#algorithmicinvisibility

En Canelones, Uruguay; Quilicura, Chile; y Caucaia, Brasil, comunidades se levantan con la consigna clara: “NO SOMOS PATIO TRASERO DE NADIE”

La gente no se queda callada.

En agosto de 2025, integrantes del pueblo indígena Anacé fueron agredidos y detenidos por la policía al bloquear obras de un centro vinculado a TikTok en territorio tradicional; en Chile, vecinos presentaron recursos legales que fueron rechazados a pesar de evidenciar falta de consulta previa y escasez hídrica. Piden que se cumpla el Acuerdo de Escazú, que se hagan estudios reales de impacto, que se prohíban instalaciones en zonas indígenas o donde el agua ya escasea, y que cualquier decisión pase por quien vive allí.

La activista y docente Claudia Urquieta en Resistencias Contra El Despojo Digital [2024, pág. 63] pregunta con rabia: “¿Por qué necesitamos tantos centros si la mayoría guarda datos que no sirven al bien común, sino a publicidad, control y ganancias?”.

Debemos dejar de engañarnos: no son “nube”, SON CENTROS DE VIGILANCIA Y APROPIACIÓN. Si permitimos que sigan creciendo sin reglas, serán el instrumento perfecto de opresión y registrarán cada paso, cada palabra, cada elección, y la privacidad dejará de ser un derecho para convertirse en algo que nos dan o nos quitan según convenga a quienes manejan los servidores. Todo esto no es casual: es la misma lógica de la colonia, disfrazada de cables y luces, que nos sigue diciendo que existimos solo para servir a lo que ellos llaman “desarrollo”, aunque eso signifique destruirnos a nosotros mismos y a todo lo que nos sostiene.

Pussy Riot «Соглядатаи»

[Los Vigilantes]

Nos ponen ojos por todas partes, bajo el agua y sobre la tierra [Соглядатаи везде: под водой и над землей]

Dicen que es progreso, pero es solo una jaula de cables [Говорят — прогресс, а это клетка из проводов]

Se beben el agua que nos daba vida, nos quitan el sueño y la calma [Пьют воду, что нас кормила, забирают сон и покой]

Llamanla “nube”, pero es un muro que nos vigila y nos roba el alma [Называют это «облаком», а это стена, что следит и крадет душу]

No queremos sus centros, no queremos su control [Не нужны нам их центры, не нужен их контроль]

ᕙ( •̀ ᗜ •́ )ᕗ Haz clic en el enlace de abajo y asegura la tuya:

YANKIS DE MIERDA

Lo que hoy llamamos “EsTáNDaR MuNdiAL” no nació como la mejor opción, sino como la más barata.

La investigadora y arquitecta Marina Otero Verzier en La Infraestructura Que Nos Devora [2022, pág. 37] revela que el modelo actual de refrigeración y concentración fue elegido en pruebas experimentales solo porque abarataba hardware y mantenimiento, descartando alternativas que protegerían el agua y la salud por requerir mayor inversión inicial.

Hoy existen soluciones probadas: refrigeración líquida que reutiliza el calor para calefaccionar viviendas cercanas, sistemas de enfriamiento por aire libre que reducen el consumo hídrico hasta un 90 %, diseños distribuidos que evitan acumular riesgos y materiales con huella casi nula.

Pero las grandes corporaciones no quieren saber nada.

Para ellas, cambiar es perder dinero rápido.

Y mientras nos distraen con la historia del “PrOgReSo DiGiTaL”, estas instalaciones se convierten en verdaderos centros de vigilancia: guardan cada clic, cada ubicación, cada conversación y cada rostro que pasa por una cámara, alimentando redes de control que cruzan datos entre países y gobiernos. La investigadora brasileña Soledad Vogliano en Tecnologías del Despojo [2026, pág. 112] advierte que si seguimos así, en pocas décadas vastas zonas fértiles de América Latina quedarán convertidas en desiertos tecnológicos: sin agua, sin vida… Solo máquinas que obedecen a quienes están lejos y no les importa nada lo que aquí sucede.

The Shanghai Sisters «La Nube Quemante»

[Yún Shāo]

Dicen que la nube es limpia, pero quema nuestros campos [都说云干净，却烧了我们的田]

Llevan nuestros datos lejos y nos dejan con el vacío [把数据带走，留给我们空无一物]

Prometen empleos y riqueza, pero solo nos dejan sed y silencio [承诺工作和财富，只留下干渴和沉默]

Las máquinas no conocen nuestra historia, no conocen nuestra sed [机器不懂我们的故事，不懂我们的渴]

Despertemos antes que conviertan todo en desierto sin fin [在他们把一切变成无尽荒漠前醒来吧]

ᕙ( •̀ ᗜ •́ )ᕗ Haz clic en el enlace de abajo y asegura la tuya:

Ever scrolled through Instagram and felt like your face isn’t “Instagram face” enough? You’re not alone. From Kardashian-esque curves to chiselled jawlines, platforms enforce aesthetic templates - standardised beauty ideals that blur the line between self-expression and digital conformity. Let’s dissect how these templates warp our self-image and who gets erased.  

Microcelebrity Culture: Branding Bodies for Clicks

Microcelebrities like Bella Hadid or James Charles don’t just post selfies - they sell aspirational blueprints. Influencers engage in various modes of labour, including intimate affective labour, developmental aesthetic labour, and aspiring relational labour, to build their brands and increase social and economic capital (Duguay 2019), which often involves sexualized labour, where influencers adopt a 'porn chic' aesthetic to monetize attention (Drenten et al. 2019). For example, TikTok’s “#FoxEyeChallenge” glorified eyelid tape to mimic Eurocentric features, while fillers and filters normalize “pornification” - sexualized poses that mirror commercial porn.  

Algorithmic Erasure: Who Gets Hidden?

Social media platforms like Instagram employ algorithmic and content moderation practices that disproportionately affect marginalized creators and stigmatized content, leading to experiences of invisibility and self-censorship (Duffy & Meisner 2022). Marginalised bodies face a double bind: conform to mainstream templates or vanish. Meanwhile, #BDD (Body Dysmorphic Disorder) rates surge as teens chase unattainable “snatched waists” and “thigh gaps” - ideals amplified by pro-ana (pro-anorexia) accounts disguised as #Fitspiration.  

The Profit of Dysmorphia  

Influencers’ accounts have attracted billions of views (Om et al. 2021), but the quality of information remains poor, with low discern scores on various procedures (Rothchild et al. 2023). For example, Kylie Jenner promotes "natural beauty" while tagging her cosmetic surgeons, highlighting identity dissonance between online and offline selves. Exposure to enhanced images can cause "perceptual drift," changing expectations of natural facial anatomy (Love et al. 2023), as Millennials and Gen Z increasingly pursue preventative and minimally invasive treatments like botulinum toxin and dermal filler (Mobayed et al. 2019).

Resisting the Template

Hope glimmers in corners of the web. Several influencers use TikTok to document their unfiltered surgeon or self-changing journey, while #BodyNeutrality activists reject “good vs. bad” body binaries.

Is your selfie a rebellion—or just feeding the algorithm’s beauty standard? Drop your unfiltered truths below. 🖤📸 

Reference:

Duffy, BE & Meisner, C 2022, ‘Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility’, Media Culture & Society, vol. 45, SAGE Publishing, no. 2, pp. 285–304.

Rothchild, E, Chernovolenko, D, Wang, F & Ricci, JA 2023, ‘An Analysis of Male Plastic Surgery Content on TikTok’, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, vol. 44, Oxford University Press (OUP), no. 5, pp. 556–564.

‌Love, M, Saunders, C, Harris, S, Moon, Z & Veale, D 2023, ‘Redefining Beauty: A Qualitative Study Exploring Adult Women’s Motivations for Lip Filler Resulting in Anatomical Distortion’, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, vol. 43, Oxford University Press (OUP), no. 8, pp. 907–916.

‌Mobayed, N, Nguyen, J & Jagdeo, J 2019, ‘Minimally Invasive Facial Cosmetic Procedures for the Millennial Aesthetic Patient’, Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, vol. 19, SanovaWorks, no. 1, pp. 100–103.

‌Om, A, Ijeoma, B, Kebede, S & Losken, A 2021, ‘Analyzing the Quality of Aesthetic Surgery Procedure Videos on TikTok’, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, vol. 41, Oxford University Press, no. 12, pp. 2078–2083.

Duguay, S 2019, ‘“Running the Numbers”: Modes of Microcelebrity Labor in Queer Women’s Self-Representation on Instagram and Vine’, Social Media + Society, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 205630511989400.

This week’s reading by Duffy & Meisner (2022) invites us to critically examine how algorithmic (in)visibility shapes the experience of social media creators. Their research shows that platform governance, especially through opaque algorithms, systematically marginalizes creators who don’t conform to dominant cultural templates—impacting visibility, engagement, and even self-perception.

🎯 Algorithmic Invisibility: Who Gets Seen and Who Doesn't?

Duffy & Meisner (2022) highlight how marginalized creators—especially women, queer, and transgender influencers—struggle with algorithmic invisibility. This occurs when platform algorithms deprioritize or “shadow-ban” content that challenges heteronormative, Eurocentric beauty ideals. Reading this, I realized how familiar this feels on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, where filtered “mainstream beauty” content often trends while alternative representations are buried.

This concept ties directly to Mavroudis’ (2023) lecture, which discusses how microcelebrity culture is built on conforming to aesthetic templates—specific poses, body modifications, and gendered visual cues that appeal to the platform’s engagement-driven logic. These templates aren’t neutral; they reinforce pornification (Drenten & Gurrieri, 2019) and the monetization of the “ideal body” (Carah & Dobson, 2016).

🩺 Health Consequences: Body Image & Public Health

The lecture also highlights the public health risks associated with these online dynamics. For example, users engaging in what Mavroudis calls fame labour often develop identity dissonance—the psychological gap between their curated online self and their offline body. This can fuel issues like Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), as people chase unachievable aesthetic ideals amplified by influencers and even some health campaigns.

Interestingly, Dorfman et al. (2018) found that most cosmetic surgery-related posts on Instagram were promotional, not educational. This made me reflect on how “public health messaging” is increasingly blurred with influencer marketing—sometimes reinforcing unrealistic body expectations under the guise of wellness.

💡 Independent Research – Algorithmic Bias in Cosmetic Trends

Expanding on this, I looked at Wen et al. (2015) who analyzed YouTube cosmetic surgery content. Their study showed that videos often frame cosmetic enhancement as empowerment, yet overwhelmingly cater to heteronormative beauty standards. This parallels Duffy & Meisner’s point about algorithmic invisibility, where only specific beauty narratives gain traction.

Personally, I think this raises a key question: are health campaigns on social media truly empowering, or are they entangled in the same platform logic that marginalizes diverse bodies?

"The structures of platform governance systematically render certain creators invisible, reinforcing offline hierarchies in online spaces.” (Duffy & Meisner, 2022, p. 2)

✨ Reflection: Rethinking Digital Citizenship

For me, this week reframes digital citizenship beyond participation. It’s about critically engaging with platform cultures, resisting algorithmic bias, and demanding accountability from both influencers and tech companies. As users, we co-create digital spaces, but as Duffy & Meisner argue, we also navigate infrastructures that often replicate offline hierarchies.

💬 Your turn: Have you noticed how some types of bodies or identities seem more “visible” on your social feeds than others? How should we challenge this as digital citizens? 💬👇

References

Carah, N., & Dobson, A. (2016). Algorithmic hotness: Young women’s “promotion” and “reconnaissance” work via social media body images. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672887

Dorfman, R. G., Vaca, E. E., Mahmood, E., Fine, N. A., & Schierle, C. F. (2018). Plastic surgery-related hashtag utilization on Instagram: Implications for education and marketing. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 38(3), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx104

Drenten, J., & Gurrieri, L. (2019). Sexualized labour in digital culture: Instagram influencers, porn chic and the monetization of attention. Gender, Work & Organization, 26(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12312

Duffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2022). Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility. Media, Culture & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221111923

Mavroudis, J. (2023). Digital Citizenship and Health Campaigns. Lecture presented at MDA20009: Digital Citizenship. Swinburne University.