Cited by 253Gender, Feminism, and MediaEthics and Social Impacts of AIMedia and Digital Communication

Anxiety, panic and self-optimization: Inequalities and the YouTube algorithm

Bishop, Sophie·2018·Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

Abstract

This article will look to YouTube’s algorithm to assess how such forms of mechanical decision-making can create a discriminatory visibility hierarchy of vloggers, favouring middle class social actors who make highly gendered content aligned with advertisers’ demands and needs. I have selected entrepreneurial beauty vloggers as a case study for this article; beauty vlogging is defined as the demonstration and discussion of cosmetic use, often from a vIoggers’ own bedroom (Banet Weiser, 2017; Nathanson, 2014). This is a deeply entrenched genre on the site; beauty vlogging is a full-time job for some successful participants, and a source of pocket money for many more. Moreover, beauty vlogging is an effective illustration of how the YouTube algorithm causes the polarization of identity markers such as gender. Indeed, for female participants, I hypothesize that YouTube actively promotes hegemonic, feminized cultural outputs, created by beauty vloggers with significant embodied social and cultural capital. That is to say, for women on YouTube, the algorithm privileges and rewards feminized content deeply entwined with consumption, beauty, fashion, baking, friendships and boyfriends in the vein of the historical bedroom culture of the teenage magazine. A secondary hypothesis is that beauty vloggers’ own understandings of YouTube’s algorithmic processes are learned and embodied within their own practices, influencing modes of self-presentation, tone of voice, choice of content cover…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1354856517736978

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bishop, S.
Affiliations
University of East London (GB)
Corresponding author
Bishop, Sophie
Venue
Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies
Published
2018-01-10
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
69-84
ISSN
  • 1354-8565 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-7382
OpenAlex
W2784259015
Cited by
253
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 2
FWCI
28.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
YouTube algorithm, vloggers, algorithmic discrimination, middle class, self-presentation, self-optimization, social media entrepreneurship, algorithmic sovereignty

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