Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility

Abstract

While champions of the “new” creative economy consistently hype the career possibilities furnished by YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and the like, critics have cast a spotlight on the less auspicious elements of platform-dependent creative labor: exploitation, insecurity, and a culture of overwork. Social media creators are, moreover, beholden to the vagaries of platforms’ “inscrutable” socio-technical systems, particularly the algorithms that enable (or – conversely – thwart) their visibility. This article draws upon in-depth interviews with 30 social media creators – sampled from historically marginalized identities and/or stigmatized content genres – to explore their perceptions of, and experiences with, algorithmic (in)visibility. Together, their accounts evince a shared understanding that platforms enact governance unevenly – be it through formal (human and/or automated content moderation) or informal (shadowbans, biased algorithmic boosts) means. Creators’ understandings are implicated in experiential practices ranging from self-censorship to concerted efforts to circumvent algorithmic intervention. In closing, we consider how the regimes of discipline and punishment that structure the social media economy systematically disadvantage marginalized creators and cultural expressions deemed non-normative.

The Emotional and Financial Impact of De-Platforming on Creators at the Margins

“…A recurring theme in users’ experiences of de-platforming is the loss of income and work opportunities arising from the deletion of their profile and content and from platforms’ opaque moderation in general. Consistent with previous research on the creator economy (Bishop, 2019; Duffy, 2020; Duffy & Meisner, 2022; Glatt, 2022), participants reported that being tied to platforms’ whims resulted in work instability and precarity, forcing them to rely on the “algorithmic boss” (Duffy, 2020, p. 103) and with many reporting significant financial losses as some of the most crippling and challenging effects of de-platforming. Some went as far as claiming to have lost thousands in earnings in the aftermath of their accounts’ deletions:[M]y photography work went from several thousand a month to near zero.…”

“…Brands or workplaces that seek out content creators and influencers also use a large following as a proxy measure of success (García-Rapp, 2017; Glatt, 2022). This inevitably means that creators’ success is almost synonymous with visibility (Duffy & Meisner, 2022) and relies upon metrics such as views and following (Banet-Weiser, 2018). As such, losing profiles built through years of digital labor to then have to start again is a severe reputational blow that, according to participants, has cost them work and opportunities.…”

“…Instagram and TikTok are largely free-to-use, high-profile social networks providing professional content creators with significant opportunities to maintain networks, promote work, express themselves, and earn a livelihood (Duffy, 2020; Duffy & Meisner, 2022). However, despite promoting equal access to the benefits of the creator economy, the same platforms are also subject to governance procedures that stigmatize certain forms of work and that can severely disrupt certain forms of content creation, particularly those by users who post nudity or sex work (Are & Paasonen, 2021; Blunt & Wolf, 2020).…”

“…However, these new forms of creator labor have also escalated workers’ precarity (Duffy, 2020; Duffy & Meisner, 2022; Easterbrook-Smith, 2022; Glatt, 2022). Those working through social networks are part of the “gig” or “platform economy,” an “insecure, often short-term or piecemeal, employment, frequently facilitated by a platform or app” (Easterbrook-Smith, 2022, p. 3).…”

Social media, self-harm, and suicide: we should be promoting research informed decision making about how and what to regulate

“…A central issue is social media algorithms that increase duration and intensity of exposure in ways that can be opaque to users 5. Neither in government statements nor elsewhere are there specific suggestions about what limits should be set on these quantitative aspects of social media viewing.…”