Algorithmically recognizable: Santorum’s Google problem, and Google’s Santorum problem
Abstract
Because information algorithms make judgments that can have powerful consequences, those interested in having their information selected will orient themselves toward these algorithmic systems, making themselves algorithmically recognizable, in the hopes that they will be amplified by them. Examining this interplay, between information intermediaries and those trying to be seen by them, connects the study of algorithmic systems to long-standing concerns about the power of intermediaries – not an algorithmic power, uniquely, but the power to grant visibility and certify meaning, and the challenge of discerning who to grant it to and why. Here, I consider Dan Savage’s attempt to redefine the name of U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, a tactical intervention that topped Google’s search results for nearly a decade, and then mysteriously dropped during the 2012 Republican nominations. Changes made to Google’s algorithm at the time may explain the drop; here, they help to reveal the kind of implicitly political distinctions search engines must invariably make, between genuine patterns of participation and tactical efforts to approximate them.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Content creators need to be recognised by the algorithms to distribute their content and generate income.
“they need to be recognised by the algorithms (Gillespie 2017) to distribute their content and generate income”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Gillespie 2017
Cites
FILTER BUBBLE: Wie wir im Internet entmündigt werden
Pariser, E. (2012) · doi:10.3139/9783446431164 · Cited by 1,849 · see citing works
A New Algorithmic Identity: Soft Biopolitics and the Modulation of Control
Cheney-Lippold, J. (2011) · Theory, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0263276411424420 · Cited by 684 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
If...Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics
Bucher, T. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190493028.001.0001 · Cited by 1,223 · see citing works
Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms
Martin, K. (2019) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3 · Cited by 757 · see citing works
Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip
Bishop, S. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444819854731 · Cited by 535 · see citing works
Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse
Hoffmann, A. L. (2019) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2019.1573912 · Cited by 535 · see citing works
Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Audits
Bandy, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449148 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search
Robertson, R. E., Green, J., Ruck, D. J., Ognyanova, K., Wilson, C., & Lazer, D. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06078-5 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Do Algorithms Shape Character? Considering Algorithmic Ethical Subjectivation
Magalhães, J. C. (2018) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305118768301 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Hödl, T., & Myrach, T. (2023) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00808-9 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Mears, A. (2023) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051231193027 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Bureaucracy as a Lens for Analyzing and Designing Algorithmic Systems
Pääkkönen, J., Nelimarkka, M., Haapoja, J., & Lampinen, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376780 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Draper, N. A. (2020) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764220945354 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gillespie, T.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gillespie, Tarleton
- ORCID
- Gillespie, Tarleton
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-07-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 63-80
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W2475162543
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 49.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- algorithmic recognition, Rick Santorum, search result manipulation, political visibility, information intermediaries, algorithmic power, political participation
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