CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Algorithmic attention rents: A theory of digital platform market power

O’Reilly, Tim, Strauss, Ilan, Mazzucato, Mariana·2024·Data & Policy
DOI 10.1017/dap.2024.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We outline a theory of algorithmic attention rents in digital aggregator platforms. We explore the way that as platforms grow, they become increasingly capable of extracting rents from a variety of actors in their ecosystems—users, suppliers, and advertisers—through their algorithmic control over user attention. We focus our analysis on advertising business models, in which attention harvested from users is monetized by reselling the attention to suppliers or other advertisers, though we believe the theory has relevance to other online business models as well. We argue that regulations should mandate the disclosure of the operating metrics that platforms use to allocate user attention and shape the “free” side of their marketplace, as well as details on how that attention is monetized.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/dap.2024.1

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Begent, 2013, OECD roundtable on the role and measurement of quality in competition analysis (UK contribution), Competititon Law Journal, 12, 452
  2. Foley, 2008, Adam’s Fallacy: A Guide to Economic Theology, 10.2307/j.ctvh9w031 · DOI
  3. Hovenkamp, 2020, Antitrust and platform monopoly, Yale Law Journal, 130, 1952
  4. Newman, 2015, Antitrust in zero-Price markets: Foundations, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164, 149
  5. Simon, HA (1995) The information-processing theory of mind. The American Psychologist 50.7. · DOI
  6. Srinivasan, 2019, The antitrust case against Facebook: A Monopolist’s journey towards pervasive surveillance in spite of consumers’ preference for privacy, Berkeley Business Law Journal, 16, 39
  7. Samuelson, 2010, Economics
  8. Rochet, 2006, Two-sided markets: A progress report, The Rand Journal of Economics, 37, 645, 10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x · DOI · Paper page
  9. Simon, 1978a, (ed.), Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes, 271
  10. Simon, 1978b, Rationality as process and as product of thought, The American Economic Review, 68, 1
  11. Schumpeter, 2013, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 10.4324/9780203202050 · DOI
  12. Areeda, 2023, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and their Application
  13. Ryan-Collins, 2017, Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing
  14. Zuboff, 2019, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power
  15. Keane, 2006, Modeling result-list searching in the world wide web: The role of relevance topologies and trust bias, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28, 1
  16. Blaug, 1997, Economic Theory in Retrospect, 10.1017/CBO9780511805639 · DOI
  17. Mazzucato, 2018, The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy
  18. Rock, R , Strauss, I , O’Reilly, T and Mazzucato, M (2023) Behind the Clicks: Can Amazon Allocate User Attention as it Pleases? UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper Series (IIPP WP 2023-11). UCL IIPP Working Paper. Available at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/publicpurpose/research/digital-economy-and-algorithmic-rents/algorithmic-attention-rents. (accessed 26 January 2024) · DOI
  19. Stone, 2021, Amazon Unbound
  20. Robinson, 2001, The Economics of Imperfect Competition
  21. Strandburg, 2013, Free fall: The online market’s consumer preference disconnect the frontiers of consumer protection, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2013, 95
  22. Newell, A and Simon, HA (1975) Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. ACM Turing award lectures. · DOI
  23. Simon, 1971, Designing organizations for an information-rich world, Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest, 72, 37
  24. Simon, 1997, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations
  25. Boyce, 2022, The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of the Environment
  26. Standing, 2016, The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class
  27. Simon, 2017, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 1
  28. Piketty, 2014, Capital in the 21st Century, 10.4159/9780674369542 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Brin, 1998, The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web, Proceedings of ASIS, 98, 161
  30. Behringer, 2015, Areeda–turner in two-sided markets, Review of Industrial Organization, 46, 287, 10.1007/s11151-015-9460-5 · DOI
  31. Hayek, 1945, The use of knowledge in society, The American Economic Review, 35, 519
  32. Wang, 2018, Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. WSDM ’18, 610, 10.1145/3159652.3159732 · DOI
  33. Weyl, 2010, A price theory of multi-sided platforms, American Economic Review, 100, 1642, 10.1257/aer.100.4.1642 · DOI
  34. Albrecht, 2016, How the GDPR will change the world, European Data Protection Law Review, 2, 287, 10.21552/EDPL/2016/3/4 · DOI
  35. Petit, 2020, Big Tech and the Digital Economy: The Moligopoly Scenario, 10.1093/oso/9780198837701.001.0001 · DOI
  36. Stiglitz, 2019, People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent
  37. Tirole, 2017, Economics for the Common Good, 10.2307/j.ctvc77hng · DOI
  38. Yue, 2010, ACM: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, 1011, 10.1145/1772690.1772793 · DOI
  39. Jullien, 2021, Handbook of Industrial Organization, 4, 485
  40. Hohnhold, 2015, Proceedings 21st Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
  41. Keane, 2008, Are people biased in their use of search engines?, Communications of the ACM, 51, 49, 10.1145/1314215.1314224 · DOI
  42. Choudhury, 2023, Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of ChatGPT: Survey analysis, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e47184, 10.2196/47184 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Kahneman, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow
  44. Sen, 2017, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 1
  45. Mazzucato, 2023, Regulating big tech: The role of enhanced disclosures, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 39, 47, 10.1093/oxrep/grac040 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Simon, 1955, A behavioral model of rational choice, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99, 10.2307/1884852 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Hwang, 2020, Subprime Attention Crisis: Advertising and the Time Bomb at the Heart of the Internet
  48. Joachims, 2017, Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 781, 10.1145/3018661.3018699 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Alchian, 2017, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 1
  50. Craswell, 2008, Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. WSDM ’08, 87
  51. Petit, N and Teece, DJ (2020) Taking ecosystems competition seriously in the digital economy: A (preliminary) dynamic competition/capabilities perspective. OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee. Available at https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2020)90/en/pdf. (accessed 26 January 2024) · DOI
  52. Christophers, 2020, Rentier Capitalism: Who Owns the Economy and Who Pays for it?
  53. Whish, 2021, Competition Law, 10.1093/he/9780198836322.001.0001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 37

Metadata

Authors
O’Reilly, T., Strauss, I., & Mazzucato, M.
Venue
Data & Policy
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2024
Volume
6
ISSN
2632-3249
DOI
10.1017/dap.2024.1
Cited by
37
References
6
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (unspecified, 32 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review