The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ALGORITHMIC IDEOLOGY: How capitalist society shapes search engines
Abstract
This article investigates how the new spirit of capitalism gets inscribed in the fabric of search algorithms by way of social practices. Drawing on the tradition of the social construction of technology (SCOT) and 17 qualitative expert interviews it discusses how search engines and their revenue models are negotiated and stabilized in a network of actors and interests, website providers and users first and foremost. It further shows how corporate search engines and their capitalist ideology are solidified in a socio-political context characterized by a techno-euphoric climate of innovation and a politics of privatization. This analysis provides a valuable contribution to contemporary search engine critique mainly focusing on search engines' business models and societal implications. It shows that a shift of perspective is needed from impacts search engines have on society towards social practices and power relations involved in the construction of search engines to renegotiate search engines and their algorithmic ideology in the future.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Labor in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet
Fuchs, C. (2010) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972241003712215 · Cited by 630
Cited by
The social power of algorithms
Beer, D. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1216147 · Cited by 945
Algorithmic Accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures
Diakopoulos, N. (2015) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.976411 · Cited by 733
Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance
Shin, D., & Park, Y. J. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019 · Cited by 643
Algorithmic Transparency in the News Media
Diakopoulos, N., & Koliska, M. (2017) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2016.1208053 · Cited by 515
Toward an Ethics of Algorithms: Convening, Observation, Probability, and Timeliness
Ananny, M. (2016) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243915606523 · Cited by 395
The Challenges of Algorithm-Based HR Decision-Making for Personal Integrity
Leicht-Deobald, U., Busch, T., Schank, C., Weibel, A., Schafheitle, S., Wildhaber, I., & Kasper, G. (2019) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04204-w · Cited by 347
“I Just Google It”: Folk Theories of Distributed Discovery
Toff, B., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1093/joc/jqy009 · Cited by 270
Algorithmically recognizable: Santorum’s Google problem, and Google’s Santorum problem
Gillespie, T. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1199721 · Cited by 178
Between Subjectivity and Imposition: Power Dynamics in Data Annotation for Computer Vision
Miceli, M., Schuessler, M., & Yang, T. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3415186 · Cited by 149
Ageism in the era of digital platforms
Rosales, A., & Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2020) · Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/1354856520930905 · Cited by 137
Airoldi, M., & Rokka, J. (2022) · Consumption Markets & Culture · doi:10.1080/10253866.2022.2084726 · Cited by 111
Heuristics of the algorithm: Big Data, user interpretation and institutional translation
Bolin, G., & Andersson Schwarz, J. (2015) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951715608406 · Cited by 107
Whose AI Dream? In search of the aspiration in data annotation.
Wang, D., Prabhat, S., & Sambasivan, N. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502121 · Cited by 70
Lundahl, O. (2022) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2020.1864006 · Cited by 29
Bilić, P. (2018) · tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society · doi:10.31269/vol16iss1pp315-331 · Cited by 20
Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
Lewandowski, D. (2023) · Understanding Search Engines · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-22789-9_9 · Cited by 8
Power on": Googlecracy, privatisation and the standardisation of sources
Souto-Otero, M., & Beneito-Montagut, R. (2013) · Journal of Education Policy · doi:10.1080/02680939.2013.775347 · Cited by 7
My Entire Life is Online: Informed Consent, Big Data, and Decolonial Knowledge
O'Connell, A. (2016) · Intersectionalities: A Global Journal of Social Work Analysis, Research, Polity, and Practice · doi:10.48336/ijbioj2019 · Cited by 5
JASIST Special Issue Editorial: Re‐orienting search engine research in information science
Lewandowski, D., Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24845 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Mager, A.
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 769-787
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W3122247366
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 28.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.