The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip
Open accessAbstract
Beauty vloggers’ feminised outputs often position them outside of traditional spheres of technical expertise, however, their strategic management of algorithmic visibility makes them an illuminating source of algorithmic knowledge. I draw from an ethnography of beauty vloggers and industry stakeholders to study the collaborative and directive processes used to formulate and sustain algorithmic expertise – algorithmic gossip. Algorithmic gossip is defined as communally and socially informed theories and strategies pertaining to recommender algorithms, shared and implemented to engender financial consistency and visibility on algorithmically structured social media platforms. Gossip is productive: community communication and talk informs and supports practices such as uploading frequently and producing feminised beauty content to perform more effectively on YouTube. Taking gossip seriously can present a valuable resource for revealing information about how algorithms work and have worked, in addition to revealing how perceptions of algorithms inform content production.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The emotional labor catering to advertisers and audiences' feeds into metrics that evaluate the creative work visibility (Bishop, 2019).”
From ‘Traffic rewards’, ‘algorithmic visibility’, and ‘advertiser satisfaction’: How Chinese short-video platforms cultivate creators in stages (2024) · cites this paper as Bishop, 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Previous literature has already identified A/B testing (Cotter 2019), algorithmic gossip (Bishop 2019), and leveraging algorithms (Kellogg et al. 2020) as coping mechanisms.”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Bishop 2019
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
Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor
Lebovits, H. (2018) · Public Integrity · doi:10.1080/10999922.2018.1511671 · Cited by 3,320
Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism
Noble, S. U. (2020) · doi:10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5 · Cited by 2,709
The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity
Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444818769694 · Cited by 1,530
Thinking critically about and researching algorithms
Kitchin, R. (2016) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1154087 · Cited by 1,471
The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms
Bucher, T. (2016) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1154086 · Cited by 1,420
Abidin, C. (2016) · Media International Australia · doi:10.1177/1329878x16665177 · Cited by 1,250
Status update: celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-5062 · Cited by 1,165
Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram
Cotter, K. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444818815684 · Cited by 1,025
Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems
Seaver, N. (2017) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951717738104 · Cited by 1,010
(Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work
Duffy, B. E. (2017) · Yale University Press · doi:10.12987/yale/9780300218176.001.0001 · Cited by 931 · cited 3×
“So far, YouTube beauty communities have been examined as they curate microcelebrity (Senft, 2008) and perform entrepreneurship (Duffy, 2017), and intimately connect with their followers (García-Rapp, 2017).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Abelove H, 2003, Deep Gossip
- Abidin C, 2017, Social Media+ Society, 3, 707191
- Andrejevic M (2009) Exploiting YouTube: contradictions of user-generated labor. In: Snickars P, Vonderau P (eds.) The YouTube Reader (Vol. 413). Available at: http://forskning.blogg.kb.se/files/2012/09/YouTube_Reader.pdf#page=204
- 10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001 · DOI
- Sandvig C, Hamilton K, Karahalios K, et al. (2014) Auditing Algorithms: research Methods for Detecting Discrimination on Internet Platforms. In: Proceedings of the ‘Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry’, a preconference at the 64th annual meeting of the international communication association, Seattle, WA, 22 May 2014. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b722/7cbd34766655dea10d0437ab10df3a127396.pdf
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mapping Internet Celebrity on TikTok: Exploring Attention Economies and Visibility Labours
Abidin, C. (2020) · Cultural Science Journal · doi:10.5334/csci.140 · Cited by 564
Swart, J. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211008828 · Cited by 381
“This matters because much previous work on algorithmic literacy pertains to subgroups that are already relatively digitally literate, such as algorithmic activists (Velkova & Kaun, 2019), web shop owners (Klawitter & Hargittai, 2018), and social media influencers (Bishop, 2019; Cotter, 2019).”
BackgroundDuffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2022) · Media Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/01634437221111923 · Cited by 441
“Following from writings on algorithmic imaginaries (Bishop, 2019; Bucher, 2017), we acknowledge the interrelated nature of user perceptions and practices , particularly in cases where the material realities of software are belied by their opacity (Natale, 2019: 713).”
InfluentialThe ethnographer and the algorithm: beyond the black box
Christin, A. (2020) · Theory and Society · doi:10.1007/s11186-020-09411-3 · Cited by 327
“…example, one can take the case of content creators and “ influencers ” producing and sharing online content such as videos, pictures, and blog posts on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and so on (Marwick 2013; Duffy and Hund 2015; Duffy 2017; Bishop 2019; Stuart 2020; Burgess and Green 2018).”
BackgroundThe Nested Precarities of Creative Labor on Social Media
Duffy, B. E., Pinch, A. C., Sannon, S., & Sawey, M. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211021368 · Cited by 309
“Nolan explained why he was also creating content on sites like YouTube and Instagram: You’ve probably seen on the news too about the potential TikTok ban, everything happening with the app . . . [It has] given me a wake-up call to try and not focus so heavily on one platform, even though I’m doing so well, and to try…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialFrom content moderation to visibility moderation : A case study of platform governance on TikTok
Zeng, J., & Kaye, D. B. V. (2022) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.287 · Cited by 298
Argyris, Y. A., Wang, Z., Kim, Y., & Yin, Z. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106443 · Cited by 260
Abidin, C. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120984458 · Cited by 236
“…will situate these strategies within legacies of scholarship on human interventions and circumventions of algorithms and algorithmic imaginaries (Bishop, 2019, 2020; Bucher, 2017, 2018; van der Nagel, 2018; Willson, 2017), content moderation practices and circumventions (Gerrard, 2018;…”
BackgroundDevelopment and Validation of an Algorithm Literacy Scale for Internet Users
Dogruel, L., Masur, P., & Joeckel, S. (2022) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2021.1968361 · Cited by 177
“…media use of long duration, high frequency, and extensive experience as well as potentially highly developed skills in related areas such as programming, content creation, and online interactions) are likely to have developed skills to use algorithms to their benefit (Bishop, 2019; Cotter, 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialCotter, K. (2023) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1994624 · Cited by 149
“However, users have valuable insights to share about algorithms, because algorithmic outcomes arise from highly contextual data inputs that become visible through located, embodied experiences (Bishop, 2019; Cotter, 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe shadow banning controversy: perceived governance and algorithmic folklore
Savolainen, L. (2022) · Media Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/01634437221077174 · Cited by 181
“Algorithmic folklore may, then, provide speculative insights into the changing contours of algorithmic systems (see also Bishop, 2019).”
BackgroundResultHow do people judge the credibility of algorithmic sources?
Shin, D. (2021) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01158-4 · Cited by 158
“Algorithms exist and work invisibly behind the interface, learning from users and per-sonalizing what people see online, but people do not know what these algorithms are or how they work (Bishop 2019).”
BackgroundArriagada, A., & Bishop, S. (2021) · Communication Culture and Critique · doi:10.1093/ccc/tcab050 · Cited by 177
Self-citationInfluencer Management Tools: Algorithmic Cultures, Brand Safety, and Bias
Bishop, S. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211003066 · Cited by 169
“As professional platform users, influencers conduct research on industry trends and use their findings to piece together engaged approaches to gain and sustain visibility (Bishop, 2019).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPlatform Imaginaries and Dutch Public Service Media
van Es, K. F., & Poell, T. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120933289 · Cited by 145
“When social media creators are interested in making their content visible to audiences, their understanding of the algorithm influences their use of the platform (Bishop, 2019; Petre et al., 2019).”
Why am I seeing this? Deconstructing algorithm literacy through the lens of users
Shin, D., Rasul, A., & Fotiadis, A. (2021) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-02-2021-0087 · Cited by 122
Schellewald, A. (2022) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051221077025 · Cited by 108
“The work of Bishop (2019), as mentioned, differs from these approaches in having investigated algorithmic imagi-naries within the field, in her case as a form of “gossip” unfolding among professional content creators.”
BackgroundInfluentialMa, R., & Kou, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479573 · Cited by 102
Influencer creep: How artists strategically navigate the platformisation of art worlds
Bishop, S. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231206090 · Cited by 158
“Through their daily negotiation of social media platforms, influencers develop a body of expertise in how to successfully work within this ‘opaque’ ecosystem (Bishop, 2019; Cotter, 2019; Duffy and Meisner, 2023).”
Self-citationPlatform drama: “Cancel culture,” celebrity, and the struggle for accountability on YouTube
Lewis, R. A., & Christin, A. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221099235 · Cited by 120
“Such strategies and representations often take the shape of “algorithmic gossip” (Bishop, 2019) in which creators swap theories and advice to help each other gain visibility in algorithmic recommendations, thus empowering creators to perform more effectively on a platform where their power is…”
BackgroundInfluentialMaares, P., Banjac, S., & Hanusch, F. (2020) · Poetics · doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2020.101502 · Cited by 119
Algorithmic Closeness in Mourning: Vernaculars of the Hashtag #grief on TikTok
Krutrök, M. E. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211042396 · Cited by 81
“This repetition can be shared as a form of knowledge exchange that Sophie Bishop (2019, p. 2590) has called “algorithmic gossip,” which refers to the “communally and socially informed knowledge about algorithms and algorithmic visibility.””
BackgroundEmbedded reproduction in platform data work
Posada, J. (2022) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2022.2049849 · Cited by 89
“This collective endeavor in data work resonates with that of other digital workers, such as media content creators (Bishop, 2019; Cotter, 2018), gig workers (Woodcock, 2020), and those in highly digitized industrial settings (Delfanti, 2021).”
BackgroundDimensions of autonomy in human–algorithm relations
Savolainen, L., & Ruckenstein, M. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221100802 · Cited by 102
“Our discussion emphasizes that algorithmic relations ‘become’ in and through a dynamic interplay between algorithmic technologies and people, who contribute to them through their actions and data traces (Bishop, 2019; Bucher, 2018).”
BackgroundImmigrant Influencers on TikTok: Diverse Microcelebrity Profiles and Algorithmic (In)Visibility
Jaramillo-Dent, D., Pulido, P. C., & Rodríguez, M. A. P. (2022) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v10i1.4743 · Cited by 93
“Thus, in these processes and strategic actions, the relationship estab‐ lished with followers is critical (Abidin, 2018) as well as the negotiation of visibility and popularity with the plat‐ form (Gillespie, 2010, 2018) and the algorithm (Bishop, 2019; Bucher, 2012).”
BackgroundThe Emotional and Financial Impact of De-Platforming on Creators at the Margins
Are, C., & Briggs, P. (2023) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051231155103 · Cited by 109
“Users have had to add an extra layer to their digital labor, monitoring algorithmic gossip (Bishop, 2019) and folklore (Savolainen, 2022) to avoid trouble.”
BackgroundInfluentialFolk theories of algorithmic operations during Internet use: A mixed methods study
Dogruel, L. (2021) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972243.2021.1949768 · Cited by 77
“Studies on different types of skilled Internet users, such as influencers on YouTubers (Bishop 2019), Instagram (Cotter 2019) and Facebook users (Bucher 2012; Schwartz and Mahnke 2021), show that these actors develop their own strategies to engage with algorithms.”
BackgroundPractical knowledge of algorithms: The case of BreadTube
Cotter, K. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221081802 · Cited by 100
“BreadTube creator Re-Education (2019) addressed this point in a video: Drama always gets the most views.”
BackgroundInfluentialYin, Y., & Xie, Z. (2021) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211059489 · Cited by 77
“As shown in the case of YouTube beauty vloggers (Bishop, 2019) and the construct of the “algorithmic self” (Kant, 2020), the logic of the data-driven metrification of social media is modified by users “system-gaming” practices—algorithmic manipulation through visibility-enhancing tactics (Petre et…”
BackgroundInfluentialThe politics of vulnerability in the influencer economy
Duffy, B. E., Ononye, A., & Sawey, M. (2023) · European Journal of Cultural Studies · doi:10.1177/13675494231212346 · Cited by 83
“Given existing findings about the pervasiveness of misogyny and inequality in the social media economy (e.g. Banet-Weiser, 2018; Bishop, 2019; Duffy, 2017; Glatt, 2022), women and other marginalized communities were overrepresented in our sample.”
BackgroundThe Drama of Metrics: Status, Spectacle, and Resistance Among YouTube Drama Creators
Christin, A., & Lewis, R. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305121999660 · Cited by 63
“Like many other YouTube creators (Bishop, 2019), Adrian offered different theories to make sense of this opaque system, which went beyond public metrics and included engagement rates as well as the recommendation, search, and demonetization algorithms that impacted his metrics.”
BackgroundStreamers: the new wave of digital entrepreneurship? Extant corpus and research agenda
Törhönen, M., Giertz, J. N., Weiger, W. H., & Hamari, J. (2020) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2020.101027 · Cited by 63
“(Biel and Gatica-Perez, 2013) x x x x x (Bishop, 2019) x x x x x x x”
BackgroundInfluentialAlbury, K., Burgess, J., Kaye, D. B. V., McCosker, A., Kennedy, J., & Wilken, R. (2021) · AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research · doi:10.5210/spir.v2021i0.12088 · Cited by 62
“These knowledge practices are characterised by algorithmic gossip: “communally and socially informed knowledge” (Bishop, 2019, p. 2590) that draws on and accumulates vernacular algorithmic lore, “a mix of data-informed assumptions that are weaved into a subjective narrative” (Bishop, 2020, p. 1).”
BackgroundThe platformization of consumer culture: A theoretical framework
Caliandro, A., Gandini, A., Bainotti, L., & Anselmi, G. (2024) · Marketing Theory · doi:10.1177/14705931231225537 · Cited by 83
“For instance, O ’ Meara (2019) and Bishop (2019), respectively, on Instagram and YouTube, explore the practices through which communities of in fl uencers manage to manipulate platforms ’ algorithms in order to make their posts more visible.”
BackgroundPolicing “Fake” Femininity: Authenticity, Accountability, and Influencer Antifandom
Duffy, B. E., Miltner, K. M., & Wahlstedt, A. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221099234 · Cited by 61
“…to literature across fame/celebrity studies (Abidin, 2016; Hearn and Schoenhoff, 2016; Khamis et al., 2017); sociologies of work and labor (Duffy and Hund, 2015; Duffy, 2017; O’Meara, 2019); and media industry studies/entertainment (Bishop, 2019; Cunningham and Craig, 2019), among others.”
BackgroundZhao, X., & Abidin, C. (2023) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051231157590 · Cited by 54
“Taken together, the trio of affordances enable TikTokers to enhance both algorithmic and analogue visibility (Abidin, 2021; Bishop, 2019) on the platform, thus maximizing their occurrence on the FYP when a social movement or discourse is (on the cusp of) trending on TikTok, as a foray into gesticular activism.”
BackgroundInfluentialSimpson, E., Dalal, S., & Semaan, B. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579490 · Cited by 54
“Other work examines how online platforms do not support creators in allowing their creative work to become visible [14] or by making their volunteer work challenging through sweeping decisions regarding platform infrastructures [28].”
BackgroundChinese beauty bloggers: amateurs, entrepreneurs, and platform labour
Guan, Z. (2020) · Celebrity Studies · doi:10.1080/19392397.2020.1737154 · Cited by 52
“Chinese beauty bloggers are not completely different from their Western counterparts: both gain reputations on user-generated content (UGC) platforms, rely on consumer culture, monetise their reputations, and mainly target women (García-Rapp 2016, Bishop 2018, Hou 2018, Bishop 2019).”
BackgroundLee, J., & Abidin, C. (2021) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211061829 · Cited by 56
“…of YouTube Influencers has been talked about and constituted as a media scandal across various media platforms and outlets, and studied the types of tensions that emerged between YouTubers, followers, and industry personnel through reiterative cycles and circuits of such gossip (cf. Bishop, 2019).”
BackgroundHödl, T., & Myrach, T. (2023) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00808-9 · Cited by 51
“Trial and error Algorithmic gossip (Bishop 2019), visibility game, A/B testing (Cotter 2019), algoactivism (leveraging algorithms) (Kellogg et al.”
BackgroundMethodRieder, B., Coromina, Ò., & Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2020) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v25i8.10667 · Cited by 62
“TikTok ≠ therapy”: Mediating mental health and algorithmic mood disorders
Avella, H. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221147284 · Cited by 61
“The workings of algorithms structure creator visibility on media platforms (Bishop, 2019; Bucher, 2012; Duffy and Meisner, 2022), and TikTok is also interested in high-lighting content with monetization potential (Smith, 2021).”
Bonini, T., Treré, E., Yu, Z., Singh, S., Cargnelutti, D., & López-Ferrández, F. J. (2023) · Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565231153505 · Cited by 62
“In these environments, workers discuss the dynamics of the algorithm and ‘ gossip ’ around it (Bishop, 2019), develop different levels of algorithmic awareness (Eslami et al., 2015; Gran et al., 2021) and build bonds of solidarity (Anwar and Graham, 2021; Maf fi e, 2020; Tassinari and Maccarone,…”
Mardon, R., Cocker, H. L., & Daunt, K. L. (2023) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2022.2149609 · Cited by 35
“Whilst prior research has highlighted the impact of racial identities and related norms on SMIs’ social media performances (e.g. Arthur, 2021; Bishop, 2018, 2019), we have a limited understanding of their impact on consumers’ evolving para-social relationships and resultant consumer behaviours,…”
Delmonaco, D., Mayworm, S., Thach, H., Guberman, J., Augusta, A., & Haimson, O. L. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637431 · Cited by 60
“Algorithmic gossip is one way to spread “algorithmic lore” [14, 89] about how a platform’s algorithms function without actual proprietary knowledge to confirm the algorithmic techniques used.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialIonescu, C. G., & Licu, M. (2023) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci12080465 · Cited by 44
“A study shows the concept of “affective capitalism”, where all the desires, emotions, and forms of expressivity are becoming raw materials in a wider economic infrastructure (Hearn 2017, 2019).”
BackgroundMaddox, J., & Gill, F. (2023) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051231213565 · Cited by 64
“But scholars (Bishop, 2019; Crawford, 2016; Schellewald, 2021) caution against fetishizing the algorithm.”
BackgroundHeiland, H. (2023) · New Technology Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12282 · Cited by 53
Silenced on social media: the gatekeeping functions of shadowbans in the American Twitterverse
Jaidka, K., Mukerjee, S., & Lelkes, Y. (2023) · Journal of Communications · doi:10.1093/joc/jqac050 · Cited by 41
Strategic Invisibility: How Creators Manage the Risks and Constraints of Online Hyper(In)Visibility
Stegeman, H. M., Are, C., & Poell, T. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051241244674 · Cited by 45
“This was specified in the application because most participants wanted to be credited and named for sharing their stories, which we respected as a form of crediting of who deserves to be seen as an algorithmic expert, in line with research by Bishop (2019).”
Silva, D. E., Chen, C., & Zhu, Y. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221098042 · Cited by 46
“For instance, beauty vloggers have tried to share “algorithmic gossip” about YouTube as part of their strategies to maintain visibility on the platforms (Bishop, 2019: 2590).”
BackgroundRemixing war: An analysis of the reimagination of the Russian–Ukraine war on TikTok
Primig, F., Szabó, H. D., & Lacasa, P. (2023) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2023.1085149 · Cited by 56
“, in the form of “algorithmic gossip” (Bucher, 2017; Bishop, 2019).”
BackgroundAlgorithmic media use and algorithm literacy: An integrative literature review
Gagrčin, E., Naab, T. K., & Grub, M. F. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448241291137 · Cited by 82
“In coding for the affective dimension of AL ( n = 79), we included articles on how users “feel” and “sense” algorithms (e.g., Bishop, 2019).”
InfluentialCopyright Gossip: Exploring Copyright Opinions, Theories, and Strategies on YouTube
Kaye, D. B. V., & Gray, J. E. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211036940 · Cited by 41
“…through Content ID, an algorithmic “blackbox” (Pasquale, 2015) about which information is limited, this study provides insights into how YouTube creators understand, experience, and interact with a blackbox system that is central to the financial viability of their careers (Bishop, 2019, p. 2590).”
BackgroundInfluentialMa, R., Gui, X., & Kou, Y. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581106 · Cited by 56
“For example, they needed to creatively synchronize content across platforms by empathizing and researching platform-specific audiences’ interests, sometimes along with the learning cost for technical affordances such as creator tools and algorithms [12, 13, 78].”
BackgroundAre, C. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448241228544 · Cited by 47
“Community guidelines are enforced through algorithms, ‘codified step-by-step pro-cesses’ platforms use ‘to afford or restrict visibility’ (Bishop, 2019: 2590).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential‘What I’m not gonna buy’: Algorithmic culture jamming and anti-consumer politics on YouTube
Wood, R. (2020) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444820939446 · Cited by 39
“As Bishop (2019) notes, maintaining algorithmic ‘complicity’ is an ‘ongoing project’ for vloggers (p. 3).”
BackgroundWhat’s “Up Next”? Investigating Algorithmic Recommendations on YouTube Across Issues and Over Time
Matamoros-Fernández, A., Gray, J. E., Bartolo, L., Burgess, J., & Suzor, N. P. (2021) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v9i4.4184 · Cited by 54
Moran, R. E., Grasso, I., & Koltai, K. (2022) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051221144252 · Cited by 46
“The secrecy and technical complexity of social media sites has led to what Bishop (2019) calls “mystification”—an inability for users to gain a full or substantive understanding of the online spaces they inhabit.”
BackgroundInfluentialEngineering culture: logics of optimization in music, games, and apps
Morris, J. W., Prey, R., & Nieborg, D. B. (2021) · Review of Communication · doi:10.1080/15358593.2021.1934522 · Cited by 43
“57 As app stores age, the metrics they use to surface apps (e.g., click-through rate, discards, update frequency, number of crashes) are getting more fi ne-grained while keywords and other basic metadata are no longer as credible or valuable in ranking algorithms.”
BackgroundPhenomenal algorhythms : The sensorial orchestration of “real-time” in the social media manifold
Lupinacci, L. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221109952 · Cited by 37
“…the agency of social media (and processes such as mediation and personalization) is perceived by ordinary users in the context of everyday life (Bishop, 2019; Bucher, 2017, 2018, 2020; Kant, 2020; Seaver, 2017), I suggest that understanding social media’s time through the lens of phenomenal…”
BackgroundInfluentialAhmmad, M., Shahzad, K., Iqbal, A., & Latif, M. (2025) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc15110301 · Cited by 92
“Third, without drawing on diverse methodological traditions, ranging from computational audits [13,14] to ethnographic analyses [24], interventions to mitigate these risks are likely to be partial or ineffective.”
“How it actually works”: Algorithmic lore videos as market devices
MacDonald, T. W. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211021404 · Cited by 37
“These strategies include crowdsourcing information about employers (Irani and Silberman, 2013) and algorithmic systems (Bishop, 2019); or making oneself “algorith-mically recognizable” to platform algorithms (Gillespie, 2017) through practices of self-optimization (Bishop, 2018; Cotter, 2018).”
BackgroundNo Targets, Just Vibes: Tuned Advertising and the Algorithmic Flow of Social Media
Brown, M.-G., Carah, N., Robards, B., Dobson, A. S., Rangiah, L., & Lazzari, C. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051241234691 · Cited by 36
“Second, in this study, we analyzed only the collections of ads with some limited co-analysis and “algorithmic gossip” (Bishop, 2019) via SMS chat.”
MethodHuang, Y., & Ye, W. (2024) · Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565231211117 · Cited by 37
“The emotional labor catering to advertisers and audiences ’ feeds into metrics that evaluate the creative work visibility (Bishop, 2019).”
BackgroundZhang, Y., Huang, S., & Li, T. (2022) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2022.2161829 · Cited by 42
“Based on their understanding of algorithms, platform users can strengthen their online presence (Bishop, 2019) and resist being marginalized by algorithms (Karizat et al., 2021).”
BackgroundHarris, B. C., Foxman, M., & Partin, W. C. (2023) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051231177944 · Cited by 51
“Under these grueling conditions, creators develop methods to “game” or manipulate a platform’s algorithmic ranking (O’Meara, 2019; Petre et al., 2019), by amplifying their content’s visibility in the crowded SME (Bishop, 2019; Cotter, 2019; Cunningham & Craig, 2019; Duffy & Meisner, 2022).”
BackgroundHunt, R. L., & McKelvey, F. R. (2019) · Journal of Information Policy · doi:10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0307 · Cited by 49
Evolution of digital activism on social media: opportunities and challenges
Esparcia, A. C., Castaño, L. C., & Martínez, A. A. (2023) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2023.may.03 · Cited by 33
“…values are inscribed in the design of its algorithms ( Van-Dijck et al. , 2018), but because its configuration is opaque to regulators and users ( Bishop , 2019; Cotter , 2019; Cardon , 2018; Miyazaki , 2019) and algorithmic visibility marketing options have reduced the ability of activists to…”
“Pose”: Examining moments of “digital” dark sousveillance on TikTok
Peterson‐Salahuddin, C. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221080480 · Cited by 36
“I read these videos as manifestations of what Sophie Bishop (2019) calls “algorithmic gossip,” communally informed user knowledge about algorithms and algorithmic visibility shared socially by users of the platform.”
BackgroundGriffin, R. (2022) · Transnational Legal Theory · doi:10.1080/20414005.2023.2203538 · Cited by 45
Algorithmic imaginings and critical digital literacy on #BookTok
Low, B., Ehret, C., & Hagh, A. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231206466 · Cited by 31
“They resemble “algorithmic gossip,” the “communally and socially informed theories and strategies pertaining to recommender algorithms, shared and implemented to engender financial consistency and visibility” (Bishop, 2019: 2589).”
Issar, S. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2233138 · Cited by 50
“…take up the mantle of disseminating ways and means of leveraging algorithmic decisions in the interest of overcoming the information asymmetries (Bishop 2019; Cotter 2019; Cotter & Reisdorf 2020; Gillespie 2017; Irani & Silberman 2013) created by the processes of platformization, and the…”
Verwiebe, R., & Hagemann, S. (2024) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2024.2358170 · Cited by 50
“Through prosumption, digital platforms translate users’ data into an image of themselves, offering insights into their tastes, interests, habits, and world-views (Mau, 2019).”
InfluentialDroz-dit-Busset, O. A. (2022) · Discourse Context & Media · doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2022.100629 · Cited by 38
Digital Platforms and Algorithmic Subjectivities
Armano, E., Briziarelli, M., & Risi, E. (2022) · University of Westminster Press eBooks · doi:10.16997/book54 · Cited by 40
Zhang, L., Bi, W., Zhang, N., & He, L. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2267931 · Cited by 27
“Motivated by this concept, some researches have verified that algorithmic resistance does exist in various contexts (Bishop, 2019; Bucher, 2017; Lv et al., 2022).”
Subjectivity and algorithmic imaginaries: the algorithmic other
Gandini, A., Gerosa, A., Giuffrè, L., & Keeling, S. (2023) · Subjectivity · doi:10.1057/s41286-023-00171-w · Cited by 28
“…known as ‘critical algorithm studies’, where other research— such as, among others, ‘algorithmic folk theories’ (Siles et al. 2020; Ytre-Arne and Moe 2021) and ‘algorithmic gossip’ (Bishop 2019)—shares a common focus on users’ perception and agency towards algorithms (cf. Lomborg and Kapsch 2020).”
Precarity, discrimination and (in)visibility
Glatt, Z. (2022) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003175605-53 · Cited by 39
How conspicuousness becomes productive on social media
Bainotti, L. (2023) · Marketing Theory · doi:10.1177/14705931231202435 · Cited by 39
“Furthermore, attention has been paid to how visibility labour is becoming more and more intertwined with algorithmic visibility (see, e.g., Bishop, 2019).”
BackgroundJiménez, C., & Edwards, L. (2022) · Communication and the Public · doi:10.1177/20570473221146661 · Cited by 26
“…contemporary digitalised practice, as well as a reward acquired by those who secure attention from desirable audiences, especially the media (e.g., Aronczyk et al., 2017; Banet-Weiser, 2018; Bishop, 2019; Draper, 2020; Duffy & Hund, 2019; Kanai & Gill, 2020; Savolainen et al., 2022; Sobande, 2019).”
BackgroundPeripheral Creator Cultures in India, Ireland, and Turkey
Bidav, T., & Mehta, S. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051241234693 · Cited by 24
“Thus, we contribute to the previous research on SME (Cunningham & Craig, 2019) and creator labor that have extensively focused on economic and algorithmic precarities within the political economy of SME (Bishop, 2019; Duffy et al., 2021).”
BackgroundResultWang, X., & Cao, S. (2024) · The Journal of Chinese Sociology · doi:10.1186/s40711-024-00213-z · Cited by 41
“According to Bishop’s research, YouTube beauty bloggers discuss in Facebook groups how to gain visibility on the platform, and their informal exchange of information about algorithms is referred to by Bishop as “algorithmic gossip”, a more recent popular concept in relevant research (Bishop 2019).”
BackgroundMethodLin, H. (2025) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051251313610 · Cited by 24
“…chat groups afford a freedom chat space to resist the manipulation of food delivery corporations by enabling food delivery workers to discuss the dynamics of the algorithm and “gossip” around it (Bishop, 2019), develop algorithmic awareness (Eslami et al., 2016), and build bonds of solidarity.”
Digital intermediation: Unseen infrastructures for cultural production
Hutchinson, J. P. (2021) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211040247 · Cited by 34
User-generated accountability: Public participation in algorithmic governance on YouTube
Reynolds, C., & Hallinan, B. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448241251791 · Cited by 22
“…with platform governance issues through content production, although it tends to focus on specific issues such as copyright enforcement (Kaye and Gray, 2021) and demonetization (Caplan and Gillespie, 2020), or specific communities such as beauty vloggers (Bishop, 2019) and BreadTube (Cotter, 2022).”
InfluentialTaylor, Z. A., & Abidin, C. (2024) · International Journal of Cultural Studies · doi:10.1177/13678779241276751 · Cited by 27
“…visibility are informed by the perceptions of casual users, conceptualized as an ‘ algorithmic imaginary ’ (Bucher, 2017), ‘ algorithmic gossip ’ (Bishop, 2019), ‘ algorithmic folklore ’ (Savolainen, 2022), ‘ algorithmic awareness ’ (Issar, 2023), and ‘ algorithmic folk theories ’…”
Ramizo, G. J. (2021) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1897151 · Cited by 26
“…to execute several user strategies, such as forming ‘ pods ’ where they contrive reciprocal engagements (Cotter, 2019), employ third party bots on social media (Petre et al., 2019), or form communities that exploit recommender algorithms (Bishop, 2019) – all to boost visibility and fi nancial gain.”
BackgroundMiller, V., & Hogg, E. (2023) · Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565231161810 · Cited by 31
“A number of authors (Ahmad et al., 2021; Bishop, 2019, 2020; Glotfelter, 2019) have researched the impact of the ‘black box’ that is YouTube’s video recommendation algorithm on content creators’ efforts to monetise their labour and make a career as a YouTuber.”
BackgroundKojah, S. A., Zhang, Z., Are, C., Delmonaco, D., & Haimson, O. L. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3701191 · Cited by 28
The Internet and public policy: Future directions
Margetts, H. Z., Lehdonvirta, V., González‐Bailón, S., Hutchinson, J. P., Bright, J., Nash, V., & Sutcliffe, D. (2021) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.263 · Cited by 23
Lindquist, J. A., & Weltevrede, E. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051231224721 · Cited by 25
“…test the limits of platform authenticity have led scholars to develop concepts such as “algorithmic imaginary” (Bucher, 2018), “algorithmic gossip” (Bishop, 2019), and “influencer imaginary” (Arriagada & Bishop, 2021) to study how content creators and social media users perceive what…”
BackgroundInfluentialBeing watched and being seen: Negotiating visibility in the NYC ride-hail circuit
Mosseri, S. (2020) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444820966752 · Cited by 21
“Notably, the hypervisibility of ride-hail platform workers contrasts the threat of invisibility faced by digital platform workers in feminized labor markets (Bishop, 2019; Cotter, 2018; Ticona and Mateescu, 2018).”
BackgroundMethodological and epistemological challenges in meme research and meme studies
Galip, I. (2024) · Internet Histories · doi:10.1080/24701475.2024.2359846 · Cited by 21
“Similarly, shadowbanning has been a topic of conversation among social media users (see: algospeak ) as well as academics (Bishop, 2019; Cotter, 2023; Gillespie, 2022; Savolainen, 2022) and points towards a growing need for the public to be aware of what rules govern their visibility on social…”
Why do people resist algorithms? From the perspective of short video usage motivations
Xie, X., Du, Y., & Bai, Q. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.941640 · Cited by 21
“In line with previous research on algorithmic awareness and behavior, the findings strengthen the active role of users (Belanche et al., 2017b, 2019; Dogruel et al., 2020).”
BackgroundResultMeisner, C. (2023) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.359 · Cited by 28
Dependence in the online screen industry
Idiz, D. R., & Poell, T. (2024) · Media Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/01634437241286725 · Cited by 28
“YouTube’s recommender system and autoplay feature have, for example, been found to discriminate against people of color and LGBTQ + creators (Bishop, 2019; Caplan and Gillespie, 2020) and promote sensational, conspiratorial, extreme, or graphic content (McKelvey and Hunt, 2019: 4).”
InfluentialDiscursive contestations of algorithms: a case study of recommendation platforms in China
Meng, J. (2021) · Chinese Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/17544750.2021.1875491 · Cited by 20
“” In a similar vein, Bishop (2019) borrowed the idea of “ gossip ” to study YouTube beauty vloggers ’ (i.e. video bloggers) algorithmic knowledge and the way in which they manage algorithmic visibility accordingly.”
BackgroundAlgorithmic autobiographies and fictions: A digital method
Bishop, S., & Kant, T. (2023) · The Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00380261221146403 · Cited by 26
“Users are fatigued – but they also routinely discuss, imagine, theorise around and develop affective relationships with the technology that they use (Bishop, 2019; Bucher, 2018; Kant, 2020).”
BackgroundSelf-citationVegan YouTubers Performing Ethical Beliefs
Harding, K., & Day, A. (2020) · Religions · doi:10.3390/rel12010007 · Cited by 19
“…engaged in a “visibility game” that is constructed around the “rules” encoded within opaque proprietary algorithms (Cotter 2019, p. 895), with vloggers sometimes engaging in “algorithmic gossip” to gain visibility on social media platforms that are algorithmically structured (Bishop 2019, p. 2589).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Bishop, S.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bishop, Sophie
- ORCID
- Bishop, Sophie
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-06-15
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 11-12
- Pages
- 2589-2606
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W2951551356
- Cited by
- 535
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 131 · 2025: 106 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 54.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- kclpure.kcl.ac.uk
- Locations
- New Media & Society (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Keywords
- beauty vloggers, YouTube, algorithmic visibility, recommendation algorithms, social networking sites, algorithmic knowledge
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