Algorithmic Curation and the Public Sphere: A Theoretical Framework of Attention, Visibility and Deliberation in Platform-Mediated Societies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68854/yjr5kk14Keywords:
public sphere, algorithmic curation, recommendation systems, attention economy, visibility, deliberation, platform governance, digital society, media theory, AfricaAbstract
The public sphere was theorised for a world in which editors, broadcasters and other gatekeepers decided what the public saw. It now operates in a world in which recommendation algorithms make that decision person by person, usually optimising for engagement. This conceptual, non-empirical paper revisits public-sphere theory under algorithmic curation. It draws on Habermasian and post-Habermasian public-sphere theory, the attention-economy and platform-studies literatures, and peer-reviewed research published between 2023 and 2026 on recommendation systems, visibility and their political effects. Every source was checked against its Crossref record and screened for retractions and corrections. The paper distinguishes three functions that a public sphere performs: making matters visible, enabling deliberation, and forming public opinion. It argues that algorithmic curation transforms each of them. Visibility comes to be allocated by predicted engagement rather than by public relevance. Deliberation gives way to parallel monologues addressed to sorted audiences, and the encounters across lines that do occur tend to be selected for hostility. Public opinion forms through cascades that the ranking system shapes and through distorted signals about what other people think. From this visibility–deliberation–opinion framework, the paper derives six propositions. They concern the conditions under which platform-mediated publics can still perform public-sphere functions, the effects of curation on minority and marginal voices, the limits of transparency and user control as remedies, and the position of African digital publics that depend on a handful of foreign platforms. The paper then proposes a framework for evaluating platform governance against public-sphere criteria rather than user-satisfaction or engagement metrics, and concludes with recommendations for regulators, platforms, African governments and civil society, and researchers.
References
Acosta Navas, D. (2025). In moderation: Automation in the digital public sphere. Journal of Business Ethics, 200(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05912-8
Alnemr, N. (2026). Deliberative democracy in an algorithmic society: Harms, contestations and deliberative capacity in the digital public sphere. Democratization, 33(4), 927–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2025.2522920
Bamidele, S. (2026). From streets to screens: Urban popular culture and political mobilization in Nigeria’s #EndSARS protests. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18(1), 17– 38. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v18.i1.9739
Brady, W. J., Jackson, J. C., Lindström, B., & Crockett, M. J. (2023). Algorithm-mediated social learning in online social networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(10), 947–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.008 Brown, É. (2026). Democracy needs reach: Political equality, online speech and algorithmic recommendation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 29(2), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-026-10535-1
Bruns, A. (2023). From “the” public sphere to a network of publics: Towards an empirically founded model of contemporary public communication spaces. Communication Theory, 33(2–3), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad007
Effoduh, J. O. (2025). Digital colonialism and the role of local intermediaries: Examining Big Tech’s impact on data sovereignty and human rights in Africa. Business and Human Rights Journal, 10(2–3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2025.10021
Fisher, J., Gadjanova, E., & Hitchen, J. (2024). WhatsApp and political communication in West Africa: Accounting for differences in parties’ organization and message discipline online. Party Politics, 30(5), 934–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688231188690
Gondwe, G. (2025). AI-driven disinformation and political influence on WhatsApp in South Africa’s 2024 elections. The International Journal of Press/Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612251395434 González-Bailón, S., Lazer, D., Barberá, P., Zhang, M., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., Guess, A. M., Iyengar, S., Kim, Y. M., Malhotra, N., Moehler, D., Nyhan, B., Pan, J., Rivera, C. V., Settle, J., Thorson, E., … Tucker, J. A. (2023). Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook. Science, 381(6656), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade7138
Griffin, R. (2025). Governing platforms through corporate risk management: The politics of systemic risk in the Digital Services Act. European Law Open, 4(2), 223–253. https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2025.17
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., González-Bailón, S., Kennedy, E., Kim, Y. M., Lazer, D., Moehler, D., Nyhan, B., Rivera, C. V., Settle, J., Thomas, D. R., … Tucker, J. A. (2023). Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions. Science, 381(6656), 404–408. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.add8424
Hojati, A., & Nault, B. R. (2026). Content moderation with shadowbanning. Information Systems Research, 37(2), 1304–1322. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2024.1140
Hyzen, A., Van den Bulck, H., Puppis, M., Kulig, M., & Paulussen, S. (2026). Epistemic welfare and algorithmic recommender systems: Overcoming the epistemic crisis in the digitalized public sphere. Communication Theory, 36(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaf018
Jungherr, A., & Schroeder, R. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the public arena. Communication Theory, 33(2–3), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad006
Kleinberg, J., Ludwig, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2024). The inversion problem: Why algorithms should infer mental state and not just predict behavior. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(5), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231212138
Lafont, C. (2023). A democracy, if we can keep it. Remarks on J. Habermas’ A new structural transformation of the public sphere. Constellations, 30(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12663
Mbioh, W. R. (2025). Resisting Meta: Content moderation, diffraction and the constitutive power of Kenyan law within the Global South. International Journal of Law in Context, 21(4), 711–729. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552325100153
Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024). Social drivers and algorithmic mechanisms on digital media. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(5), 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185057
Milli, S., Carroll, M., Wang, Y., Pandey, S., Zhao, S., & Dragan, A. D. (2025). Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media. PNAS Nexus, 4(3), pgaf062. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf062
Naudts, L., Helberger, N., Veale, M., & Sax, M. (2025). A right to constructive optimization: A public interest approach to recommender systems in the Digital Services Act. Journal of Consumer Policy, 48(3), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-025-09586-1
Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., Romann, L. R., Witkowich, I., & Chen, J. (2026). Exploring social media users’ experiences with algorithmic transparency cues. New Media & Society, 28(6), 2570–2591. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251339493
Owens-Ibie, N., Nnabuihe, O. E., & Aondover, E. M. (2026). New minority marginalisations and the social media ecosystem in Nigeria. African Identities. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725843.2026.2672423
Piccardi, T., Saveski, M., Jia, C., Hancock, J., Tsai, J. L., & Bernstein, M. S. (2025). Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization. Science, 390(6776), eadu5584. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu5584
Rathje, S., Robertson, C., Brady, W. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2024). People think that social media platforms do (but should not) amplify divisive content. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(5), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231190392
Rauchberg, J. (2025). Articulating algorithmic ableism: The suppression and surveillance of disabled TikTok creators. Journal of Gender Studies, 34(8), 1138–1149. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2025.2477116
Schlesinger, P. (2024). The post-public sphere and neo-regulation of digital platforms. Javnost – The Public, 31(1), 64–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2024.2311010
Schoon, A., & Bosch, T. (2024). TikTok and memetic activism against racism in South Africa.
Information, Communication & Society, 27(16), 2760–2775. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2295356
Udupa, S., Maronikolakis, A., & Wisiorek, A. (2023). Ethical scaling for content moderation: Extreme speech and the (in)significance of artificial intelligence. Big Data & Society, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231172424
Uwalaka, T. (2023). Mobile internet and contentious politics in Nigeria: Using the organisational tools of mobile social networking applications to sustain protest movements. Journalism and Media, 4(1), 396–412. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia4010026
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 IIAR Journal of Communication, Media, and Digital Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
