CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 381Ethics and Social Impacts of AISocial Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its Impacts

Experiencing algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media

Open access
Swart, Joëlle·2021·Social Media + Society
DOI 10.1177/20563051211008828
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The news that young people consume is increasingly subject to algorithmic curation. Yet, while numerous studies explore how algorithms exert power in citizens’ everyday life, little is known about how young people themselves perceive, learn about, and deal with news personalization. Considering the interactions between algorithms and users from an user-centric perspective, this article explores how young people make sense of, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news curation on social media and when such everyday experiences contribute to their algorithmic literacy. Employing in-depth interviews in combination with the walk-through method and think-aloud protocols with a diverse group of 22 young people aged 16–26 years, it addresses three current methodological challenges to studying algorithmic literacy: first, the lack of an established baseline about how algorithms operate; second, the opacity of algorithms within everyday media use; and third, limitations in technological vocabularies that hinder young people in articulating their algorithmic encounters. It finds that users’ sense-making strategies of algorithms are context-specific, triggered by expectancy violations and explicit personalization cues. However, young people’s intuitive and experience-based insights into news personalization do not automatically enable young people to verbalize these, nor does having knowledge about algorithms necessarily stimulate users to intervene in algorithmic decisions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/20563051211008828

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Algorithms in search and social media limit user agency by making decisions about what information to display and filter out.

    “Despite their helpfulness in limiting information overload in the domains of search and social media, these algorithms also limit user agency by making decisions about what information to display and filter out (Swart, 2021).”

    From Expanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy (2023) · cites this paper as Swart, 2021

  • A study found that although adolescents might understand that their actions influence the algorithm, thus determining the content they see, they often do not adjust their social media behaviors or clearly express their understanding of how algorithms work.

    “A study found that, although adolescents might understand that their actions influence the algorithm, thus determining the content they see, they often do not adjust their social media behaviors or clearly express their understanding of how algorithms work [37].”

    From Social Media Use in Adolescents: Bans, Benefits, and Emotion Regulation Behaviors (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Swart, J.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Swart, Joëlle
ORCID
Swart, Joëlle
Venue
Social Media + Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-04
Volume
7
Issue
2
ISSN
2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/20563051211008828
OpenAlex
W3152734712
Cited by
381
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 83 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 6
FWCI
62.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen (Writing up grant Faculty of Arts)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
algorithmic literacy, personalized news, youth, social media, algorithmic opacity, expectancy violation, algorithmic intervention

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