Q&A: If You’re Seeing This, Is It Meant for You?

Cotter: We thought that algorithmic conspirituality occurs when social media users interpret algorithmic recommendations as cosmically significant, prompting revelatory self-insight. It also refers to a kind of hook that content creators sometimes use that explicitly invites this kind of interpretation.

In another paper — on which we collaborated with Shaheen Kanthawala, assistant professor, and Amy Ritchart, doctoral student, both from the University of Alabama — we also argued that algorithmic conspirituality makes social media content more persuasive by creating the impression that not only are users not alone in certain thoughts or behaviors but also that these thoughts and behaviors are encouraged.

Q: What makes a user decide that it’s spirituality — not just technology — that delivers personalized content?
Cotter: In a nutshell, it’s a leap of faith. Participants in our research have demonstrated consistent awareness of the underlying technology affording the serendipitous experiences with TikTok’s FYP algorithm. However, when leaning toward a divine interpretation, they’ve tended to describe experiences in which they received an extraordinarily well-tailored recommendation, were in a heightened state of emotion and/or drew on pre-existing spiritual beliefs.

Q: Are the algorithms that drive FYP unique to TikTok?
De: All social media platforms driven by recommendation algorithms do not disclose how these algorithms really work. This confidentiality is fundamental to their business models — it’s their secret sauce for pursuing monetization through targeted advertisements, engagement and user retention. And while this is understandable, it pushes platform users to theorize and speculate about their experiences with the algorithm.

Cotter: In many ways, TikTok’s FYP algorithm is not unique from other social media algorithms. However, the greater reliance on algorithm-driven personalization — as opposed to user-driven personalization, such as by following accounts — has made the FYP algorithm more central to the TikTok experience. Plus, the frictionless user experience of swiping through and engaging with videos helps streamline the process of inferring user interests.

Q: Can users intentionally personalize and control their FYP?
De: For TikTok in particular, the algorithm’s high level of accuracy, combined with its unknowability and unpredictability, makes this process very difficult. But while users cannot guarantee that specific actions will personalize their FYP, there are folk theories and speculations about what practices help influence the FYP — such as liking, sharing or commenting on content similar to what they would like to receive as recommendations — that users use to rationalize their experiences with algorithms.

Q: Algorithmic conspirituality is the users’ attempt to make sense of the algorithm’s ability to recognize their existential needs. So, do users understand that there is science behind it but believe that the technology is enhanced by something more otherworldly?
Cotter: Everyone we have interviewed has understood, to some degree, that the FYP algorithm is a computational process, a technology, designed to personalize content curation for them. In general, most average users do not have complex technical insight about the science behind algorithms but have a basic grasp on functionality from using algorithm-driven social media sites and making inferences from their observations, as well as from what they gather from content creators and the media.

And yet, in our study, we saw that some people still found themselves reading more into their encounters with the TikTok FYP algorithm. Some people seemed to see the algorithm as a conduit for a higher power; other people did not clearly disentangle the algorithm from a higher power to identify the source of a perceived divine intervention. 

Q: Tell us about the concept of reflexive ambivalence that you’ve discussed in your work.
Cotter: Reflexive ambivalence refers to when users simultaneously understand social media algorithms as human-made technologies, while interpreting them as a divine force. I see this as similar to how people casually engage with astrology, horoscopes or even the chain mail that preceded the internet. Most people would tell you they don’t actually believe in this stuff but often find themselves struggling to shake the feeling that maybe it’s true.  

Q: Ultimately, have you found that users want to believe in algorithmic conspirituality?
Cotter: Interestingly, in general, the people we interviewed did not want to believe in algorithmic conspirituality. As one user put it, they thought the idea was “goofy” and something they “shouldn’t” believe in. However, some participants described moments when reading a particularly well-timed and well-tailored algorithmic recommendation as a divine intervention instilled hope or affirmed their feelings or beliefs when they needed it. In such moments, it seemed like they did want to believe.

Mary Fetzer is writer and content creator, Marketing and Communications, Penn State University. The article was originally posted to the website of Penn State University.