social Knowledge”——Algorithmic Interpretation and Collective Knowledge Construction of Short-video Content Creators[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2022, 44(12): 109-131

References

[1]
彼得·伯格, 托马斯·卢克曼(1966/2019). 《现实的社会建构》(吴肃然,李钧鹏译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[2]
陈向明(2000). 《质的研究方法与社会科学研究》. 北京: 教育科学出版社.
[3]
陈阳, 吕行(2022). 控制的辩证法:农村青少年的短视频平台推荐算法抵抗——基于“理性—非理性”双重中介路径的考察. 《新闻记者》(7),71-87.
[4]
卡尔·曼海姆(1929/2002). 《意识形态与乌托邦》(黎鸣,李书崇译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[5]
科西莫·亚卡托(2018/2021). 《数据时代:可编程未来的哲学指南》(何道宽译). 北京: 中国大百科全书出版社.
[6]
迈克尔·波兰尼(1958/2017). 《个人知识:迈向后批判哲学》(徐陶译). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[7]
迈克尔·马尔凯(1979/2001). 《科学与知识社会学》(林聚任译). 北京: 东方出版社.
[8]
潘霁(2021年11月11日).与黑盒共舞:算法研究的方法论转型.《中国社会科学报》,007.
[9]
孙萍, 邱林川, 于海青 (2021). 平台作为方法:劳动,技术与传播. 《新闻与传播研究》,(S1),8-24+126.
[10]
王佳鹏(2021). 知识的起源、碰撞与综合——曼海姆的知识传播思想及其贡献. 《国际新闻界》,(7),80-98..
[11]
威廉·詹姆斯(1890/2013). 《心理学原理》(唐钺译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[12]
张萌 (2022). 从规训到控制:算法社会的技术幽灵与底层战术. 《国际新闻界》,(1),156-176.
[13]
张伟伟(2018). “实践知识”与“表象知识”——作为“知识”的新闻与媒介社会学的研究演进. 《新闻记者》,(9),56-66.
[14]
Amoore L., & Piotukh V. (2015). Algorithmic Life: Calculative Devices in the Age of Big Data. London, UK: Routledge.
[15]
Beer D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1-13.
[16]
Bilić P. (2015). ‘Searching for a centre that holds’ in the network society: Social construction of knowledge on, and with, English Wikipedia. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1258-1276.
[17]
Bishop S. (2019). Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society, 21(11/12), 2589-2606.
Beauty vloggers’ feminised outputs often position them outside of traditional spheres of technical expertise, however, their strategic management of algorithmic visibility makes them an illuminating source of algorithmic knowledge. I draw from an ethnography of beauty vloggers and industry stakeholders to study the collaborative and directive processes used to formulate and sustain algorithmic expertise – algorithmic gossip. Algorithmic gossip is defined as communally and socially informed theories and strategies pertaining to recommender algorithms, shared and implemented to engender financial consistency and visibility on algorithmically structured social media platforms. Gossip is productive: community communication and talk informs and supports practices such as uploading frequently and producing feminised beauty content to perform more effectively on YouTube. Taking gossip seriously can present a valuable resource for revealing information about how algorithms work and have worked, in addition to revealing how perceptions of algorithms inform content production.
[18]
Bishop S. (2020). Algorithmic experts: Selling algorithmic lore on YouTube. Social Media+Society, 6(1), 2056305119897323.
[19]
Blank G., & Dutton W. H. (2012). Age and trust in the Internet: The centrality of experience and attitudes toward technology in Britain. Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 135-151.
The authors describe changes in user’s trust on the Internet in Britain between 2003 and 2009, and show how the relationship between age and trust can be explained by a combination of experience with the Internet and general attitudes toward technology. The comparison uses 2003 results reported by Dutton and Shepherd (2006) versus similarly sampled 2009 data. The authors examine two sets of dependent variables—perceptions of trust and risk on the Internet and use of the Internet for e-commerce, an anticipated impact of trust. The authors find that indicators of trust are related to experience with the technology, although this relationship is less important in 2009 than it was in 2003. The authors also find that trust is influenced by general attitudes toward technology. When both experience on the Internet and technology attitudes are controlled, the relation between indicators of trust and age disappears. This finding is particularly interesting since age is usually an important predictor of many aspects of the Internet; it suggests that the role of age can be mitigated by addressing the degree to which older individuals tend to have less experience with the Internet and more scepticism about the role of technology in society. Interventions could address both of these determinants of distrust.
[20]
Bucher T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164-1180.
This article explores the new modalities of visibility engendered by new media, with a focus on the social networking site Facebook. Influenced by Foucault’s writings on Panopticism – that is, the architectural structuring of visibility – this article argues for understanding the construction of visibility on Facebook through an architectural framework that pays particular attention to underlying software processes and algorithmic power. Through an analysis of EdgeRank, the algorithm structuring the flow of information and communication on Facebook’s ‘News Feed’, I argue that the regime of visibility constructed imposes a perceived ‘threat of invisibility’ on the part of the participatory subject. As a result, I reverse Foucault’s notion of surveillance as a form of permanent visibility, arguing that participatory subjectivity is not constituted through the imposed threat of an all-seeing vision machine, but by the constant possibility of disappearing and becoming obsolete.
[21]
Bucher T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30-44.
[22]
Bucher T. (2018). Cleavage control:Three stories about algorithmic culture and power in the case of the YouTube ‘reply girls. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self and platforms, stories, connections (pp.141-159). London, UK: Routledge.
[23]
Clarke A. E., & Star S. L. (2008). The social worlds framework: A theory/methods package. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3, 113-137.
[24]
Cotter K. (2019). Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society, 21(4), 1-19.
[25]
Cotter K. (2022). Practical knowledge of algorithms: The case of BreadTube. New Media & Society, 14614448221081802.
[26]
Cotter K.,& Reisdorf B. (2020). Algorithmic knowledge gaps: A new horizon of (digital) inequality. International Journal of Communication, 14, 745-765.
[27]
de Peuter G., Cohen N. S. (2015). Emerging labour politics in creative industries. In: OakleyK.,& O’Connor J.(Eds.). The Routledge Companion to the Cultural Industries (pp.305-318). London, UK: Routledge.
[28]
DeVito M. A. (2021). Adaptive Folk Theorization as a Path to Algorithmic Literacy on Changing Platforms. Paper presented at the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. New York.
[29]
DeVito M. A., Gergle D., & Birnholtz J. (2017). “Algorithms ruin everything” # RIPTwitter, Folk Theories, and Resistance to Algorithmic Change in Social Media. Paper presented at the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Denver.
[30]
Diakopoulos N. (2013). Algorithmic accountability reporting: On the investigation of black boxes. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7916/D8ZK5TW2.
[31]
Dogruel L. (2021). Folk theories of algorithmic operations during Internet use: A mixed methods study. The Information Society, 37(5), 287-298.
[32]
Eslami M., Rickman A., Vaccaro K., Aleyasen A., Vuong A., Karahalios K., Hamilton K., & Sandvig C. (2015). “I always assumed that I wasn’t really that close to [her]” Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds. Paper presented at the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. New York.
[33]
French M., & Hancock J. (2017). What’s the folk theory? Reasoning about cyber-social systems. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2910571.
[34]
Galloway A. R. (2006). Gaming:Essays on Algorithmic Culture. Minneapolis, MND: University of Minnesota Press.
[35]
Gillespie T. (2017). Algorithmically recognizable: Santorum’s Google problem, and Google’s Santorum problem. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 63-80.
[36]
Gran A. B., Booth P., & Bucher T. (2021). To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide?. Information, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1779-1796.
[37]
Jackson P. T. (2008). Foregrounding ontology: Dualism, monism, and IR theory. Review of International Studies, 34(1), 129-153.
While the recent proliferation in philosophical discussions in International Relations indicates a welcome increase in the discipline’s conceptual sophistication, a central issue has gone relatively unremarked: the question of how to understand the relationship between scholarly observers and their observed objects. This classical philosophical problem has a number of implications for the conduct of inquiry in the discipline, and raises particular challenges for the status of knowledge-claims advanced by constructivists. I clarify these issues and challenges by distinguishing between ‘dualist’ and ‘monist’ ontological standpoints, in the hope of provoking a more focused philosophical discussion.
[38]
Kitchin R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information Communication & Society, 20(1), 14-29.
[39]
Kropotkin P. (1987). Mutual aid:A Factor of Evolution. London, UK: Freedom Press.
[40]
Lai C. (2022). The making of a livestreaming village: algorithmic practices and place-making in North Xiazhu. Chinese Journal of Communication, 15(4), 489-511.
[41]
Lévy P. (2001). Cyberculture, Minneapolis, MND: University of Minnesota Press.
[42]
Lomborg S., & Kapsch P. H. (2020). Decoding algorithms. Media, Culture & Society, 42(5), 745-761.
[43]
Nordmann A. (2006). Collapse of distance: Epistemic strategies of science and technoscience. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, (41), 7-34.
[44]
Park R. E. (1940). News as a Form of Knowledge: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge. American Journal of Sociology, 45(5), 669-686.
[45]
Pasquale F. (2015). The black box society:The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
[46]
Proferes N. (2017). Information flow solipsism in an exploratory study of beliefs about Twitter. Social Media+ Society, 3(1), 2056305117698493.
[47]
Rader E., & Gray R. (2015). Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the Facebook news feed. Paper presented at the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. New York.
[48]
Ryle G. (1945). Knowing how and knowing that: The presidential address. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 46, 1-16.
[49]
Schellewald A. (2022). Theorizing “Stories About Algorithms” as a mechanism in the formation and maintenance of algorithmic imaginaries. Social Media+ Society, 8(1), 20563051221077025.
[50]
Seaver N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 205395171773810-205395171773812.
[51]
Seaver N. (2019). Knowing algorithms. In Vertesi, J., & Ribes, D. (Eds.). Digital STS:A Field Guide for Science & Technology Studies (pp.412-422). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[52]
Siles I., Segura-Castillo A., Solís R., & Sancho M. (2020). Folk theories of algorithmic recommendations on Spotify: Enacting data assemblages in the global South. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 2053951720923377.
[53]
Sun P. (2019). Your order, their labor: An exploration of algorithms and laboring on food delivery platforms in China. Chinese Journal of Communication, 12(3), 308-323.
[54]
Turk V. (2019). What happened when I let algorithms run my life for a week. Retrieved from https://www.wired.co.uk/article/algorithm-decision-making.
[55]
Willson M. (2017). Algorithms (and the) everyday. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 137-150.
[56]
Yang P., & Tang L. (2018). “Positive Energy”: Hegemonic intervention and online media discourse in China’s Xi Jinping Era. China: An International Journal, 16(1), 1-22.
[57]
Ytre-Arne B., & Moe H. (2021). Folk theories of algorithms: Understanding digital irritation. Media, Culture & Society, 43(5), 807-824.
[58]
Zhang W., Chen Z., & Xi Y. (2020). Traffic media: How algorithmic imaginations and practices change content production. Chinese Journal of Communication, 14(1), 58-74.

Footnotes

1. XK记录的数据是指他在抖音创作服务平台的创作者界面中能够看到的数据。抖音、快手、哔哩哔哩等视频社交平台都有类似的后台数据服务功能。用户在后台即可观察到作品的数据反馈情况和变化。

2. 一种统计方法,用于将两种或多种技术进行比较,通常是将当前采用的技术与新技术进行比较。A/B测试不仅旨在确定哪种技术的效果更好,而且还有助于了解相应差异是否具有显著的统计意义。A/B测试通常是采用一种衡量方式对两种技术进行比较,但也适用于任意有限数量的技术和衡量方式。参考来源: https://developers.google.cn/machine-learning/glossary?hl=zh-CN.

Funding

fourth batch of new media series projects of the School of Journalism of Fudan University, “Platformization and Aesthetic Public: Media Entertainment Research from the Perspective of Public Communication”
PDF(1581 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/