Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Algorithmic Folk Theories and Identity: How TikTok Users Co-Produce Knowledge of Identity and Engage in Algorithmic Resistance

Karizat, Nadia, Delmonaco, Dan, Eslami, Motahhare, Andalibi, Nazanin·2021·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

Algorithms in online platforms interact with users' identities in different ways. However, little is known about how users understand the interplay between identity and algorithmic processes on these platforms, and if and how such understandings shape their behavior on these platforms in return. Through semi-structured interviews with 15 US-based TikTok users, we detail users' algorithmic folk theories of the For You Page algorithm in relation to two inter-connected identity types: person and social identity. Participants identified potential harms that can accompany algorithms' tailoring content to their person identities. Further, they believed the algorithm actively suppresses content related to marginalized social identities based on race and ethnicity, body size and physical appearance, ability status, class status, LGBTQ identity, and political and social justice group affiliation. We propose a new algorithmic folk theory of social feeds-The Identity Strainer Theory-to describe when users believe an algorithm filters out and suppresses certain social identities. In developing this theory, we introduce the concept of algorithmic privilege as held by users positioned to benefit from algorithms on the basis of their identities. We further propose the concept of algorithmic representational harm to refer to the harm users experience when they lack algorithmic privilege and are subjected to algorithmic symbolic annihilation. Additionally, we describe how participants changed their behaviors to shape their algorithmic identities to align with how they understood themselves, as well as to resist the suppression of marginalized social identities and lack of algorithmic privilege via individual actions, collective actions, and altering their performances. We theorize our findings to detail the ways the platform's algorithm and its users co-produce knowledge of identity on the platform. We argue the relationship between users' algorithmic folk theories and identity are consequential for social media platforms, as it impacts users' experiences, behaviors, sense of belonging, and perceived ability to be seen, heard, and feel valued by others as mediated through algorithmic systems.

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 · 10.1145/3476046

Cites

53 of 53 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

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

Show all 53 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Karizat, N., Delmonaco, D., Eslami, M., & Andalibi, N.
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2021-10-13
Volume
5
Issue
CSCW2
Pages
1-44
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3207549372
Cited by
339
References
53
FWCI
52.21
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Algorithmic Folk Theories and Identity: How TikTok Users Co-Produce Knowledge of Identity and Engage in Algorithmic Resistance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3476046
The paper
Karizat, N., Delmonaco, D., Eslami, M., & Andalibi, N. (2021). Algorithmic Folk Theories and Identity: How TikTok Users Co-Produce Knowledge of Identity and Engage in Algorithmic Resistance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476046

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.