From Simplifying Algorithm to Auditing Algorithm: The Informal Algorithm Knowledge among Entrepreneurs from Live E-commerce Industry

DUAN Shichang

Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (4) : 52-71.

PDF(1822 KB)
PDF(1822 KB)
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (4) : 52-71.
Specific Topic/Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms Research

From Simplifying Algorithm to Auditing Algorithm: The Informal Algorithm Knowledge among Entrepreneurs from Live E-commerce Industry

Author information +
History +

Abstract

This study investigates the politics of visibility between platforms and laborers, starting with the algorithmic gossip among live e-commerce entrepreneurs. This research founds that, the content of algorithmic gossip can be divided into two parts: simplifying algorithms and auditing algorithms. The first part shows how entrepreneurs simplify rules and establish norms, including defining “traffic” in terms of digital identity and explicitly executing the “data-running” labor process of producing data through content production, real-time monitoring, and analyzing feedback. Auditing algorithms reflects entrepreneurs’ reinterpretation of the meaning of algorithms while rationalizing platform governance measures, evidenced by entrepreneurs’ auditing of algorithms for innovation, decentralization, and publicness. The article concludes by summarizing the theoretical value of algorithmic gossip in understanding the relationship between platforms and workers from marginal knowledge and the technological environment in general.

Key words

algorithm gossip / live e-commerce / platform / platform labor

Cite this article

Download Citations
DUAN Shichang. From Simplifying Algorithm to Auditing Algorithm: The Informal Algorithm Knowledge among Entrepreneurs from Live E-commerce Industry[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2024, 46(4): 52-71

References

[1]
阿克塞尔·霍耐特(2022). 《劳动:一个现代概念的简史》. 《国外理论动态》,(6),50-59.
[2]
河源发布(2020). 《2020年淘宝村、淘宝镇名单公布!河源老隆镇、阳明镇、仙塘镇上榜》.检索于 https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_9037889.
[3]
阿里研究院(2021). 《2021年淘宝村名单出炉全国淘宝村数量已突破7000》.检索于 https://www.sohu.com/a/494475641_384789.
[4]
抖音电商(2021). 《抖音电商商家经营手册》.检索于 https://school.jinritemai.com/doudian/web/article/aHGffXmtj4Xn.
[5]
抖音电商(2022). 《抖音电商魏雯雯:全域兴趣电商为作者提供更大的舞台》.检索于 https://m.ebrun.com/507071.html.
[6]
抖音电商(2024). 《商家管理总则》.检索于 https://school.jinritemai.com/doudian/web/article/101663.
[7]
电商君(2023). 《2016-2023,直播电商发展简史》.检索于 https://www.dsb.cn/207940.html.
[8]
管泽旭, 张琳(2020). 阿里巴巴的进化史与小资本主义的平台化:对本土语境平台化的考察. 《国际新闻界》,(2),28-49.
[9]
皇甫博媛(2021). 算法崩溃时分:从可供性视角理解用户与算法的互动. 《新闻记者》,(4),55-64.
[10]
赫尔曼·鲍辛格(1986/2014). 《技术世界中的民俗文化》(户晓辉译). 广西: 广西师范大学出版社.
[11]
蓝江(2019). 数码身体、拟-生命与游戏生态学——游戏中的玩家-角色辩证法. 《探索与争鸣》,(4),75-83.
[12]
兰登·温纳(1978/2014). 《自主性技术》(杨海燕译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[13]
吕鹏, 周旅军, 范晓光(2022). 平台治理场域与社会学参与. 《社会学研究》,(3),68-91.
[14]
李红艳, 唐薇(2021). 人人在场:行政、资本与技术视野下的电商模式——基于M县级电商中心的案例研究. 《新闻与写作》,(6),52-59.
[15]
赖楚谣(2022). “算法的社会性知识”——短视频内容创作者的算法解释与知识的集体建构. 《国际新闻界》,(12),109-131.
[16]
陆玖商业评论(2022). 《抖音电商正在杀死抖音》.检索于 https://36kr.com/p/1802507371906056.
[17]
晚点(2023). 《晚点独家丨抖音电商多次调整组织,越来越像传统电商平台》.检索于 https://www.163.com/dy/article/I7A9R12M0531M1CO.html.
[18]
文森特·莫斯可(2004/2010). 《数字化崇拜》(黄典林译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[19]
王昀, 杨寒情(2023). 制造“乡愁”:乡村视频博主的内容生产与职业身份生成. 《社会学研究》,(1),205-225.
[20]
徐佩玉(2023年5月18日). 《直播带的不仅是货,还有就业岗位》. 《人民日报》,第4版.
[21]
许煜(2019/2020). 《递归与偶然》(苏子滢译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[22]
张萌, 杨家明(2023). 日常算法审计与基础设施修复. 《新闻大学》,(8),90-102.
[23]
周孟杰(2023). 返乡青年短视频实践的逻辑机制与数字内生性建构. 《中国青年研究》,(3),67-75.
[24]
中国互联网络信息中心(2023). 《第51次中国互联网络发展状况统计报告》.检索于 https://www.cnnic.cn/n4/2023/0303/c88-10757.html.
[25]
Adkins, K. C. (2002). The real dirt: Gossip and feminist epistemology. Social Epistemology, 16(3), 215-232.
[26]
Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985-1002.
[27]
Bishop, S. (2018). Anxiety, panic and self-optimization: Inequalities and the YouTube algorithm. Convergence, 24(1), 69-84.
[28]
Bishop, S. (2019). Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society, 21(11-12), 2589-2606.
[29]
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.
[30]
Bucher, T. (2016). Neither Black Nor Box: Ways of Knowing Algorithms. In Kubitschko, S., & Kaun, A. (Eds.). Innovative methods in media and communication research (pp. 81-98). Cham, CH: Palgrave Macmillan.
[31]
Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30-44.
[32]
Caplan, R., & Gillespie, T. (2020). Tiered governance and demonetization: The shifting terms of labor and compensation in the platform economy. Social Media + Society, 6(2), 1-13.
[33]
Cheney-Lippold, J. (2011). A new algorithmic identity: Soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(6), 164-181.
[34]
Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data:Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York, NY: New York University Press.
[35]
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
[36]
Cotter, K. (2019). Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society, 21(4), 895-913.
[37]
Cotter, K. (2022). Practical knowledge of algorithms: The case of BreadTube. New Media & Society, 26(4), 2131-2150.
[38]
Cotter, K. (2023). “Shadowbanning is not a thing”: Black box gaslighting and the power to independently know and credibly critique algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 26(6), 1226-1243.
[39]
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), 336-349.
[40]
Duffy, B. E. (2016). The romance of work: Gender and aspirational labour in the digital culture industries. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 19(4), 441-457.
[41]
Duffy, B. E. (2017). (Not) getting paid to do what you love:Gender, social media, and aspirational work. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[42]
Duffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2022). Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility. Media, Culture & Society, 45(2), 285-304.
[43]
Duan, S., Lin, J., & van Dijck, J. (2023). Producing new farmers in Chinese rural live e-commerce: Platformization, labor, and live e-commerce sellers in Huaiyang. Chinese Journal of Communication, 16(3), 250-266.
[44]
Geiger, R. S., Tandon, U., Gakhokidze, A., Song, L., & Irani, L. (2023). Making algorithms public: Reimagining auditing from matters of fact to matters of concern. International Journal of Communication, 18(0), 634-655.
[45]
Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348-1365.
[46]
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347-364.
[47]
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (Eds.). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[48]
Gray, J., Gerlitz, C., & Bounegru, L. (2018). Data infrastructure literacy. Big Data & Society, 5(2), 1-13.
[49]
Gray, M. L., & Suri, S. (2019). Ghost work:How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new G-lobal underclass. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
[50]
Havens, T. (2014). Media programming in an era of big data. Media Industries Journal, 1(2), 5-9.
[51]
Helmond, A. (2015). The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1-11.
[52]
Langlois, G., & Elmer, G. (2019). Impersonal subjectivation from platforms to infrastructures. Media, Culture & Society, 41(2), 236-251.
[53]
Manovich, L. (1999). Database as symbolic form. Convergence, 5(2), 80-99.
[54]
Marton, A., & Mariátegui, J. C. (2015). De/contextualizing information: The digitization of video editing practices at the BBC. The Information Society, 31(2), 106-120.
[55]
McRobbie, A. (1982). The politics of feminist research: Between talk, text and action. Feminist Review, 12(1), 46-57.
[56]
Meehan, R. (1986). Conceptualizing culture as commodity: The problem of television. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3(4), 448-457.
[57]
Mincy, R. (1993). The urban institute audit studies:Their research and policy context. In Fix, M., & Struyk, R. J. (Eds). Clear and convincing evidence: Measurement of discrimination in America (pp. 165-186). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
[58]
Natale, S. (2019). If software is narrative: Joseph Weizenbaum, artificial intelligence and the biographies of ELIZA. New Media & Society, 21(3): 712-728.
[59]
Nechushtai, E. (2018). Could digital platforms capture the media through infrastructure?. Journalism, 19(8), 1043-1058.
[60]
Nieborg, D. B., Duffy, B. E., & Poell, T. (2020). Studying platforms and cultural production: Methods, institutions, and practices. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 1-7.
[61]
O’Meara, V. (2019). Weapons of the chic: Instagram influencer engagement pods as practices of resistance to Instagram platform labor. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1-11.
[62]
Pager, D. (2009). Field experiments for studies of discrimination. In Hargittai, E. (Ed.). Research confidential: Solutions to problems most social scientists pretend they never have (pp. 38-60). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
[63]
Petre, C., Duffy, B. E., & Hund, E. (2019). “Gaming the system”: Platform paternalism and the politics of algorithmic visibility. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1-12.
[64]
Plantin, J. C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293-310.
[65]
Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & Duffy, B. E. (2021). Platforms and cultural production. Medford, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
[66]
Riach, P. A., & Rich, J. (2002). Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. The Economic Journal, 112(483), 480-518.
[67]
Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10(2016), 3735-3784.
[68]
Saha, A. (2018). Race and the cultural industries. Medford, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
[69]
Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K., & Langbort, C. (2014). Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on Internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry, 22(2014), 4349-4357.
[70]
Scholz, T. (2012). Why does digital labor matter now?. In Scholz, T. (Ed.). Digital labor:The Internet as playground and factory (pp.1-9). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
[71]
Schulz, C. (2023). A new algorithmic imaginary. Media, Culture & Society, 45(3), 646-655.
[72]
Scolere, L., Pruchniewska, U., & Duffy, B. E. (2018). Constructing the platform-specific selfbrand: The labor of social media promotion. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 1-11.
[73]
Seaver, N. (2019). Captivating algorithms: Recommender systems as traps. Journal of Material Culture, 24(4), 421-436.
[74]
Shen, H., DeVos, A., Eslami, M., & Holstein, K. (2021). Everyday algorithm auditing: Understanding the power of everyday users in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1-29.
[75]
Spacks, P. M. (2012). Gossip. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
[76]
Thompson, J. B. (2005). The new visibility. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), 31-51.
[77]
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society:Public values in a connective world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[78]
van Doorn, N. (2017). Platform labor: On the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service work in the ‘on-demand’ economy. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 898-914.
[79]
Vasudevan, K., & Chan, N. K. (2022). Gamification and work games: Examining consent and resistance among Uber drivers. New Media & Society, 24(4), 866-886.
[80]
Zhang, L. (2021). Platformizing family production: The contradictions of rural digital labor in China. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 32(3), 341-359.
[81]
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism:The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

Footnotes

1. 可以参见《GQ》关于一名淘宝头部主播的报道,其中有头部主播李佳琦强调努力劳动而非破解算法机制的表述。参见: https://tech.sina.cn/csj/2019-11-07/doc-iicezzrr7763380.d.html?vt=4&cid=38712。

2. 感谢操瑞青老师在乡村传播工作坊上提示这一点。

3. 就本文的报告人情况来看,创业者以男性为主,主导着关键的决策,尽管在直播团队中女性占大多数。这种现象需要从当地文化、社会结构另撰文专门论述。

4. 抖音除了娱乐直播、带货直播这两个基本的分类会影响抽成比例之外,在具体的内部,比如带货直播里面的珠宝、农产品之间也存在不同的抽成比例。

5. 感谢别君华老师在中国青年传播学者论坛上的建议。

PDF(1822 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/