skip to main content
10.1145/3544548.3581386acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Creator-friendly Algorithms: Behaviors, Challenges, and Design Opportunities in Algorithmic Platforms

Published:19 April 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

In many creator economy platforms, algorithms significantly impact creators’ practices and decisions about their creative expression and monetization. Emerging research suggests that the opacity of the algorithm and platform policies often distract creators from their creative endeavors. To study how algorithmic platforms can be more ‘creator-friendly,’ we conducted a mixed-methods study: interviews (N=14) and a participatory design workshop (N=12) with YouTube creators. Through the interviews, we found how creators’ folk theories of the curation algorithm impact their work strategies — whether they choose to work with or against the algorithm — and the associated challenges in the process. In the workshop, creators explored solution ideas to overcome the aforementioned challenges, such as fostering diverse and creative expressions, achieving success as a creator, and motivating creators to continue their job. Based on these findings, we discuss design opportunities for how algorithmic platforms can support and motivate creators to sustain their creative work.

Footnotes

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3544548.3581386-talk-video.mp4

mp4

148.8 MB

References

  1. Himan Abdollahpouri, Gediminas Adomavicius, Robin Burke, Ido Guy, Dietmar Jannach, Toshihiro Kamishima, Jan Krasnodebski, and Luiz Pizzato. 2020. Multistakeholder recommendation: Survey and research directions. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 30, 1 (2020), 127–158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Juan Carlos Alvarez de la Vega, Marta E Cecchinato, and John Rooksby. 2022. Design Opportunities for Freelancing Platforms: Online Freelancers’ Views on a Worker-Centred Design Fiction. In 2022 Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work. 1–19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mark Andrejevic. 2009. Exploiting YouTube: Contradictions of user-generated labor. The youtube reader 413, 36 (2009), 406–423.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jack Bandy and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2020. #TulsaFlop: A Case Study of Algorithmically-Influenced Collective Action on TikTok. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2012.07716Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Nancy K Baym. 2021. Creator culture: An introduction to global social media entertainment. NYU Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Hemant K Bhargava. 2022. The creator economy: Managing ecosystem supply, revenue sharing, and platform design. Management Science 68, 7 (2022), 5233–5251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Matt Binderm. 2021. YouTube rolls out new content-specific creator analytics for YouTube Shorts, livestreams. https://mashable.com/article/youtube-content-specific-analyticsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sophie Bishop. 2018. Anxiety, panic and self-optimization: Inequalities and the YouTube algorithm. Convergence 24, 1 (2018), 69–84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Sophie Bishop. 2019. Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New media & society 21, 11-12 (2019), 2589–2606.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sophie Bishop. 2020. Algorithmic experts: Selling algorithmic lore on YouTube. Social Media+ Society 6, 1 (2020), 2056305119897323.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa arXiv:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Taina Bucher and Anne Helmond. 2017. The affordances of social media platforms. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Emanuele Bugliarello, Rishabh Mehrotra, James Kirk, and Mounia Lalmas. 2022. Mostra: A Flexible Balancing Framework to Trade-off User, Artist and Platform Objectives for Music Sequencing. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 2936–2945.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Aldijana Bunjak, Matej Černe, and Aleš Popovič. 2021. Absorbed in technology but digitally overloaded: Interplay effects on gig workers’ burnout and creativity. Information & Management 58, 8 (2021), 103533.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jean Burgess and Joshua Green. 2018. YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindsey Cameron, Angele Christin, Michael Ann DeVito, Tawanna R. Dillahunt, Madeleine Elish, Mary Gray, Rida Qadri, Noopur Raval, Melissa Valentine, and Elizabeth Anne Watkins. 2021. “This Seems to Work”: Designing Technological Systems with The Algorithmic Imaginations of Those Who Labor. In Extended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Valerie A Canady. 2022. Psychiatrists collaborate with YouTube to develop MH content. Mental Health Weekly 32, 20 (2022), 7–7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Juan Carlos Alvarez de la Vega, Marta E. Cecchinato, and John Rooksby. 2021. “Why lose control?” A Study of Freelancers’ Experiences with Gig Economy Platforms. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Florian Cech. 2021. Tackling Algorithmic Transparency in Communal Energy Accounting through Participatory Design. In C&T’21: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities & Technologies-Wicked Problems in the Age of Tech. 258–268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Chaitrali Gandhi, Matthew Wortley Mustelier, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Crossmod: A cross-community learning-based system to assist reddit moderators. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW(2019), 1–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Eric Cook, Stephanie D Teasley, and Mark S Ackerman. 2009. Contribution, commercialization & audience: understanding participation in an online creative community. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work. 41–50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Oscar Coromina, Ariadna Matamoros-Fernández, and Bernhard Rieder. 2020. Follow the Money: a Large-scale Investigation of Monetization and Optimization on YouTube. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research(2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelley Cotter. 2019. Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society 21, 4 (2019), 895–913.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Stuart Cunningham and David Craig. 2019. Social media entertainment. New York University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Stuart Cunningham, David Craig, and Jon Silver. 2016. YouTube, multichannel networks and the accelerated evolution of the new screen ecology. Convergence 22, 4 (2016), 376–391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Fernando Delgado, Solon Barocas, and Karen Levy. 2022. An Uncommon Task: Participatory Design in Legal AI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1(2022), 1–23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Michael A DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, Jeffery T Hancock, Megan French, and Sunny Liu. 2018. How people form folk theories of social media feeds and what it means for how we study self-presentation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Michael A. DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, Jeffery T. Hancock, Megan French, and Sunny Liu. 2018. How People Form Folk Theories of Social Media Feeds and What It Means for How We Study Self-Presentation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173694Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Michael A DeVito, Darren Gergle, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2017. "Algorithms ruin everything" # RIPTwitter, Folk Theories, and Resistance to Algorithmic Change in Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 3163–3174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Alicia DeVos, Aditi Dhabalia, Hong Shen, Kenneth Holstein, and Motahhare Eslami. 2022. Toward User-Driven Algorithm Auditing: Investigating users’ strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behavior. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Berkeley J Dietvorst, Joseph P Simmons, and Cade Massey. 2015. Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144, 1 (2015), 114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Karlijn Dinnissen. 2022. Improving Fairness and Transparency for Artists in Music Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 3498–3498.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Emory James Edwards and Tom Boellstorff. 2021. Migration, non-use, and the ‘Tumblrpocalypse’: Towards a unified theory of digital exodus. Media, Culture & Society 43, 3 (2021), 582–592.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Motahhare Eslami, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, Kristen Vaccaro, Aimee Rickman, Kevin Hamilton, and Alex Kirlik. 2016. First I" like" it, then I hide it: Folk Theories of Social Feeds. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2371–2382.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Kristy Beers Fägersten. 2017. The role of swearing in creating an online persona: The case of YouTuber PewDiePie. Discourse, context & media 18 (2017), 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Megan French and Jeff Hancock. 2017. What’s the folk theory? Reasoning about cyber-social systems. Reasoning About Cyber-Social Systems (February 2, 2017) (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Yiqing Hua, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Thomas Ristenpart, Robert West, and Mor Naaman. 2022. Characterizing alternative monetization strategies on YouTube. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2(2022), 1–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Nura Jabagi, Anne-Marie Croteau, Luc K Audebrand, and Josianne Marsan. 2019. Gig-workers’ motivation: Thinking beyond carrots and sticks. Journal of Managerial Psychology(2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Shagun Jhaver, Yoni Karpfen, and Judd Antin. 2018. Algorithmic anxiety and coping strategies of Airbnb hosts. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Nadia Karizat, Dan Delmonaco, Motahhare Eslami, and Nazanin Andalibi. 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 5, CSCW2(2021), 1–44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Melissa G Keith, Peter D Harms, and Alexander C Long. 2020. Worker health and well-being in the gig economy: A proposed framework and research agenda. Entrepreneurial and Small Business Stressors, Experienced Stress, and Well-Being 18(2020), 1–33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Jin Kim. 2012. The institutionalization of YouTube: From user-generated content to professionally generated content. Media, culture & society 34, 1 (2012), 53–67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Daniel Klug, Yiluo Qin, Morgan Evans, and Geoff Kaufman. 2021. Trick and Please. A Mixed-Method Study On User Assumptions About the TikTok Algorithm. In 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021. 84–92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Sneha R Krishna Kumaran, Wenxuan Wendy Shi, and Brian P Bailey. 2021. Am I Ready to Get Feedback? A Taxonomy of Factors Creators Consider Before Seeking Feedback on In-Progress Creative Work. In Creativity and Cognition. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Sangeet Kumar. 2019. The algorithmic dance: YouTube’s Adpocalypse and the gatekeeping of cultural content on digital platforms. Internet Policy Review 8, 2 (2019), 1–21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Angela Y Lee, Hannah Mieczkowski, Nicole B Ellison, and Jeffrey T Hancock. 2022. The Algorithmic Crystal: Conceptualizing the Self through Algorithmic Personalization on TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2(2022), 1–22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory framework for algorithmic governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW(2019), 1–35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish. 2015. Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 1603–1612.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Frederike Lichtenstein. 2017. Is Vidme the ‘NewTube’? Why video creators are changing sides and how they feel about it. Masters of Media (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Phoebe Lin and Jessica Van Brummelen. 2021. Engaging teachers to Co-design integrated AI curriculum for K-12 classrooms. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Renkai Ma and Yubo Kou. 2021. "How advertiser-friendly is my video?": YouTuber’s Socioeconomic Interactions with Algorithmic Content Moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2(2021), 1–25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Stephanie McNeal. 2022. Workers demand gig economy companies explain their algorithms. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/youtube-mcbrooms-quitting-david-dobrikGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Karim Nader and Min Kyung Lee. 2022. Folk Theories and User Strategies on Dating Apps. In International Conference on Information. Springer, 445–458.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Victoria O’Meara. 2019. Weapons of the chic: Instagram influencer engagement pods as practices of resistance to Instagram platform labor. Social Media+ Society 5, 4 (2019), 2056305119879671.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Joon Sung Park, Lindsay Popowski, Carrie Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2022. Social Simulacra: Creating Populated Prototypes for Social Computing Systems. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Aaron Pressman and Danielle Abril. 2021. YouTube creator economy flourishes with $30 billion payments. https://fortune.com/2021/06/02/youtube-creator-economy-advertising-revenue-war-for-talent-yt-influencers/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Aruna Ranganathan and Alan Benson. 2020. A numbers game: Quantification of work, auto-gamification, and worker productivity. American Sociological Review 85, 4 (2020), 573–609.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark. 2016. Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International journal of communication 10 (2016), 27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2012. Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Bis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Saiph Savage, Chun Wei Chiang, Susumu Saito, Carlos Toxtli, and Jeffrey Bigham. 2020. Becoming the super turker: Increasing wages via a strategy from high earning workers. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 1241–1252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Saiph Savage and Mohammad H Jarrahi. 2020. Solidarity and AI for Transitioning to Crowd Work during COVID-19. In The New Future of Work Symposium 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Tanusree Sharma, Zhixuan Zhou, Yun Huang, and Yang Wang. 2022. " It’s A Blessing and A Curse": Unpacking Creators’ Practices with Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and Their Communities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.13233(2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Hong Shen, Alicia DeVos, Motahhare Eslami, and Kenneth Holstein. 2021. Everyday algorithm auditing: Understanding the power of everyday users in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2(2021), 1–29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Beth Singler. 2020. “Blessed by the algorithm”: Theistic conceptions of artificial intelligence in online discourse. AI & society 35, 4 (2020), 945–955.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Chris Stokel-Walker. 2018. Why YouTubers are feeling the burn. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/12/youtubers-feeling-burn-video-stars-crumbling-under-pressure-of-producing-new-contentGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. TechPostPlus. 2022. YouTube video categories List (complete guide). https://techpostplus.com/youtube-video-categories-list-faqs-and-solutions/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Anna M Turri, Karen H Smith, and Elyria Kemp. 2013. Developing affective brand commitment through social media. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 14, 3 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Kristen Vaccaro, Ziang Xiao, Kevin Hamilton, and Karrie Karahalios. 2021. Contestability For Content Moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2(2021), 1–28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. José Van Dijck. 2013. The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Susann Wagenknecht, Min Lee, Caitlin Lustig, Jacki O’Neill, and Himanshu Zade. 2016. Algorithms at work: empirical diversity, analytic vocabularies, design implications. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion. 536–543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Philip Weber, Thomas Ludwig, Sabrina Brodesser, and Laura Grönewald. 2021. “It’s a Kind of Art!”: Understanding Food Influencers as Influential Content Creators. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Eva Yiwei Wu, Emily Pedersen, and Niloufar Salehi. 2019. Agent, gatekeeper, drug dealer: How content creators craft algorithmic personas. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW(2019), 1–27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC) Yec. 2022. Make the most of the creator economy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2022/07/18/make-the-most-of-the-creator-economy/?sh=7565921916e9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Daisy Yoo, Alina Huldtgren, Jill Palzkill Woelfer, David G Hendry, and Batya Friedman. 2013. A value sensitive action-reflection model: evolving a co-design space with stakeholder and designer prompts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 419–428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Brita Ytre-Arne and Hallvard Moe. 2021. Folk theories of algorithms: Understanding digital irritation. Media, Culture & Society 43, 5 (2021), 807–824.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Angie Zhang, Alexander Boltz, Chun Wei Wang, and Min Kyung Lee. 2022. Algorithmic management reimagined for workers and by workers: Centering worker well-being in gig work. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Haiyi Zhu, Bowen Yu, Aaron Halfaker, and Loren Terveen. 2018. Value-sensitive algorithm design: Method, case study, and lessons. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 2, CSCW(2018), 1–23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Douglas Zytko, Pamela J. Wisniewski, Shion Guha, Eric PS Baumer, and Min Kyung Lee. 2022. Participatory Design of AI Systems: Opportunities and Challenges Across Diverse Users, Relationships, and Application Domains. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Creator-friendly Algorithms: Behaviors, Challenges, and Design Opportunities in Algorithmic Platforms

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2023
        14911 pages
        ISBN:9781450394215
        DOI:10.1145/3544548

        Copyright © 2023 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 19 April 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format