Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The past decades have seen a rising academic interest in algorithmic activism. Despite this interest, the limited exploration of its impact on the digital consumer terrain provided fertile ground to study. This paper conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) and synthesizes the analysis through the theories, contexts, characteristics, and methodologies (TCCM) framework for SLR to classify and synthesize the literature of the field. Findings demonstrate that research on algorithmic activism is conceptually developing. Most studies lack a theoretical framework, and some studies discussed the theoretical underpinning but were not driven or consolidated based on it. Contextually, studies span diverse sociopolitical environments, which show that algorithmic visibility and digital resistance practices influence both activist mobilization and consumer responses. Across various characteristics, evidence suggests that algorithmic activism indirectly influences consumers through information flows. Methodologically, the field is dominated by qualitative designs. This paper outlines a future research agenda emphasizing the need to integrate robust theory with empirical analysis. This study found that a set of articles in the domain is still in its early stages of development. It provides a solid foundation for the field, offering a map of the existing research and a clear agenda for future research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aniket Sachan (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: