“Not since Rockefeller and JP Morgan has there been such a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of so few” explains Hazen (2017, online). ” (2015, p.30), if, indeed, users are even aware of the power of the algorithm at all. While Instagram may be an excellent tool for reaching a younger demographic, its algorithm can be used and abused, as well as negotiated. “Unregulated search rankings could pose a significant threat to a democratic system of government,” says Forbes writer Tim Worstall (2013, online), while Hazen (2017, online) explains how Google’s “relentless pursuit of efficiency leads these companies to treat all media as a commodity”. Studies have shown that political candidates who use Twitter as a means for engaging with voters significantly increase their odds of winning (LaMarre & Suzuki-Lambrecht 2013, p.1). Despite some initial opposition to the move, feedback has been generally positive (Lua 2017, online), and the relatively simple nature of Instagram’s algorithm, compared to that of Facebook, means it is easy for users to work with or even “beat” (Chacon 2017, online).
For even further increasing your chances to appear on Google Discover, you can have your website pages optimized for mobile phones as Google Discover is projected to be used on mobile phones the most. We have yet to see what he can interestingly do for the company. We see how glamorous and lavish the lives of other people are and we naturally become dejected about our own lives. This is the “politics of the archive” (Bucher 2015, p.42), as all decisions an algorithm will make on the information it allows you to see in the future is based on what you did in the past. Another major problem Facebook’s algorithm creates is one of repetition, and it has the potential to prevent democratic processes and decisions evolving over time. Many firstcomers face the problem of arranging funds without first showing some traction that suggests potential success. The first research question asked: To what extent do algorithms in websites, networking services and social media have a negative effect on democracy in Western societies? When the effects on Western democracies of algorithms used by Facebook, Google and others are examined, it can be said that, in a general sense, these algorithms have a negative impact on Western democracies.
The sources we have come to trust to bring us information have fallen under the influence of powerful, self-serving website whose algorithms make no distinction between truth and lies, or high quality information and nonsense. The Weblist doesn’t make any promises it can’t keep. Its aims are not to promote or encourage quality content being uploaded or shared on the platform, but to get as much personal information about its users and keep them engaged for as long as possible, in order to better target paid advertisements to them. However, much like Facebook, Twitter is not legally obliged to regulate the information passed over its network for quality or accuracy. Twitter allows news stories from untrustworthy sources to “spread like wildfire over networks of family and friends” (Howard 2016, online). According to the latest Google news, it has lost the appeal that it had presented in front of the Court in order to stop the users from being able to sue in United Kingdom over suspected misappropriation of privacy settings. As said earlier, many SEO articles and news sites are providing different viewpoints is to what the Webmasters need to do to become compliant with this latest update on SEO.
In the UK alone, Instagram has 18 million users and Snapchat 10 million – both significant portions of the 65 million total population, so political parties and figures need to be using it to be successful in the ever-competitive mediascape. Its success does not rely on the ability or need to distinguish between quality, truthful information and dishonest, fake information – as long as users are engaged regularly and for lengthy periods, it can sell a large amount of advertisements and its financial success is certain. The real value of the platform lies not in the quality, honesty or accuracy of information it produces, but the amount of time the user is engaged with the platform. Facebook’s data teams are almost solely focussed on finding ways to increase the amount of time each and every user remains engaged with the platform, and they are not concerned with truth, learning, or civil conversation (O’Neil 2016, online). The consequence is an undermining of personal data and the increased likelihood of the site being used for data mining purposes by individuals, organisations or entities with potentially nefarious motives, and possibly leading to more “government by algorithmic regulation” (Ellis 2016, online).