When Stories Turn Institutional: How TikTok Users Legitimate the Algorithmic Sensemaking

IF 5.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Dragoș M. Obreja
{"title":"When Stories Turn Institutional: How TikTok Users Legitimate the Algorithmic Sensemaking","authors":"Dragoș M. Obreja","doi":"10.1177/20563051231224114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Educational, political, or moral/religious content is increasingly present on TikTok, so contemporary social dynamics legitimize the process of digital mediation regarding these institutional values. Based on 286 open-ended survey answers and subsequent interviews with 45 Romanian TikTok users, this article applies social constructivism to explore the intersubjective side of algorithmic experiences. The significance of such a framework lies in its ability to elucidate the manner in which users actively construct their social environments, which may initially appear as isolated individual experiences but ultimately unveil shared algorithmic interpretations. Thus, the participants highlight three recurrent institutional themes in relation to TikTok’s algorithm: (1) algorithm as political profiling, (2) algorithm as moral plethora, and (3) algorithm as educational benchmark. Findings show that users’ stories related to algorithms are widely conceived within institutional frameworks. These narratives play a role in shaping what Berger and Luckmann call “intersubjective sedimentation” within the intricate interconnection between institutional and algorithmic realities. The ways in which TikTok users legitimize the presence of these institutional actors on their For You page should be seen as a form of agency negotiation between users and machines. The legitimating role of stories about algorithms also highlights the institutional necessity of intergenerational socialization, which is why the contents made by such institutional actors are more and more actively mediated through TikTok.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Media + Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231224114","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Educational, political, or moral/religious content is increasingly present on TikTok, so contemporary social dynamics legitimize the process of digital mediation regarding these institutional values. Based on 286 open-ended survey answers and subsequent interviews with 45 Romanian TikTok users, this article applies social constructivism to explore the intersubjective side of algorithmic experiences. The significance of such a framework lies in its ability to elucidate the manner in which users actively construct their social environments, which may initially appear as isolated individual experiences but ultimately unveil shared algorithmic interpretations. Thus, the participants highlight three recurrent institutional themes in relation to TikTok’s algorithm: (1) algorithm as political profiling, (2) algorithm as moral plethora, and (3) algorithm as educational benchmark. Findings show that users’ stories related to algorithms are widely conceived within institutional frameworks. These narratives play a role in shaping what Berger and Luckmann call “intersubjective sedimentation” within the intricate interconnection between institutional and algorithmic realities. The ways in which TikTok users legitimize the presence of these institutional actors on their For You page should be seen as a form of agency negotiation between users and machines. The legitimating role of stories about algorithms also highlights the institutional necessity of intergenerational socialization, which is why the contents made by such institutional actors are more and more actively mediated through TikTok.
当故事变成制度:TikTok 用户如何使算法感知合法化
教育、政治或道德/宗教内容越来越多地出现在 TikTok 上,因此当代社会动态使有关这些制度价值的数字中介过程合法化。本文基于 286 份开放式调查问卷以及随后对 45 名罗马尼亚 TikTok 用户的访谈,运用社会建构主义探讨了算法体验的主体间性。这一框架的意义在于它能够阐明用户积极构建其社会环境的方式,这种方式最初可能表现为孤立的个人体验,但最终会揭示出共同的算法解释。因此,与会者强调了与 TikTok 算法有关的三个经常性制度主题:(1) 作为政治貌相的算法,(2) 作为道德泛滥的算法,以及 (3) 作为教育基准的算法。研究结果表明,用户与算法相关的故事在制度框架内被广泛构思。这些叙事在形成伯杰和勒克曼所说的 "主体间沉淀 "方面发挥了作用,而 "主体间沉淀 "是制度与算法现实之间错综复杂的相互联系。TikTok 用户如何使这些机构行为者在他们的 "为你 "页面上的存在合法化,应被视为用户与机器之间的一种代理协商形式。关于算法的故事的合法化作用也凸显了代际社会化的制度必要性,这也是为什么这些制度行为者制作的内容越来越积极地通过 TikTok 进行传播的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Media + Society
Social Media + Society COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Media + Society is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that focuses on the socio-cultural, political, psychological, historical, economic, legal and policy dimensions of social media in societies past, contemporary and future. We publish interdisciplinary work that draws from the social sciences, humanities and computational social sciences, reaches out to the arts and natural sciences, and we endorse mixed methods and methodologies. The journal is open to a diversity of theoretic paradigms and methodologies. The editorial vision of Social Media + Society draws inspiration from research on social media to outline a field of study poised to reflexively grow as social technologies evolve. We foster the open access of sharing of research on the social properties of media, as they manifest themselves through the uses people make of networked platforms past and present, digital and non. The journal presents a collaborative, open, and shared space, dedicated exclusively to the study of social media and their implications for societies. It facilitates state-of-the-art research on cutting-edge trends and allows scholars to focus and track trends specific to this field of study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信