Hi! I prepared slides for each chapter of my book 'Algorithmic gatekeeping for professional communicators - power, trust and legitimacy'. (OPEN ACCESS: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375258) These are the slides for chapter 4: . The chapter describes the power balance between Influencers and Instagram's algorithms and analyzes the legitimacy of the power of these algorithms. The slides can be used in teaching, since they provide: -summary of the main points of the chapter -discussion questions -suggestions for further reading (open access resources)

1. Chapter 4:
Structuring Power

2. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Influencers and algorithms
Influencers strategic actors with political relevance
- Source of political information
- Beyond institutional politics
- Instagram
Influencers and the power of Instagram’s algorithms
- Need exposure on Instagram
- Algorithms encourage specific behavior (Cotter, 2019)
- Influencers consciously adapt behavior to the demands of the algorithms
1. What is the perceived power of influencers vis-à-vis Instagram’s algorithms?
2. Which criteria are used to assess the legitimacy of the power of Instagram’s algorithms?

3. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Algorithmic power
Power = ”A succesful attempt by A to get B to do something that he would otherwise not do” (Dahl, 1957, p. 203)
Algorithms define the playing field
 Structuring power
 ”Playing the visibility game” (Cotter, 2019)
Nudging
 Induces desired automatic and intuitive behavior (e.g. Singh Apte, 2020)
 Implicit power (perceived autonomy, hidden control)

4. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Responding to algorithmic power
1. Following the rules
Behavior which is rewarded by the algorithm
e.g., adapt timing of posting; emotional content
2. Gaming the system
Bypassing the rules by behaving in ways which are not intended by the algorithm
e.g., Pods
3. Resistance
Proactively trying to correct the negative impact of the algorithm
e.g., affecting Google’s search results (Velkova and Kaun, 2021); leaving platform

5. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Sources of legitimacy
We do not know which criteria are used to assess the legitimacy of the power of algorithms
Five sources of legitimacy for media institutions
 Character of the professionals (Abbott, 1988)
 Connections with other legitimate institutions (Boulding, 1968: 12)
 Ethical standards (e.g., Tong, 2018)
 Constituents (the people that benefit from their work) (e.g., Abbott, 1988)
 Beneficial outcomes (e.g., Skovsgaard and Bro, 2011: 329).

6. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Method
 Thematic analysis
70 online articles published in 2019 where marketing experts, journalists, Influencers or other professionals write
about Instagram’s algorithm and changes in the algorithm
20 online articles published in 2019 where marketing experts, journalists, Influencers or other professionals write
about Instagram Pods
 Coding
Awareness, metaphors, transparency, trust and distrust
 Analysis of patterns in power relations
Power, dependency, locus of control, agency, autonomy, and legitimacy

7. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Results: dependence on the algorithms
“Since the death of the chronological timeline, Instagram’s constant experimentation with ways to bring you the
posts on your feed has led to increasingly low reach for both normal users and Influencers. (…) Algorithms are the
pain points of marketers all over the world. They change all the time, they are unpredictable, and we are
dangerously dependent on them.” (Eloise, 2019)
Algorithms affect organic reach, engagement; interaction rate; followers; new customers; sales; promotional
content; life-span of posts
Adapting behaviour to what algorithms reward

8. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Power balance

9. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Results 3: Perceived versus real influence and
autonomy
Paradox: You have control as long as you follow the rules
“As long as you are creating engaging, relevant, and timely content, the algorithm is actually an advantage to you.”
(Lua, 2019)
Pods are presented as a way to game or by-pass the algorithm
But … they require a lot of resources (e.g., time);
… they can be disingenuous;
… they have limited payoff
Alternative: genuine interaction and true connections
“Next time you log into Instagram, consider why you’re on the platform in the first place and try creating content
that furthers your original purpose for joining. There are no easy answers for growing your following on Instagram,
but shortcuts may ultimately hurt you in the long run.” (Chappell, 2019)

10. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Results 4:
Legitimacy criteria for algorithmic power
 Character: Persons behind algorithms not a source of legitimacy
“A stupid algorithm created by really smart people”, “these extremely book smart—but clearly not street
smart—IG executives.” (Tori 2017)
 Values: Fairness, non-commerciality, equal opportunity, and openness to new-comers
Predictability, consistency, and transparency,
 Who is it for: Beneficial of ordinary people? (Lua 2019)
“An agent for big-name influencers anonymously told Hack he was cynical about Instagram’s ‘mental
health’ justification, and suspected removing the ‘likes’ count would give the company more freedom to c
hange the algorithm and “roll-out aggressive marketing tools.” (Purtill, 2019)
 Outcomes: Community, connection, speaking out in diverse debate instead of digital inequalities, reinforcement
of external hierarchies

11. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Summary and conclusions
 Algorithms are powerful, because they control access to valuable resources (reach,
engagement), are non-transparent and unpredictable
 Perceptions of the power balance between Influencers and algorithms range from
dependence; to opportunity, to something that can be outsmarted, to full independence
 There were no examples of resistance to the algorithms
 Even in cases where the Influencers are seen as having the upper-hand, they are still
dependent (e.g., rules of the game are laid out by the algorithm; replaced and renewed
dependence in Pods).
 Criteria to assess the legitimacy of algorithmic power center around “traditional” democratic
values, outcomes and target audiences
 In general, the legitimacy of the algorithm is negatively assessed

12. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Democratic implications
 Type of content posted and most visible
Disadvantage for civic voices
Mainstream perspectives favored
Limited room for doublt
Insincere posts (engagement as means; Pods).
vs.
Diversity in content
Genuine opinion expression;
True connection
 Lack of legitimacy of the algorithms
Cynicism, frustration and distrust
Power by coercion

13. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Discussion questions
 Do you agree that Influencers are politically relevant actors?
 The chapter focusses on the dependence of Influencers on Instagram’s algorithms. Do
you think that ordinary Instagram users are just as dependent on Instagram’s algorithms?
 The analysis showed no examples of Influencers leaving Instagram as an ultimate act of
resistance. What would it take for Influencers to leave Instagram out of dissatisfaction with
its algorithms
 What incentives could social media platforms like Instagram have to improve the
perceived legitimacy of their algorithms?
 How would you describe the dependency relation between Twitter and professional
communicators after Elon Musk bought the company. How would you describe the
perceived legitimacy of Twitter?
 What could social media platforms do to improve the perceived legitimacy of their
algorithms?

14. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Recommended reading (open access)
Abidin, C. (2015). Communicative Intimacies: Influencers and Perceived Interconnectedness. Ada, 8:
1-16.(https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/26365/ada08-commu-abi-
2015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
Cotter, K. (2019). Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate
influence on Instagram. New Media & Society, 21(4): 895–913. (https://kelleycotter.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/NMS_visibilitygame.pdf)
Velkova, J., & Kaun, A. (2021). Algorithmic resistance: Media practices and the politics of
repair. Information, Communication & Society, 24(4), 523-540.
(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1657162)
O’Meara, V. (2019). Weapons of the chic: Instagram influencer engagement pods as practices of
resistance to Instagram platform labor. Social Media+ Society, 5(4): 1–11.
(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305119879671)

15. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Available Open Access: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375258
About: