YouTube Episteme under Algorithmic Governance: A Mixed-Methods Study of Clickbait Comedy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63385/cvca.v2i1.470Keywords:
Clickbait Comedians, Episteme, Critical Theory, Algorithm-Aligned Content, Humor SpectacleAbstract
Michel Foucault’s concept of power/knowledge explains how institutions historically controlled knowledge. In the digital age, new epistemic structures have emerged, where YouTubers, representing diverse voices, appear to democratize knowledge and influence public beliefs. However, this study argues that YouTube clickbait comedians, through sensational tactics designed to maximize clicks and views, reinforce the concentration of power within platforms that control visibility and monetization. Their algorithm-driven and commercially oriented systems reproduce what Guy Debord termed the “society of the spectacle,” turning humor into spectacle and encouraging escapism at the expense of meaningful social critique. This study pursues two primary research objectives: first, to examine how YouTube’s algorithmic governance structures epistemic visibility; and second, to investigate the emergence of the clickbait comedian as a new epistemic authority in the digital public sphere. A mixed-method analysis, including quantitative content analysis and qualitative critical investigation of the top 15 YouTube channels using data from the vidIQ platform, reveals three central findings. First, algorithm-aligned humor emerges as a dominant communicative form, structured around engagement optimization, sensationalism, and affective immediacy. Second, visibility and symbolic power are increasingly concentrated, favoring creators who internalize platform logics and adapt their content to algorithmic incentives. Third, the transformation of humor into spectacle generates significant epistemic consequences: authority shifts from institutional expertise to algorithmically amplified performativity, reshaping public discourse and redefining credibility within the digital sphere. Policymakers, educators, and the public must be vigilant about the impact of algorithms and capitalist interests on the digital episteme.
References
[1]Burgess, J., Green, J., 2018. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture, 2nd ed. Polity: Cambridge, UK.
[2]Jenkins, H., 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York, NY, USA.
[3]Gillespie, T., 2014. The relevance of algorithms. In: Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P.J., Foot, K.A. (Eds.). Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA. pp. 167–194.
[4]Habib, H., Nithyanand, R., 2025. YouTube recommendations reinforce negative emotions: Auditing algorithmic bias with emotionally-agentic sock puppets. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2501.15048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.15048
[5]Bogost, I., 2008. The rhetoric of video games. In: Salen, K. (Ed.). The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA. pp. 117–140.
[6]Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Sheridan, A. (Trans.). Pantheon Books: New York, NY, USA.
[7]McLuhan, M., 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA.
[8]Bucher, T., 2018. If…Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA.
[9]van Dijck, J., Poell, T., de Waal, M., 2018. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA.
[10]Debord, G., 1995. The Society of the Spectacle. Nicholson-Smith, D. (Trans.). Zone Books: New York, NY, USA.
[11]Fattoumi, F., Channouf, G., Channouf, G., 2023. Orientalism in US digital entertainment media and anti-Americanism in the Arab world: An integrative review. Annals of the International Communication Association. 47(4), 449–478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2023.2239779
[12]Covington, P., Adams, J., Sargin, E., 2016. Deep neural networks for YouTube recommendations. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Boston , MA, USA, 15–19 September 2016; pp. 191–198.
[13]Attardo, S., 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humour. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany.
[14]Mintz, L.E., 1985. Standup comedy as social and cultural mediation. American Quarterly. 37(1), 71–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2712763
[15]Brassett, J., Sutton, A., 2026. US satire and the everyday politics of decline. Comedy Studies. 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2040610X.2026.2640737
[16]Dahlgren, P., 2019. Media, Knowledge and Trust: The Deepening Epistemic Crisis of Democracy. In: Splichal, S. (Ed.). The Liquefaction of Publicness: Communication, Democracy and the Public Sphere in the Internet Age, 1st ed. Routledge: London, UK.
[17]Neuberger, C., Bartsch, A., Fröhlich, R., et al., 2023. The digital transformation of knowledge order: A model for the analysis of the epistemic crisis. Annals of the International Communication Association. 47(2), 180–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2023.2169950
[18]Beer, D., 2018. The Data Gaze: Capitalism, Power and Perception. SAGE Publications: London, UK.
[19]Henman, P., 2021. Governing by algorithms and algorithmic governmentality: Towards machinic judgement. In: Schuilenburg M., Peeters, R. (Eds.). The Algorithmic Society: Technology, Power, and Knowledge. Routledge: London, UK. pp. 19–34.
[20]Krippendorff, K., 2019. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 4th ed. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
[21]Rose, G., 2023. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 5th ed. SAGE Publications: London, UK.
[22]Fetters, M.D., Freshwater, D., 2015. The 1 + 1 = 3 integration challenge. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 9(2), 115–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815581222
[23]Flick, U. (Ed.), 2022. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design. SAGE Publications: London, UK.
[24]VidIQ, 2026. Get More Views & Subscribers on YouTube. Available from: https://vidiq.com (cited 2 February 2026).
[25]vidIQ, 2026. Best Entertainment YouTube Channels—Top 100. Available from: https://vidiq.com/youtube-stats/top/category/entertainment/ (cited 2 February 2026).
[26]Venturini, T., Rogers, R., 2019. “API-based research” or how can digital sociology and journalism studies learn from the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data breach. Digital Journalism. 7(4), 532–540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1591927
[27]Charland, M., 1987. Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the Peuple Québécois. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 73(2), 133–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638709383799
[28]Bateman, J.A., Schmidt, K.H., 2012. Multimodal Film Analysis: How Films Mean. Routledge: London, UK.
[29]Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., O’Halloran, K., 2025. Introducing Multimodality, 2nd ed. Routledge: London, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003513698.
[30]Neuendorf, K.A., 2017. The Content Analysis Guidebook, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
[31]Field, A., 2024. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 6th ed. SAGE Publications: London, UK.
[32]Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2019. Using Multivariate Statistics, 7th ed. Pearson: London, UK.
[33]Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), 2018. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th ed. SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[34]Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., Neubaum, G., 2025. What do we know about algorithmic literacy? The status quo and a research agenda for a growing field. New Media & Society. 27(2), 681–701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231182662
[35]Ingraham, C., 2020. The present as platform. Media Theory. 4(2), 115–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.70064/mt.v4i2.626
[36]Cole, R., 2024. Inter-Rater Reliability Methods in Qualitative Case Study Research. Sociological Methods & Research. 53(4), 1944–1975. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241231156971
[37]Markham, A., Buchanan, E., 2012. Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Association of Internet Researchers: Chicago, IL, USA. Available from: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
[38]Gallagher, J.R., Hernandez, A.P., 2025. Algorithmic Anthropomorphizing, Platform Gossip, and Backlashes: Aspirational Content Creators’ Narratives about YouTube’s Algorithm on Reddit. Social Media + Society. 11(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251331761
[39]Lu, E., 2024. The YouTube thumbnail faces that attract the most views. Available from: https://www.kapwing.com/resources/the-youtube-thumbnail-faces-that-attract-the-most-views/ (cited 2 February 2026).
[40]Gaw, F., 2022. Algorithmic logics and the construction of cultural taste of the Netflix Recommender System. Media, Culture & Society. 44(4), 706–725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437211053767
[41]Social Blade, 2026. Top YouTube Creators by Subscribers, Top 10 YouTube Creators in Hong Kong by Subscribers, Top 10 Entertainment YouTube Creators by Subscribers. Social Blade. Available from: https://socialblade.com/youtube (cited 2 February 2026).
[42]Marx, K., Engels, F., 1978. The Communist Manifesto. International Publishers: New York, NY, USA.
[43]Couldry, N., Mejias, U.A., 2019. The Costs of Connection: How Data is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA.
[44]Durand Folco, J., Martineau, J., 2023. Algorithmic Capital: Accumulation, Power and Resistance in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Écosociété: Montréal, QC, Canada.
[45]Spivak, G.C., 1988. Can the subaltern speak? In: Nelson, C., Grossberg, L. (Eds.). Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL, USA. pp. 271–313.
[46]Benkler, Y., Faris, R., Roberts, H., 2018. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA.
[47]Ingvarsson, J., 2021. Digital epistemology: An introduction. In Towards a Digital Epistemology: Aesthetics and Modes of Thought in Early Modernity and the Present Age. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland. pp. 1–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78724-0_1
PDF