“Gaming the System”: Platform Paternalism and the Politics of Algorithmic Visibility
Open accessAbstract
As the logic of data-driven metrification reconfigures various realms of social and economic life, cultural workers—from journalists and musicians to photographers and social media content creators—are pursuing online visibility in earnest. Despite workers’ patterned deployment of search engine optimization, reciprocal linking, and automated engagement-boosting, tech companies routinely denigrate such practices as gaming the system. This article critically probes discourses and practices of so-called system-gaming by analyzing three key moments when platforms accused cultural producers of algorithmic manipulation. Empirically, we draw upon textual analyses of news articles ( n = 105) and user guidelines published by Google, Facebook, and Instagram. Our findings suggest that the line between what platforms deem illegitimate algorithmic manipulation and legitimate strategy is nebulous and largely reflective of their material interests. However, the language used to invoke this distinction is strongly normative, condemning “system gamers” as morally bankrupt, while casting platform companies as neutral actors working to uphold the ideals of authenticity and integrity. We term this dynamic “platform paternalism” and conclude that gaming accusations constitute an important mechanism through which platforms legitimate their power and authority, to the detriment of less well-established cultural producers.
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?
Quantitative evaluation shifted the main basis for content value from user needs exchange to attention statistics.
“With the emergence of these quantitative evaluations, the user needs exchange as a dominating driver of content value measurement has given way to user attention statistics (Duffy and Sawey, 2022;Petre et al., 2019).”
From ‘Traffic rewards’, ‘algorithmic visibility’, and ‘advertiser satisfaction’: How Chinese short-video platforms cultivate creators in stages (2024) · cites this paper as Petre et al., 2019
Because algorithms are unpredictable, platforms have made creative work a game of visibility.
“The unpredictability of algorithms has prompted platforms to turn creative work into a 'game of visibility' (Petre et al., 2019).”
From ‘Traffic rewards’, ‘algorithmic visibility’, and ‘advertiser satisfaction’: How Chinese short-video platforms cultivate creators in stages (2024) · cites this paper as Petre et al., 2019
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 · see citing works
Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…that some content “natu-rally” and “organically” rises to the top of algorithmic feeds also obscures the platforms’ own curatorial role, while reinforcing a reputation for objectivity and neutrality that has proven highly lucrative for digital intermediaries (Gillespie, 2010; Halavais, 2009/2017).”
BackgroundPlaying 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 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Arriagada, A., & Ibáñez, F. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120944624 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
“Email: arturo.arriagada@uai.cl Keywords social media, cultural production, self-branding, platformization, visibility when understanding and playing the “visibility” game, instead of being cast as “victims” of algorithms (Cotter, 2019; Petre et al., 2019).”
BackgroundCotter, K. (2023) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1994624 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Huang, Y., & Ye, W. (2024) · Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565231211117 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
- Authors
- Petre, C., Duffy, B. E., & Hund, E.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Petre, Caitlin
- Venue
- Social Media + Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2984492189
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 32.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- algorithmic visibility, gaming the system, cultural producers, online visibility, search engine optimization, engagement optimization, platform power, Google, Facebook, Instagram, metrification, user guidelines
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