PaperlayerView exact revision on arXiv

Source-linked AI summary

Ephemeral Feeds and Enduring Rituals: RushTok and the Formation of Event-Based Algorithmic Communities

Emelia Hughes, Tim Weninger

arXiv:2609.09331v1cs.HCcs.CYcs.SI

TL;DR

How temporary collectives assembled through algorithmic circulation form, sustain attention, and connect to offline identities remains poorly understood. The study combines a survey of RushTok viewers with a reflexive account of creator outreach and descriptive analysis of survey responses. Many respondents described RushTok as a community, yet far fewer claimed membership, amid mostly passive, entertainment-oriented engagement.

  • Problem

    How temporary collectives assembled through algorithmic circulation form, sustain attention, and connect to offline identities remains poorly understood.

    Source: §1 · pp. 1–2

  • Method

    The study combines a survey of RushTok viewers with a reflexive account of creator outreach and descriptive analysis of survey responses.

    Source: §1 · p. 1, §3.2.1 · p. 4

  • Results

    Many respondents described RushTok as a community, yet far fewer claimed membership, amid mostly passive, entertainment-oriented engagement.

    Source: §1 · p. 2

  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Algorithmic surges can mint instant influencers, reshape the stakes of physical events, and expose participants to risks without clear institutional safeguards.

    Source: §1 · p. 2

    The analysis is interpretive and descriptive, its small-n contrasts are unstable, and it does not estimate causal effects.

    Source: §5.2 · p. 10

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Each August, TikTok's For You page turns the University of Alabama's sorority recruitment into RushTok. We examine RushTok as an event-based algorithmic community: a collective assembled around a bounded offline ritual and sustained by recommendation. Using a mixed-methods survey (n=71) and a reflexive account of creator outreach, we ask who participates, how, and with what stakes. Findings show an ambiguous and entertainment based throughline; many called it a community (51/71) but few claimed membership (11/71). Affiliation centered on creators rather than shared practices, with parasocial attention clustering around a small set of potential new members (PNMs) and returning figures. Higher content exposure tracked with self-identification as a community member; those members commented, followed creators, and engaged across videos. Attempts to interview creators were met with silence or refusals, reflecting community boundary-work despite viral visibility. We outline implications for platform governance, including time-bounded context, graduated visibility, and aftercare.

1 Introduction

The paper asks how algorithmically assembled collectives form around offline rituals when belonging is ambiguous and participation is shaped by recommendation. Using RushTok as a case, it frames these collectives as event-based algorithmic communities and connects their dynamics to platform governance.

1 Introduction

  • RushTok is an event-based algorithmic community organized around spectacle, temporality, and amplification rather than durable ties.The study combines a viewer survey with a reflexive account of creator outreach to examine participation, distance, and boundary-work.Source: §1 · p. 1
  • Many respondents described RushTok as a community, but far fewer claimed membership, reflecting tension between spectatorship and belonging amid algorithmic exposure; most engagement was passive and entertainment-oriented.Algorithmic surges can reshape physical-event stakes and expose participants to risks without clear institutional safeguards.Source: §1 · p. 2

2 Related Work

  • Prior work leaves under-specified how individual algorithmic tactics scale into time-bounded collectives around offline rituals.The paper synthesizes research on algorithmic identity, TikTok’s memetic logics, resistance, and event temporality.Source: §2 · p. 2

2.1 Algorithmic Identity and Folk Theories

  • Folk theories circulate socially and can coordinate participation through shared heuristics about exposure, timing, and trend alignment.The paper situates these tactics within work on algorithmic identity and users’ explanations of opaque systems.Source: §2.1 · p. 2

2.2 TikTok’s Memetic Logics

  • Reusable formats synchronize attention with recruitment’s offline cadence, producing a short-lived spectacle of coordinated watching and evaluation.The account links shared audio, countdowns, and serial formats to recommendation-driven clustering and rapid drift.Source: §2.2 · p. 3

2.3 Communities and Algorithmic Resistance

  • Unlike grievance-based collectives, RushTok cohesion arises from anticipation, evaluation, in-jokes, and parasocial spectatorship, while outsider positioning and diffuse gatekeeping complicate researcher access.Participation may remain lightweight even as it contributes to visibility.Source: §2.3 · p. 3

2.4 Event-Based Communities and Temporality

  • RushTok’s seasonal recurrence and bounded ritual align dispersed viewers in a shared present, while timing and repetition substitute for durable membership and obligation.The paper connects this temporal lens to platform-amplified scrutiny and perceived pressure.Source: §2.4 · p. 3

3 Methodology

The study pairs a descriptive survey of RushTok viewers with qualitative analysis and creator outreach. Its exploratory design and event-specific, selected sample constrain generalization and causal interpretation.

3.1 Survey Study

  • The survey included 71 respondents, most of whom identified as female and had no formal University of Alabama affiliation.The sample included varied ages and educational backgrounds.Source: §3.1.1 · p. 3

3.1.1 Participants.

  • Recruitment combined TikTok promotion using RushTok-style video with place-based outreach near campus.Three paid campaigns reached 96,941 video views during data collection; recruitment also used QR-code survey cards at local establishments.Source: §3.1.2 · pp. 3–4, §3.1.3 · p. 4

3.1.3 Ethics and Transparency.

  • The low-friction survey captured demographics, TikTok use, RushTok exposure, and optional open responses about belonging and experience.Participants consented, could withdraw without penalty, and responded anonymously; item response denominators varied.Source: §3.1.3 · p. 4, §3.1.4 · p. 4

3.2 Analysis

  • Closed-ended responses were summarized descriptively, including contrasts between 11 self-identified members and 60 nonmembers, without hypothesis tests or model-based inference.Observed group differences are treated as descriptive patterns rather than generalizable effects.Source: §3.2.1 · p. 4

3.2.2 Qualitative.

  • Three researchers iteratively coded open-text responses, resolved discrepancies through adjudication, and used reflexive thematic analysis alongside descriptive survey patterns.The convergent design treated quantitative patterns and qualitative themes as complementary evidence.Source: §3.2.2 · p. 4, §3.2.3 · p. 4

3.3 Interview Recruitment Attempts

  • Researchers sent approximately 90 individualized interview invitations across TikTok, Instagram, email, and management contacts, but completed no interviews during the study period.Place-based outreach and institutional contact also produced no completed interviews; the authors interpret this as boundary-work and selectivity.Source: §3.3 · p. 4

3.4 Limitations

  • The female-skewed, mostly UA-unaffiliated sample limits generalizability to TikTok users exposed to RushTok.The authors describe the sample as reflecting RushTok’s audience rather than campus participants.Source: §3.4 · p. 4
  • Paid promotion and convenience sampling create selection effects, while self-report, unaudited platform metrics, creator non-response, and the cross-sectional event window constrain interpretation.The study covers August 8 through September 4, 2024, and may not capture dynamics outside that period.Source: §3.4 · p. 5

4 Results

RushTok appears as a recurring, feed-delivered spectacle where entertainment and creator-centered attention coexist with contested belonging and thin offline ties. The survey and outreach findings also show that high public visibility did not translate into easy access to creators.

4.1.1 Atmosphere as Contested and Ambivalent.

  • Respondents described RushTok’s atmosphere as celebratory and supportive yet defensive, judgmental, and prone to pile-ons.Debates over the sorority system, spectatorship, and high-profile PNMs made contestation part of the atmosphere; some also expressed nostalgia for a lighter tone.Source: §4.1.1 · p. 5

4.1.2 Entertainment as the Baseline of Engagement.

  • Entertainment was the baseline: polished, repetitive formats and financial spectacle held attention, while interaction was frequent but following was limited.60/71 interacted with at least some videos, while 31 followed none of the creators they encountered.Source: §4.1.2 · p. 5

4.1.3 Belonging and Outsider Positioning.

  • Belonging depended on reciprocity, contribution, proximity to the ritual, or personal connection, leaving many viewers positioned as observers.Some respondents’ sense of community shifted with civility, specific PNM storylines, and whether participation felt reciprocated.Source: §4.1.3 · p. 6

4.1.4 Parasocial Anchors and Creator Attachment.

  • Affiliation centered on a small number of recognizable PNMs: viewers valued creators’ personalities and perspectives more than “rush culture” itself.Parasocial ties organized attention and loyalty across seasons, even as the broader phenomenon felt familiar or repetitive.Source: §4.1.4 · pp. 6–7

4.1.5 Ephemerality, Event Temporality, and Seasonal Rhythm.

  • RushTok’s attention recurred with recruitment and then receded, with returning creators preserving familiarity as some viewers reported waning excitement and discoverability friction.52/71 watched across more than one year, and 38/52 of those viewers saw the same creators return year to year.Source: §4.1.5 · p. 7

4.1.6 Limited Offline Linkage and Structural Commentary.

  • Most respondents experienced RushTok online and lacked formal UA or Greek-life ties, yet perceived governance and resource dynamics shaped who posted and appeared.63/71 reported no affiliation, while 56/71 experienced the community only online; respondents also described selective sharing and gradual diversification of visible PNMs.Source: §4.1.6 · p. 7

4.1 Survey Results

  • 51/71 respondents recognized RushTok as a community, but only 11/71 claimed membership; the overall pattern was a recurring spectacle anchored by creators and the feed.Interaction was often light and offline ties were thin, while returning creators helped sustain the seasonal cycle.Source: §4.1.6 · p. 7

4.2 Interview Attempts: Silence and Insularity

  • Fewer than 10% of creator invitations received a response, most replies declined comment, and no creators consented to interviews.The authors interpret silence as boundary-work: viewers could readily encounter RushTok, while creators maintained boundaries against outside engagement.Source: §4.2 · p. 7

5 Discussion

RushTok exemplifies an event-based algorithmic community: an algorithmically assembled collective around a bounded offline ritual, sustained by episodic attention and seasonal recurrence rather than durable social ties.

5 Discussion

  • RushTok exemplifies an event-based algorithmic community assembled around a bounded offline ritual.The model centers on recruitment week and algorithmic assembly.Source: §5 · p. 7
  • Its persistence rests on episodic attention, ambivalent affect, and seasonal recurrence rather than durable social ties.Source: §5 · p. 7
  • Unlike network-based communities sustained by ongoing relationships or identity-based communities grounded in stable affiliation, this model centers on spectacle and temporality.Source: §5 · p. 7

Finding F1: Ambivalence as circulation.

RushTok participation is shaped by coexisting positive and negative framings, which can sustain attention while leaving belonging ambiguous. Viewers move through graduated forms of participation, including watching without claiming membership.

Finding F1: Ambivalence as circulation

  • Mixed warmth, humor, and enjoyment alongside exclusion, toxicity, and critique were central to how participants made sense of RushTok.Respondents sometimes expressed both positive and negative framings within the same response.Source: Finding F1: Ambivalence as circulation · p. 8
  • Praise and critique can each invite interaction and repeat exposure, making ambivalence a resource for visibility and return visits.The authors propose this pathway without claiming knowledge of TikTok’s ranking internals.Source: Finding F1: Ambivalence as circulation · p. 8
  • 51 of 71 respondents called RushTok a community, while 11 of 71 identified as members, reflecting belonging ambivalence.Some non-members still watched, liked, or commented, sustaining visibility while resisting self-identification.Source: Finding F1: Ambivalence as circulation · p. 8
  • Participation ranged from casual viewing to insider-humor commentary and self-identified membership, with circulation also sustained by those who disavowed belonging.Respondents oriented to collective tone and atmosphere when reflecting on RushTok, motivating the analyses of belonging and parasocial ties.Source: Finding F1: Ambivalence as circulation · p. 8

Finding F2: Seriality as persistence.

RushTok persists through annual recurrence and TikTok’s serialized presentation of recruitment, rather than durable membership. Its repeatable storyline lets viewers follow the event as entertainment without joining a group.

Finding F2: Seriality as persistence

  • Seasonal recurrence of the offline ritual and platform-led serialization together substitute for durable membership as the mechanism of persistence.Source: Finding F2: Seriality as persistence · p. 8
  • Viewers described the feed as repetitive yet addictive, as TikTok recast recruitment into a storyline that returns each year.Viewers can drop in and follow the annual season without joining a group.Source: Finding F2: Seriality as persistence · p. 8
  • Entertainment drew viewers without sorority ties, while short, repeatable clips turned ritual performance and resolution into a followable storyline.Spectatorship itself becomes a mode of participation.Source: Finding F2: Seriality as persistence · p. 8
  • 52 of 71 respondents watched across multiple years, and 38 of those 52 reported seeing the same creators return.Recurring PNMs, OOTDs, and bid day formed recognizable roles and cues; the authors attribute persistence to recurrence and serialization rather than member ties.Source: Finding F2: Seriality as persistence · p. 8
  • The storyline’s annual return raises governance questions about turning offline rituals into serialized entertainment, including graduated visibility controls and context banners.Source: Finding F2: Seriality as persistence · p. 8

Finding F3: Amplification concentrates risk.

RushTok’s broad audience attention concentrates visibility and risk on a small number of participants. Affiliation centers on creators, while viewers’ low stakes contrast with the reputational consequences faced by those at the center.

Finding F3: Amplification concentrates risk

  • Algorithmic amplification elevates a few participants into prominence, concentrating vulnerability on identifiable PNMs while distributing entertainment to many others.Source: Finding F3: Amplification concentrates… · p. 8
  • Most respondents valued creators for personality (52/71) or perspective on recruitment (37/71), while almost none cited affinity with the institution itself.Free-text accounts described audience mobilization around particular creators and separate audience groups.Source: Finding F3: Amplification concentrates… · pp. 8–9
  • Respondents connected large parasocial followings and public scrutiny with chapter caution, discreet posting, and guidance to keep process details off-platform.The authors link larger online footprints with threats to offline social standing through audience judgment and organizational risk management.Source: Finding F3: Amplification concentrates… · p. 9
  • 63 of 71 respondents had no Alabama or Greek-life affiliation, and 56 of 71 experienced RushTok only online, while exposure for central figures extended beyond the season and implicated reputational futures.The authors characterize this as an asymmetry: collective attention is widely distributed, but amplification burdens a small set of visible individuals.Source: Finding F3: Amplification concentrates… · p. 9
  • Because affect gathers around a few recognizable people who become both emblem and target, the authors recommend visibility controls, creator-safety tools, contextual banners, and aftercare.Source: Finding F3: Amplification concentrates… · p. 9

Finding F4: Protective ritual scope condition.

RushTok’s guarded offline ritual shaped a public that was open to viewers but defensive for those on camera. The authors limit this account to protective contexts and tailor governance recommendations to secrecy and reputational stakes.

Finding F4: Protective ritual scope condition.

  • Participants’ restraint and reduced first-person sharing reflected a guarded ritual, while viewers could watch freely and creators signaled boundaries.Respondents described more discreet PNM content, organizer guidance to keep process details off-platform, and fewer first-person accounts.Source: Finding F4: Protective ritual scope… · p. 9
  • Most respondents lacked Alabama or Greek-life affiliation (63/71) and experienced RushTok only online (56/71); no creator agreed to an interview.The authors interpret this “productive failure” as insulation rather than a recruitment error.Source: Finding F4: Protective ritual scope… · p. 9
  • The authors connect layered belonging and thin offline ties to a protective ritual under sudden visibility, with participants using boundary-work to manage risk and reputation.The algorithm opens the curtain while those at the center respond by managing exposure.Source: Finding F4: Protective ritual scope… · p. 9
  • Findings from this guarded setting should not be generalized to celebratory or activist events without comparative study.Concerts, sports tournaments, and political rallies may produce different dynamics when they meet ranking-driven feeds.Source: Finding F4: Protective ritual scope… · p. 9
  • For protective contexts shaped by secrecy and reputational stakes, the authors recommend graduated visibility, sensitive-ritual context cues, and low-friction research and reporting channels.These measures aim to reduce pressure on individuals during periods of high visibility.Source: Finding F4: Protective ritual scope… · p. 9

Finding F5: Silence as boundary signal.

RushTok creators’ silence and refusals are interpreted as boundary-work that manages exposure and risk, and as meaningful evidence about access to algorithmically assembled publics. The authors pair this account with time-bounded governance proposals and delimit the study’s descriptive, single-case evidence.

Finding F5: Silence as boundary signal.

  • Creators’ non-response and refusals functioned as boundary-work and risk management amid involuntary visibility, scrutiny, and reputational concerns.The authors interpret failed interview recruitment as productive failure rather than missing data.Source: Finding F5: Silence as boundary signal · p. 9
  • Public contact information does not equal consent; treating silence as meaningful and avoiding persistent follow-up respects creators’ vulnerability and reputational caution.The authors connect this stance to calls for sensitivity when studying precariously visible populations.Source: Finding F5: Silence as boundary signal · p. 9

5.1 Implications for HCI and Platform Governance

  • The governance blueprint links event-community mechanisms to risks, platform levers, and operational triggers or decays for surge-style events.It emphasizes reversible, time-bounded interventions, creator control where feasible, and transparent context cues; some measures are activated by surge signals and retired after activity decays.Source: Table 2 · p. 10, §5.1 · p. 10

5.2 Limitations & Scope Conditions

  • The analysis is interpretive and descriptive; coverage labels do not establish wider prevalence, small-n contrasts are unstable, and causal effects were not estimated.Membership and exposure were based on self-identification and self-estimates, while survey prompts may have foregrounded atmosphere, seriality, and creator focus.Source: §5.2 · p. 10
  • The study did not analyze behavioral logs, content corpora, comment networks, or ranking internals, so circulation mechanisms are theorized from affordances and respondent accounts rather than system audits.Survey responses were also not linked to specific posts or creators, limiting event-level triangulation.Source: §5.2 · pp. 10–11
  • The authors frame these boundaries as specifying where the theory holds and motivating comparative tests across event types and institutional cultures.The account concerns RushTok’s setting and should not be treated as universal across publics.Source: §5.2 · p. 11

6 Contributions

The paper contributes a conceptual account of event-based algorithmic communities, an empirical description of RushTok, a methodological lens on non-response, and governance responsibilities for platforms. Together, these contributions address ephemeral publics whose visibility can be consequential despite the absence of durable membership.

6 Contributions

  • Event-based algorithmic communities are temporally bounded publics sustained by ambivalence, spectacle or seriality, and algorithmic amplification rather than durable membership.This contribution names a distinct form of collective sociality.Source: §6 · p. 11
  • The RushTok account shows how layered belonging, parasocial anchors, and protective boundary-work shape participation and visibility.The empirical contribution centers on how people participate in and manage exposure within the collective.Source: §6 · p. 11
  • The paper advances “productive failure” as a methodological lens, treating silence and non-response as evidence of community insulation and limits to conventional qualitative access.Interview access failures can inform methodological reflexivity rather than being treated only as deficits.Source: §6 · p. 11
  • The paper identifies platform responsibilities for scaffolding ephemeral publics, supporting people thrust into sudden visibility, addressing uneven amplification stakes, and governing short-lived but high-stakes publics.The proposed responsibilities include designing for ambivalence and sudden visibility.Source: §6 · p. 11

7 Conclusion

The paper names event-based algorithmic communities and traces how ambivalence, spectacle, and timing sustain attention without durable membership. It connects this account to practical levers for handling surges, sensitive context, sudden visibility, and the traces left after an event.

7 Conclusion

  • RushTok clarifies how platforms gather people around rituals and how those gatherings are experienced both in the feed and on the ground.The paper names this formation event-based algorithmic communities and connects it to ritual, fandom, practice, and distribution logics.Source: §7 · p. 11
  • Ambivalence, spectacle, and timing hold attention without requiring durable membership, while the proposed response is to pace amplification, add context, and support newly visible participants.The paper also calls for helping participants manage traces once the event recedes.Source: §7 · p. 11
  • The authors call for comparative and longitudinal research across events, pairing surveys, reflexive accounts, audits, and in-situ traces.They frame this as a path for studying and stewarding short-lived but consequential algorithmically assembled publics.Source: §7 · p. 11

A Appendix Tables

The appendix describes the inter-coder agreement table and the full code-to-theme mapping. Belonging and Outsider Positioning reports counts for outsider positioning, creator attachment, and event temporality.

A Appendix Tables

  • Table 3 reports pairwise percent agreement by coder pair and code type, without treating agreement as a validity criterion.It distinguishes Base, Additive, and Overall agreement after enforcing base/additive dependencies.Source: Table 3 · p. 14
  • Table 4 maps consensus-coded codes to higher-level themes with counts, complementing Table 1’s summary view.The table provides a detailed account of how codes informed theme construction.Source: Table 4 · p. 14

Belonging and Outsider Positioning

Loading 2609.09331v1…