Monetized knowledge: Commodification of knowledge in Chinese Internet space and its impact

Monetized knowledge: Commodification of knowledge in Chinese Internet space and its impact | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Monetized knowledge: Commodification of knowledge in Chinese Internet space and its impact Jun LI, Ruiqi YANG This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6707077/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Knowledge has always played an essential role in Chinese society. Today, the emphasis on knowledge has led people to seek more efficient ways to acquire it. Our article highlights three primary and differing forms of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space: knowledge payment, knowledge Internet celebrities and knowledge live streamers. By analyzing five representative knowledge platforms on the Chinese Internet, we found the core feature of knowledge in knowledge payment is usefulness, and the essential feature of knowledge disseminated by knowledge Internet celebrities and live streamers is popularity. Moreover, the commodification of knowledge has other implications, especially on knowledge production and diffusion. We explain the mechanisms behind this, finding that the market’s logic is not the only logic that affects people’s behavior, and the user’s purchase and knowledge-learning behavior are intertwined. Additionally, the algorithm mechanism codetermines the dissemination of knowledge content as an intermediary force with the market mechanism. Business and commerce/Economics Social science/Education Social science/Sociology knowledge commodification knowledge payment market knowledge production 1. Introduction With the development of technology and the widespread use of intelligent terminals, more and more people are participating in the production of knowledge in the Chinese Internet space, and various knowledge products have been formed. Furthermore, some people try to convert knowledge products into economic benefits and commodify knowledge through knowledge payment and advertising revenue. Knowledge, thus, has been commodified to a certain extent, and market logic has gradually penetrated the knowledge production and dissemination process. Due to the particularity of Chinese society and the Chinese Internet space, knowledge commodification in the Chinese context is particularly significant and, therefore, deserves in-depth analysis. As a prelude to such an analysis, the factors that make the Chinese Internet space unique must be understood. Firstly, the Chinese Internet space has its own characteristics, mainly influenced by technological implementations, content production, user interactions and regulatory policies, creating an ecosystem distinct from the global system. Internet knowledge production and consumption in China have adapted to the local market environment. Specifically, the Chinese Internet focuses on satisfying local demands through interface designs that align with Chinese users’ aesthetic preferences and functionalities attuned to local usage habits. This contrasts with Western platforms, such as YouTube, that prioritize cross-cultural and multilingual universality, which tend to use algorithms and designs intended to attract a global user base. Moreover, regulatory policies also play a significant role in shaping the Chinese Internet ecosystem, with platforms implementing content management and control practices that follow local guidelines and regulations, which differ from those that govern Western platforms to a large extent (King et al., 2013 ). Secondly, contemporary Chinese society has an intense knowledge anxiety. McKinsey’s 2023 report confirmed a growing demand for high-quality information met by flexible, personalized and cost-effective online learning models (McKinsey and Company, 2023). In 2023, China’s online education market expanded substantially, with the digital education sector reaching a valuation of 413.3 billion yuan, marking a year-to-year increase of 14.17%. Further, the knowledge anxiety has manifested among young Chinese people especially, as demonstrated by their strong belief in the Internet’s ability to provide high-quality educational content. In 2022, data from bilibili, China’s largest video streaming platform, indicated that the top ten most frequently viewed videos related to higher education courses were predominantly watched by users around 23 years old. The top three most popular courses were advanced mathematics, linear algebra and probability theory, all in the mathematics discipline. Thirdly, because of social and cultural traditions, knowledge has always played an essential role in Chinese society, supported by a strong belief that it can fundamentally alter one’s destiny. From ancient times, historical Chinese principles, such as Confucianism’s ‘unity of knowledge and action’ and Taoism’s ‘unity of heaven and man’, emphasized the practical application of knowledge. Because of China’s unique cultural traditions, the esteemed status of knowledge in society and the characteristics of its Internet space, the commodification of knowledge in the Chinese Internet space exhibits distinct features in contrast to those found in the English-speaking world, making it a subject worthy of analysis. In this paper, we answer the following questions to deepen our understanding of the complex and subtle relationships between knowledge and the market, technology and society on the Chinese Internet: What new forms of knowledge commodification have emerged in the Chinese Internet space? What are the similarities and differences between these forms? What new developments and changes have occurred in the relationship between knowledge and the market in commodification? What impact do these changes have? To address these questions, in this article we first examine and clarify the concept of knowledge commodification. Building upon existing research, we then sort out and compare and contrast several forms of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space. Next, we analyze the changes in the relationship between knowledge and the market under commodification and explore the impacts of this phenomenon. Finally, we extend the discussion to the mechanisms of knowledge production and dissemination on the Internet. 2. Knowledge commodification: literature review Scholars in the fields of education, media studies and the sociology of knowledge have had extensive discussions on the commodification of knowledge. We reviewed these discussions to answer the following questions: What is the definition of knowledge commodification and what are its effects on society? What traditional domains reflect the commodification of knowledge in society? How do Internet influencers shape the perception of knowledge commodities? 2.1 Definition of knowledge commodification To elicit a definition of commoditization, Karl Polanyi ( 2002 ), in his work The Great Transformation , critically examines the commodification of labour, land and money, which he terms ‘fictitious commodities’. He contends that the concept of commodities is used to align market mechanisms with various aspects of industrial life. While labour, land and money are indispensable to the economic system, Polanyi emphasizes that they are not genuine commodities manufactured for market sale. Instead, these elements are fundamental to human society and should not be governed by market dynamics. He further asserts that the assumption that items traded in the market must inherently be produced for this purpose is false concerning these elements. Moreover, he also explained that the notion of commodity fiction serves as a crucial organizational principle that profoundly influences nearly every institution within society, impacting them in diverse and significant ways. Jessop ( 2007 ) built on Polanyi’s concept of fictitious commodities, originally applied to land, labour and money, arguing that knowledge can also be considered a fictitious commodity in the contemporary knowledge-based economy. ‘Polanyi’s analysis of fictitious commodities can be applied to knowledge in modern capitalism, where it is treated as a commodity for exchange in the market, despite its inherent nature as a collective good’. Jessop’s extension of Polanyi’s theory to the realm of knowledge highlights the complex dynamics in the knowledge-based economy, where the intrinsic value of knowledge conflicts with its treatment as a market commodity. One prominent characteristic of knowledge commodification is its role as a critical production factor in the market economy. Rotta and Teixeira (2009) highlighted that ‘knowledge commodification involves the encoding of knowledge, its detachment from manual labour, and its distribution through profit-oriented markets’. Their perspective underscores how knowledge becomes a standalone commodity, distinct from traditional labour processes, emphasizing its integral role in modern capitalist economies. In reality, knowledge may reflect a rather mixed economic state. The commodification of knowledge may take the form of non-commoditization, semi-commoditization and complete commodification. Non-commoditized knowledge is widely present in human knowledge exploration and communication outside of the market exchange; knowledge that is originally generated outside of the market channel but is used for profit purposes and obeys the logic of market competition can be regarded as semi-commoditized knowledge. Fully commodified knowledge is produced and disseminated purely for profit. 2.2 Traditional domains of knowledge commodification The most important areas when discussing the commodification of knowledge are education and media. For the commodification of knowledge in the education domain, the key argument is that education is seen not only as the pursuit of valuable knowledge but also as a business process that brings maximum benefits to students as customers. Jacob ( 2003 ) articulated that the commodification of knowledge is part of a global process wherein everything is becoming commodified. Universities and higher education institutions face pressure to commodify knowledge to promote economic growth through innovation and entrepreneurship. This trend is supported by other literature, such as ‘knowledge and education as international commodities’, which positions education as a consumer product designed to enhance market skills. Specifically, Kauppinen ( 2014 ) argued that education is seen as a business process that brings as many future benefits as possible to students as customers. In this sense, schools become profit-seeking institutions, and knowledge is increasingly seen as material to be produced, protected and sold in the market. Sappey ( 2005 ) contended that the commodification of higher education represents one of the most significant structural changes in the field; educational value is determined by the direct benefits it provides to student consumers. Expanding the discussion to a global perspective, Philip G. Altbach and colleagues ( 2019 ) highlighted the increasing trend of viewing education as an international commodity. This trend has become progressively more evident under the World Trade Organization’ s General Agreement on Trade in Services. Altbach and co-authors argued that education is no longer only about meeting the needs of civil society; it is seen as a means of developing skills needed to compete in the marketplace. They further asserted that globalization and the commodification of education affect the nature and purpose of education and trigger wider debates on equity and the quality of education. Through the commodification of education, educational institutions and transnational corporations have reaped significant economic benefits by providing market-oriented educational products and services (Altbach et al., 2019 ). Media is another crucial field in the commodification of knowledge. With the growth of the Internet and social media, knowledge is now disseminated in various media forms and can be commercialized through advertisements, subscriptions, paid content and other means. In this field, knowledge or information content is integrated into a product and either sold to customers or provided to the public for free but in exchange for advertising revenue generated through the attention obtained. In the case of the content being sold to customers, the media product containing knowledge content is a commodity. In the case of the content being provided to the public for free in exchange for advertising revenue, the attention of readers or viewers can be regarded as a commodity. The media obtains users’ attention by providing information content and selling it to advertisers in some way. In this process, the knowledge content plays a role in attracting widespread attention and converting it into a commodity. Thus, knowledge itself is also commoditized to a certain extent (Doyle, 2016 ). Building on this idea, Mardon and Belk ( 2018 ) studied how social media influencers impact consumer collectives by disseminating knowledge. They found that commodifying knowledge on social media platforms makes knowledge dissemination more extensive and efficient while providing economic returns to knowledge producers (Mardon et al., 2018). This process changes traditional modes of knowledge dissemination and introduces new business models and economic benefits. 2.3 New forms of knowledge commodification on the Internet In the Chinese Internet space, new forms of knowledge commodification have emerged. The one most often discussed by scholars is undoubtedly the knowledge influencer, who spreads and commodifies knowledge through social media platforms. Mardon and fellow researchers (2023) discussed this phenomenon, emphasising the role of credibility and content quality. They pointed out that knowledge influencers leverage their knowledge to build their reputation and to monetize content through sponsorships, advertisements and brand collaborations (Mardon et al., 2023 ). Chen and colleagues ( 2022 ) explored identity signalling among knowledge influencers in China. They highlighted how these influencers, known as ‘Knowledge Wanghong’, create and sell knowledge products directly to fans on platforms. These products, which can be in textual, audio or video format, cater to a wide range of interests, those related to including academic topics, current affairs and practical advice (Chen et al., 2022 ). To thrive in the competitive online environment, knowledge celebrities use identity signalling to convey their expertise and build trust with their audience. Some researchers also examined micro-celebrities on platforms like YouTube and Instagram, revealing similar identity management patterns and monetization strategies. These influencers establish a stable and appealing image to build familiarity and loyalty among followers, leveraging their influence to generate economic benefits. They demonstrate the importance of maintaining a consistent and authentic online identity to foster trust and engagement with an audience (Lou et al., 2019). Investigations have been conducted to examine the quality of the knowledge produced by knowledge influencers. Empirical studies have found that the quality of knowledge content associated with more interactions or more sharing in the Internet space is better. However, even the knowledge content in the most criticised video websites is not all of low quality. For example, an analysis of the content from short videos on preventing burns on video platforms in China indicated that videos containing correct suggestions received more likes, comments and shares and had a stronger influence than those containing inaccurate or incorrect information (Qin et al., 2023 ). Another study found that on the same video platform, the quality of short video content related to liver cancer was not significantly correlated with the number of likes and comments. Still, the number of times a video was shared was positively correlated with the quality of the video; that is, those videos that were shared more often were more likely to be of high quality (Zheng et al., 2023 ). In summary, knowledge inherently possesses qualities related to both public good and commodities. The commodification of knowledge has been extensively examined across diverse fields, including education, media and, more recently, the digital realm. Moreover, the Internet has brought about new ways of commodifying knowledge, reflecting a shift that has profound social and economic implications. It drives educational institutions and knowledge producers towards market-oriented approaches, leading to the privatisation and potential appropriation of public knowledge. Therefore, recognising these dynamics is crucial for addressing the challenges posed by knowledge commodification in contemporary society. 3. Basic forms of knowledge commodification in Chinese Internet space The expansion of the Internet has revolutionized the production and dissemination of knowledge, enabling it to be widely dispersed in completely new ways and, therefore, commodified across various digital platforms. Online platforms, such as social media networks, digital learning environments and content-sharing sites, have become vital arenas wherein knowledge is created, shared and commercialized. This digital landscape has given rise to new forms of knowledge producers and influencers who leverage their expertise to generate income and build their brands. 3.1 Major Chinese Internet platforms that enable the commodification of knowledge To understand how knowledge commodification manifests in China’s digital landscape, it is useful to have an overview of the major Internet platforms facilitating this process. To some extent, these platforms have borrowed from similar Western platforms, but because they operate independently and differently from their Western counterparts, the way knowledge is produced, shared and commodified has been changed, which has led to unique patterns of knowledge production, dissemination and commodification in the Chinese Internet. In this section, we explore the main Chinese Internet platforms – including iGet and Fanshu, WeChat, bilibili, Douyin and EAST BUY, and RED – to illustrate how they enable the commodification of knowledge and influence user engagement in the Chinese online space. 3.1.1 iGet and Fanshu 1 The knowledge service app iGet is well known in China. The platform offers a variety of knowledge payment products, including audio courses, e-books and column articles. Its content covers various fields, such as economics, psychology, workplace skills and personal growth, aiming to provide users with a systematic learning experience. Similarly, the Fanshu app enables users to understand a typical book in about 45 minutes through concise book interpretations. It has expanded its business across the reading industry, encompassing book publishing, online live e-commerce, offline training and physical bookstores, facilitating both reading and learning. Both platforms use a typical pay-for-knowledge model, generating revenue through course sales and subscription services. They strategically leverage the influence of celebrities and experts to enhance brand value and trust. By employing expansion strategies, such as corporate partnerships and community engagement, both iGet and Fanshu have carved out unique niches in the highly competitive online education market, gaining significant visibility and a stable user base. Simultaneously, the knowledge offered by these platforms has received formal recognition. For example, in June 2020, institutions like the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business and the Open Education Institute of East China Normal University recognized learning proofs from iGet, creating synergy between mainstream adult education and quality online content platforms. 3.1.2 WeChat WeChat is a multifunctional social media platform launched by Tencent 2 in 2011 that integrates various features similar to those of WhatsApp and Facebook. It offers functionalities such as messaging, public accounts, applets and groups, making it a comprehensive platform for communication, social networking and content sharing. As a result, WeChat is an important channel for a wide range of knowledge dissemination. Knowledge commodification on the WeChat platform is primarily realized through content production. The public account 3 feature enables both direct payment for articles and the conversion of high levels of engagement into advertising revenue. Various companies, institutions and individuals use the public account function to share professional knowledge and accumulate followers. To enhance user engagement and retention, some accounts offer interactive features, such as live broadcasts with experts, or create communities for knowledge sharing and interaction, aiming to increase user loyalty through in-depth communication and discussion. With increased user demand and enhanced platform capabilities, its introduced advertisements and soft promotions to generate revenue. The platform also directly sells knowledge content by offering paid subscription services and single-purchase high-quality articles, and by launching online courses, thus employing various commodification methods. 3.1.3 bilibili Originally established as a video platform focusing on the animation, comics and gaming culture, bilibili has since expanded into various fields, such as education, science and technology, and lifestyle content. Many content creators (commonly called ‘UP owners’ by their users) share their knowledge using video tutorials and lectures, including a wealth of domestic university courses and many high-quality resources from abroad. Bilibili allows content creators to commodify their knowledge content primarily through direct payments for content, various incentive programs, fan rewards and brand partnerships. Many Chinese university students find bilibili’s videos more helpful for exam revision than their university courses, so they are willing to pay for it, underscoring the importance of content creators’ efforts in generating valuable educational content. Unlike YouTube, which offers significant revenue sharing from pre-roll advertisements and relies on mechanisms like ad type selection, audience engagement monitoring, revenue distribution systems and strict creator eligibility requirements, bilibili provides minimal revenue sharing from such ads. Instead, the platform emphasizes monetization through paid content and direct audience engagement. Bilibili has launched various paid systematic courses on topics like scientific research, fitness and psychological counselling to diversify its revenue streams. However, despite these efforts, monetization still largely depends on the individual commercial strategies of content creators. Bilibili’s focus on paid content and direct audience engagement underscores its distinctive role in commodifying knowledge within China’s digital landscape. 3.1.4 Douyin and EAST BUY Douyin is currently the leading short video platform in China, launched by ByteDance 4 in 2016, attracting many content creators and viewers with its powerful recommendation algorithm mechanism and large user base. EAST BUY is a new live-streaming platform launched by New Oriental (China’s educational institution), positioning itself as a live-streaming platform that focuses on selecting high-quality products for its customers; it is an excellent product and technology company that continues to provide self-owned agricultural goods as its core products. On both platforms, enterprises and individuals sell products while sharing knowledge with their customers. The knowledge shared during this process has become the crucial means to attracting customers’ attention, leading to the emergence of the ‘goods with knowledge’ model. Notably, the rise of the ‘goods with knowledge’ model has led many knowledge-based anchors to gain popularity. These anchors explain the advantages of products and how to use them through professional knowledge, increasing the audience’s trust. For example, Dong Yuhui, the star anchor of EAST BUY, has advanced to prominence not just through sales but also by leveraging knowledge in his recommendations. Notably, EAST BUY exemplifies the successful transformation of an educational organization under China’s ‘double-decrease policy’ 5 , discovering a new profit model where knowledge, although not a commodity itself, is deeply embedded in the sales process. 3.1.5 RED 6 RED is a rapidly growing e-commerce and social media platform that has garnered immense popularity among young Chinese users in recent years. Like Instagram, users mainly share their daily lives, beauty tips, travel experiences and similar information through graphics and short videos. In addition, RED is a popular platform for brand promotion, especially for fashion and beauty brands. As such, brands can collaborate with key opinion leaders for product promotion. Indeed, many young people regard RED as the most useful search engine. RED’s knowledge realization is not ‘knowledge payment’ traditionally. Its algorithmic mechanism and degree of commercial standardization are not as good as those of the four platforms previously described. However, its content contains much practical information and many life skills, which are freely exchanged among users, forming a kind of informal knowledge sharing and dissemination. This platform meets people’s demand for personalized and practical information. Further, it assumes the role of a search engine and becomes their preferred platform for finding inspiration and obtaining information. 3.2 Three knowledge commodification models Based on the introduction of major platforms that facilitate the commodification of knowledge on the Chinese Internet, we identified the following three primary models of knowledge commodification. The first is the direct knowledge payment model , in which knowledge content or services are sold outright as commodities. In this model, users pay fees to access digital products, such as courses, articles or tutorials, allowing them to learn conveniently. Furthermore, the delivery of these products is characterized by low barriers to entry, ease of use, fragmentation and efficiency. On platforms like iGet and Fanshu, the knowledge products sold are not merely simple content presentations; they also include knowledge services, reorganized in various ways to enhance the learning experience. This includes decomposing, sorting and filtering the material to present essential insights and practical applications. Sometimes, these platforms even provide personalized suggestions based on content analyses and distilled summaries. Additionally, the model has evolved to include online education and community-based learning, meeting the high demand for quality, accessible information in an information-saturated era. The second primary model of knowledge commodification is the knowledge-based Internet influencer model , according to which knowledge is not directly sold and purchased but, rather, used as a means to attract the attention of Internet users; audience reach gained during this process is exchanged for advertising and other income. In this model, the primary commodity is the audience’s attention. Knowledge-based influencers can attract significant attention by producing, curating and disseminating valuable knowledge online. Unlike traditional influencers who gain fame through entertainment or gaming, these individuals leverage their expertise to build an audience. This indirect commodification of knowledge parallels the conventional media industry’s model; while knowledge itself is not directly sold as a commodity, it is sold to advertisers or merchants, enabling knowledge producers to benefit economically. However, not all knowledge content creators prioritize monetization initially; many start by sharing knowledge to build influence. As their audience grows, they may incorporate advertising to monetize their content, blurring the line between sharing knowledge for profit and for altruistic purposes. The third commodification model is the knowledge-based live streamer model 7 , wherein attention is gained through knowledge, and products are directly sold online simultaneously. While general knowledge-based Internet celebrities monetize their knowledge through advertising and other indirect means, knowledge-based anchors directly sell products online while delivering educational content. Some studies have pointed out that the language expressions of knowledge anchors with stronger personal styles are attractive. They highlight their charm through storytelling, leisurely sharing rhythm and high-frequency sentence output, establishing an effective image recognition system on this basis (Jing Qi, 2023 ). Since knowledge sharing and teaching conducted by knowledge-based anchors are attached to product sales, this form of knowledge commodification can be considered attached to the ordinary product market. In summary, the commodification of knowledge in the Chinese Internet space exhibits a diverse range of forms. The ways of realizing knowledge must meet the conditions for commodification. Whether it is paid knowledge or content shared by Internet celebrities and anchors, such information has largely been separated from the production processes of material goods and physical labour. It is encoded and presented in a form that is relatively independent of the physical world, becoming increasingly disembedded from its social roots and integrated into the economic order of the Internet space. Consequently, the value of knowledge producers is at least partly based on their ability to generate financial benefits. However, the differences between the multiple forms of commodification cannot be ignored. Generally, the three forms of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space exhibit notable variations in terms of their degree of commodification, the markets they engage in and their interactions with the broader commodity economy. Additionally, the potential for transformation between these forms exists, as outlined in Table 1 . Table 1 Three main forms of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space Way to commodify knowledge Paying for knowledge In exchange for audience engagement Knowledge-based sales Degree of commodification Complete commodification Semi-commodification Semi-commodification Methods of commodifying knowledge Direct methods: selling knowledge as a product or service Indirect methods: using knowledge to attract widespread attention in exchange for advertising fees provided by third-party merchants Indirect methods: using knowledge to attract widespread attention and sell other products Related industries Education and training industry Media industry Sales of physical goods, media industry Related markets outside the Internet Markets for knowledge products and services Markets for attention Markets for attention and ordinary goods Recognizing the potential for mutual transformation among different forms of knowledge commodification is important. A common strategy to sell knowledge products or services directly often involves creating popular content to attract widespread attention and promote extensive dissemination. Once a substantial follower base is established, creators may transfer from generating revenue through advertising to offering paid content and services, enticing a portion of their audience to purchase their knowledge products and services. In such scenarios, the monetization mechanism shifts from advertising-based revenue typical of knowledge-based influencers to direct knowledge payments, transitioning from the indirect to the direct commodification of knowledge. 4. The impact of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space In the previous section, we examined models of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space. For each model, we highlighted how knowledge is produced, monetized and consumed in the digital space. In this section, we explore the broader consequences of knowledge commodification, focusing on its impact on the characteristics of knowledge itself and on various aspects of society. Specifically, we analyze how the commodification process influences the quality, value and accessibility of knowledge and how it reshapes cultural perceptions of knowledge and information sharing. 4.1 ‘Usefulness’ or ‘popularity’: how commodification shapes knowledge characteristics Differences in the various forms of knowledge commodification can have a subtle impact on the content characteristics of knowledge. The core feature of commodified knowledge in the form of knowledge payment models is often usefulness. The reason for this is that users are inclined to pay for content that provides practical value or specialized expertise. In contrast, the most important feature in the form of knowledge influencers and live-streaming hosts tends to be popularity, emphasizing content that appeals to a broad audience and encourages engagement. This focus on popularity can lead to content that prioritizes entertainment and inclusivity over in-depth knowledge (Masuda et al., 2022 ). In the knowledge payment model, where usefulness is the crucial quality, users directly spend money to purchase knowledge, often hoping the knowledge can help them solve a specific problem and, in the process, improve their knowledge and abilities. Here, when users pay to purchase knowledge products, the purchase even takes on an investment value, similar to investing in one’s education and human capital. Conversely, the knowledge produced and disseminated by the knowledge-based influencer and anchor models possesses different characteristics. Since exchanging traffic for profits is the key to monetization, this knowledge needs to attract widespread attention. Therefore, its dominant characteristics can be summarized as ‘popularity’, a quality encompassing various possibilities. Practical value is the most important focus of the knowledge payment model and is the main reason knowledge producers directly receive user payments and maintain the knowledge platform. Empirical research on knowledge payment behaviour indicates that the content and service quality of online knowledge platforms have a significant positive impact on the value and demand satisfaction users perceive the knowledge product to have and further affect users’ willingness to pay; moreover, factors such as the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of knowledge products will directly affect users’ payment behaviour (Zhou Tao et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Wei Wu, 2020). Compared with knowledge payment model, popularity is a key feature of the knowledge produced and disseminated by knowledge-based Internet influencers and anchors, making it slightly different from paid knowledge. As some studies have suggested, much of the popular knowledge content tends to focus on entertainment, and some of it may even be vulgar. However, examining the content that is widely spread on the Internet reveals that popular knowledge content is not necessarily entertaining or of low quality. Some knowledge content maintains several excellent qualities. For instance, some knowledge producers engage practitioners with high professional standards in fields like medical physics to evaluate popular high-quality knowledge content selected by the author. These professionals assess the correctness, accuracy and logic of the knowledge presented. Popularity is an inclusive quality that can mean both appeal, as appeal is an essential source of popularity, and usefulness, for knowledge that has the potential to be commodified in Internet spaces – that is, to satisfy people’s needs in some way and, thus, become popular – and may have many other features as well. For example, knowledge content that is highly time-sensitive and analyses and comments on current social hot topics may become viral. Other knowledge products are popular only because of the high quality of the content. Of course, many knowledge products of poor quality either appeal to and tease people’s most basic emotional reactions, sell anxiety, are superficial or biased, are unscientific and imprecise or are simply fallacious. Regardless of the form of commodification, as long as the producers of the knowledge content hope to discover the realization of knowledge, they will follow the logic described to produce content and try their best to make this knowledge practical, engaging, high quality and able to arouse people’s emotions. As such, commodification will affect or even shape the characteristics and quality of the knowledge itself. 4.2 ‘Inclusivity’ or ‘polarization’: other social transformations resulting from knowledge commodification In addition to the impact on knowledge content previously explained, the commodification of knowledge also has a deeper effect on other aspects of society. Firstly, traditionally marginalized knowledge can gain prominence through the Internet, and commodifying this knowledge may reinforce this trend. In traditional media and education, essential and classic knowledge often takes center stage. On the contrary, the Internet allows for more frequent visibility of lower-status traditional knowledge, as well as marginalized practical and local knowledge, which is further amplified by commodification. As noted, for knowledge-based Internet celebrities, popularity is a key feature of commodified knowledge. The diverse body of knowledge produced by Internet celebrities enables individuals from various fields to share and monetize insights that are often overlooked in formal education and daily life. Consequently, the traditional knowledge hierarchy is disintegrating, resulting in a new, dynamic knowledge order that offers a richer array of information, skills and perspectives at a lower cost. Secondly, as the once marginalized knowledge gradually emerged in the Internet space, a group of new and more diverse intellectual elites 8 also gradually emerged, and the commodification of knowledge influenced and shaped this process. For a long period, intellectual elites came from specific fields in society, such as literature, science and the arts, and their number was relatively small. Many of them held positions in universities, in research institutions in specific fields and in the media, and they had fixed incomes in their fields. In the Internet space, because the connection between knowledge and the market is more direct, knowledge owners can share information with the public more conveniently, thus creating a new group of intellectual elites who are not necessarily attached to traditional media and schools, with more diverse backgrounds and fields and in more significant numbers 9 . In this process, because there are more ways to realize knowledge, owners of unique local and personal knowledge in different fields may obtain additional income or even make a living through the Internet. Since, in the process, they impact many audiences, some new intellectual elites have gradually gained influence, expanding the impact of traditional intellectual elites. Thirdly, knowledge in the Internet space is polarizing, and the commodification of knowledge has played an essential role in promoting this. The content in the Internet space has always been inherently mixed. With the advancement of knowledge commodification, this mixture has further increased, showing a trend towards polarization: on the one hand, much knowledge content is entirely one-sided and misleading but widely consumed information, mixed with errors and prejudices, and the quality is worrying; on the other hand, some popular knowledge products are also of high quality. As a result, this polarization may expand knowledge differences between multiple groups. Some people absorb a lot of low-quality and erroneous information on the Internet. Conversely, others can use high-quality knowledge products well, continuously learning and improving their knowledge system. When this difference is solidified or strengthened due to reasons such as region, age and social group, it may widen the knowledge difference within the entire society, thus yielding a more far-reaching impact. In summary, the nature of the Internet fundamentally shapes the characteristics of the knowledge it carries, which are distinct from those found in other media formats, regardless of commodification. However, because the market logic regulated by the algorithm mechanism has penetrated the dissemination of knowledge in the Internet space, the characteristics of this knowledge as described are, therefore, further influenced and shaped by the commodification of knowledge. Hence, exploring the impact of the commodification of knowledge in the Internet space under the influence of market logic and algorithm recommendation mechanisms is worthwhile. 5. The combined influence of market and algorithmic mechanisms on knowledge production and dissemination In the public discourse and academic debate, Internet-based knowledge is frequently criticised for containing biased, superficial and erroneous content. Critics argue that the mechanisms of knowledge production and dissemination within the digital space contribute to this degradation, suggesting that the commodification of knowledge erodes its objectivity and accuracy (Valdivia, 2018 ). However, as the literature review herein indicates, the reality is much more complicated. Based on the analysis presented, we searched deeper into the influence of the market and algorithmic mechanisms behind the commodification of knowledge in the digital space. We explored how these forces shape the production and dissemination processes and how they either hinder or support the development of objective and accurate knowledge. 5.1 The complex role of market mechanisms The advent of the Internet has dramatically facilitated the sharing and dissemination of knowledge. However, previous discussions have primarily focused on the production and distribution of knowledge through non-market channels. With the commodification of knowledge, market mechanisms have increasingly penetrated and influenced knowledge production and dissemination processes. In the economic realm, a subtle relationship exists between knowledge and the market. On the one hand, knowledge is a critical element of financial activities, including producing, circulating and selling commodities. The knowledge possessed by economic actors plays a vital role in effective market operations. In other words, economic activities and markets cannot function without knowledge. On the other hand, the market serves as a core mechanism for information transmission. Knowledge scattered across various sectors of society is mobilized through the price system to facilitate the production and operation of commodities. Hayek ( 1945 ) pointed out that society contains a vast amount of fundamental but unsystematically organized knowledge – knowledge about specific times and places – and that everyone makes decisions based on this knowledge. Yet, the market is the important mechanism for transmitting this knowledge and information. By using the price system, it enables individuals to take correct actions with only limited information. Therefore, the market effectively mobilizes and utilizes the knowledge dispersed among different individuals in society (Hayek, 1945 ). In the Internet space, personal and local knowledge can be spread in a more convenient manner, while the commodification of knowledge further promotes and reinforces this process. Some knowledge content producers share knowledge in the Internet space based on their actual work or business experience in a specific field, and by helping users break through the original information barriers, they have gained widespread attention and realized monetization. Some knowledge content producers even mobilize more users on the Internet, fully absorb those users’ knowledge through comments or direct contacts, sort it, summarize it and then share it with all users. Interestingly, this second type of content producer does not initially own the knowledge scattered among countless users. However, through the Internet platform, these knowledge producers can continuously mobilize and obtain local knowledge and personal knowledge that was originally dispersed among different people and then monetize this knowledge. It is precisely because these content creators can monetize the knowledge they have obtained that they have more continuous motivation to produce and share knowledge content, thereby realizing the dissemination of knowledge on a larger scale. In this case, the market mechanism, in mobilizing local knowledge, helps content producers increase their knowledge and make profits based on it, thereby promoting the continuous production and dissemination of knowledge content. 5.2 Interaction between market behaviour and non-market behaviour Although market logic influences the production and dissemination of knowledge in the Internet space, it is not the sole determinant of user behaviour. For example, when knowledge anchors sell goods, although their purpose is undoubtedly to sell more products to customers, much knowledge content sharing and many explanations are also involved in the product promotion process. Customers do not just perform simple purchasing activities during this process; rather, they have a considerable amount of viewing behaviour before and after the purchase behaviour. Some customers deliberately learn knowledge and gain intellectual insight through this viewing. For the knowledge live streamers, content sharing and commodity sales behaviour are interspersed, and for the customers, the purchasing behaviour and viewing behaviour are intertwined. In analyzing knowledge-based anchors, some scholars have reported that knowledge anchors give commodities specific cultural and symbolic meanings through the knowledge taught in the process of commodity sales. As such, the key to determining consumers’ purchase of goods is no longer limited to the rational factors of pursuing utility maximisation as an economic person in the shopping process; such determinations also encompass the perceptual factors attached to the commodity, including a spiritual culture, in addition to the use value. Therefore, this live broadcast behaviour is not only an instrumental activity for selling goods but also a symbolic activity for selling the spiritual culture (Li Xiaoxiao and Liu Linping, 2023). This means that consumption behaviour does not completely follow the market logic; instead, it is influenced by additional demands and expectations that involve emotions and feelings, which are embedded within social behaviour. In other words, the commodified knowledge not only follows the pure market logic in its sharing and dissemination process: it is accompanied by the intervention of personal, social and emotional factors. 5.3 The joint effect of market mechanism and algorithm mechanism The dissemination of content in the Internet space is affected by market mechanisms – those that are more popular and more liked by people are more likely to be disseminated – and algorithmic mechanisms, especially algorithmic mechanisms involving content recommendations, determining what content users can see on the pages of related applications. The algorithm mechanism is important in disseminating content, including knowledge, on the Internet. As an intermediary force, it jointly determines the actual dissemination of content together with the market mechanism. The market in the Internet space, therefore, has rules that are different from those in the real world and can be regarded as a market regulated by the algorithm mechanism. On different Internet platforms, the algorithm recommendation mechanisms differ to some extent. However, in general, they all include the following aspects. The first is labelling the content according to its characteristics, with the same content often corresponding to multiple labels based on the user’s past content viewing habits, forming a labelling or interest portrait of the user. The second common aspect is recommending content to users with relevant labels or portraits; then, based on the user’s viewing behaviour and feedback evaluation - mainly reflected in the form of completion ratios, likes, comments and favorites - making a secondary recommendation on content, with the more popular content recommended to more users. In addition, on multiple Internet platforms, users may also give direct monetary rewards to content creators in multiple ways. Thus, the relevant algorithm recommendation mechanism will have an important impact on disseminating and realising knowledge-based Internet celebrities’ knowledge content. To better understand this, we can refer to the media industry. Although the logic of the knowledge commodification of knowledge-based influencers is similar to that of the media industry, significant differences can also be found between the two due to the existence and influence of the algorithm recommendation mechanism. The most important of these is that the media dissemination channels are relatively certain, mainly depending on the distribution and sales channels the media already has. In contrast, the dissemination of Internet content is more uncertain because the algorithm recommendation mechanism regulates it; in addition, it is jointly determined by the user’s preferences, interactions and forwarding behaviours and algorithms. Furthermore, readers and viewers are no longer just passive audiences of the media but are partially involved in the process of knowledge production, participating in and influencing the production of knowledge content through various interactive methods, such as comments, likes and bullet screens, and on this basis, influencing the channels and methods of knowledge realisation. However, the algorithm recommendation mechanism is often criticised for the fact that it usually results in the information obtained by users being filtered and highly homogeneous, which leads to users seeing more personalised customised content that meets their preferences, thus forming an information cocoon; this criticism is not without reason, but the other side of this is that the algorithm recommendation mechanism makes the content supply in the Internet space better match the user, thereby forming a large number of content market segments or niche markets to meet the demands of users with different preferences and expectations. In terms of the production and consumption of knowledge content, this means that even those very knowledge content niches may form a large number of long-tail markets in the Internet space, and content creators have the opportunity to produce knowledge in areas where the audience does not seem to be too large and does not rely on advertisements in the relevant market segments to exchange for revenue. The advertising revenue in this market segment can motivate content creators to continue producing knowledge products. In summary, in the Internet space, knowledge commodification is accompanied by changes in the relationship between knowledge and the market. From one perspective, the market mechanism can better mobilise the local knowledge owned by different individuals, and by helping content producers to earn profits, it promotes the continuous production and dissemination of knowledge content. From another perspective, the logic of the market is not the only logic that affects people’s behaviour. Knowledge-based anchors also share and explain knowledge content when selling goods, and users’ purchasing and knowledge-learning behaviours are also intertwined. In addition, the market mechanism alone cannot determine the dissemination of knowledge in the Internet space. As an intermediary force, the algorithm mechanism jointly determines the dissemination of knowledge content with the market mechanism. A certain market mechanism regulated by the algorithm mechanism plays a key role in disseminating knowledge and other content, and the algorithm mechanism can also help form many niche market segments, thereby encouraging relevant content creators to produce knowledge in niche areas. 6. Further discussion According to the sociology of knowledge, objectivity in knowledge does not emerge spontaneously but is underpinned by specific social mechanisms. The distinction between science and mythology, or everyday common sense, hinges not on cognitive superiority but on unique codes and mechanisms that structure knowledge organization. Science adheres to these codes, whereas other forms of knowledge do not. The objectivity of knowledge resides within the social networks and practice codes that knowledge producers have developed over time. This network of social relations upholds truth and imbues knowledge with the power to transcend its production context, thus achieving objectivity. Established codes of conduct and association also support the natural and social sciences’ sustained public legitimacy and objectivity. From the sociology of knowledge perspective, professional and academic knowledge production and dissemination are based on a special set of associative codes; the review process employed by academic journals is a typical embodiment of this associative code. Many academic journals follow a similar review process. After preliminary review by the editor, the articles that initially achieve a certain academic quality are sent to external review experts. The objectivity and fairness of the review process are guaranteed through a double-masked review. However, the quality of papers in academic journals differs greatly. Some academic journals are full of low-quality papers, while even some journals with good reputations occasionally publish articles with errors that they must later withdraw. Although this can guarantee quality to a certain extent, it proves that much knowledge that has gone through the review process is problematic. From this point of view, traditional knowledge production cannot fully guarantee the production of high-quality new knowledge; moreover, the quality of academic products is also uneven. The recommendation and dissemination mechanism jointly determined by the Internet space’s market mechanism and algorithm mechanism is also a kind of association code. Its specific mechanism varies across different Internet platforms. However, the core of this association code is a production, correction and dissemination mechanism in which content creators, readers, viewers and listeners participate together. A closed group of professionals does not determine the dissemination of content; it is jointly influenced by a wider social public. This association code is undoubtedly lacking in controlling the professionalism of knowledge content. Anyone can produce and disseminate their knowledge products, facilitating the promotion of radical, out-of-line and even extreme voices and opinions and making them easier to spread. However, this association code also contains a certain error correction mechanism. Due to the widespread existence of interactive methods, such as comments and bullet screens, readers and viewers with relevant professional knowledge can point out deficiencies and errors in the information, which plays a role in identifying corrections. More importantly, the recommendation and dissemination mechanism of the Internet may spread incorrect knowledge through its inherent logic. However, it also has the potential to encourage the production and dissemination of high-quality content. Popularity does not necessarily mean vulgarity, superficiality and low quality. By improving the knowledge level of readers, listeners and viewers and raising their expectations and demands for high-quality content, the market mechanism will naturally promote the production of high-quality knowledge products. These high-quality knowledge products will also reach more people through forwarding, commenting and liking. Of course, producing and disseminating high-quality knowledge content faces some challenges. For example, with respect to videos, the content on short video platforms is easier to monetize. Conversely, the content of long videos is more difficult to monetize, which may hurt the production of high-quality content. Unlike the current academic field, there is often open, clear and direct criticism and dialogue against certain content on the Internet. This is a special correction mechanism. To a certain extent, it makes up for the negative impact of the continuous dissemination of incorrect knowledge. However, this kind of direct criticism and dialogue in public spaces is relatively scarce in the academic production of some disciplines. From this viewpoint, although the associative codes with market and algorithm mechanisms as the core followed by knowledge production and dissemination in Internet space are far from guaranteeing the objectivity and correctness of knowledge, the recommendation algorithms of Internet platforms themselves are constantly being revised and improved, so they have the potential for continuous optimization in the future. For example, to encourage creators of high-quality medium-length and long videos, some Internet platforms have considered replacing the video playback volume with the user’s playback time so that users can choose videos with more quality content rather than simply choosing those with more attractive titles and covers. Some Internet platforms also mark obvious errors in widely disseminated content for readers’ reference. We also envision two possible directions for optimizing algorithm mechanisms here: On the Internet platform, learn from and refer to the editor plus external review joint review mechanism used in academic knowledge production. Let experts in the relevant fields among readers and viewers judge and comment on the applicable content. Take advantage of the characteristics of the Internet space that embraces all rivers, give full play to its function as a ‘marketplace of ideas’, and present as many different and even conflicting views as possible around the same theme so that the audience can experience a more comprehensive exposure to the knowledge of the relevant theme. What is worth observing and studying in the long term is to what extent the algorithm mechanism can be continuously iterated and improved in the future. Also worthy of investigation is whether, in some way, the mechanism can judge and distinguish the quality of knowledge to be more conducive to the dissemination and production of correct knowledge so that more people can benefit from active and passive learning in the Internet space. Following this article, a strategy is proposed to enhance knowledge utilization within the Internet space. This involves incorporating high-quality digital knowledge products into school curriculums and social training programs, enriching educational and training resources. Relevant educational authorities are advised to rigorously assess these online knowledge products’ accuracy and scientific basis, considering their complexity and difficulty level. Those who meet the criteria should be integrated into the educational system through well-considered and logical methods. By leveraging these ‘market-tested’ knowledge products, the availability of high-quality educational resources can be substantially broadened. This approach validates the utility of popular online content and ensures its academic value is harnessed effectively. Declarations 1.Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. 2.Availability of data and materials The datasets analyzed in this study consist of publicly available content from major Chinese internet platforms. All data were collected through open APIs/web crawling methods in compliance with the platforms' terms of service. 3.Ethical statements This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. 4.Informed consent This study does not involve human participants or their data. 5 .Authors contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Author1 and Author2. Author1 wrote the first draft of the manuscript and Author2 commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. References Altbach PG, Reisberg L, Rumbley LE (2019) Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution (Vol. 22), Brill Chen X, Chua AY, Pee LG (2022) Who Sells Knowledge Online? An Exploratory Study of Knowledge Celebrities in China. Internet Res 32(3):916–942. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-07-2020-0378 Child F, Frank M, Law J, Sarakatsannis J (2023) What do higher education students want from online learning? Educ Pract, 1–9 Doyle G (2016) Managing in the Distinctive Economic Context of Media. Managing Media Firms and Industries: What’s So Special About Media Management? Cham. Springer International Publishing, pp 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08515-9_10 Hayek FA (1945) American Economic Association. Am Econ Rev 35(4):519–530 Jacob M (2003) Rethinking Science and Commodifying Knowledge. Policy Futures Educ 1(1):125–142. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.1.3 Jessop B (2007) Knowledge as a Fictitious Commodity: Insights and Limits of a Polanyian Perspective. na. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230607187_7 Jing Qi (2023) Beyond product power: A study on the practical logic of live streaming by knowledge anchors. Contemporary Communication (6), 88–95景琦. (2023). 超越产品力: 知识型主播直播带货实践逻辑研究. 当代传播 (6), 88–95 Kauppinen I (2014) Different meanings of ‘knowledge as commodity’in the context of higher education. Crit Sociol 40(3):393–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920512471218 King G, Pan J, Roberts ME (2013) How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression. Am Polit Sci Rev 107(2):326–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055413000014 Li Jun (2023) ‘The transformation of knowledge paradigm in the Internet era - the rise of mobile knowledge’, Tsinghua University Education Research , 44(01), 65–75. 李俊. (2023) ‘互联网时代知识范式的变革——流动知识的兴起’, 清华大学教育研究, 44(01), 65–75 Li X, Liu Linping (2023) &. Class preference, cultural capital and emotional machine: A digital ethnographic study of the phenomenon of Oriental Selection Live Broadcasting. Exploration and Debate (01), 103–112 + 179.李潇晓 & 刘林平. (2023). 阶层偏好、文化资本与情感机器——东方甄选直播现象的数字民族志研究. 探索与争鸣 (01), 103–112 + 179 Lou C, Yuan S (2019) Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media. J Interact Advertising 19(1):58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501 Mardon R, Belk R (2018) Materializing Digital Collecting: An Extended View of Digital. Materiality’ Marketing Theory 18(4):543–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593118767725 Mardon R, Cocker H, Daunt K (2023) How Social Media Influencers Impact Consumer Collectives: An Embeddedness Perspective’. J Consum Res 50(3):617–644. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad003 Masuda H, Han SH, Lee J (2022) Impacts of influencer attributes on purchase intentions in social media influencer marketing: Mediating roles of characterizations. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 174:121246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121246 Polanyi K (2002) The great transformation. Readings economic Sociol, 38–62 Qin L, Zheng M, Schwebel DC, Li L, Cheng P, Rao Z, Hu G (2023) Content quality of web-based short-form videos for fire and burn prevention in China: Content analysis. J Med Internet Res 25:e47343. https://doi.org/10.2196/47343 Rotta T, Teixeira R (2019) The commodification of knowledge and information. Oxf Handb Karl Marx 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.013.23 Sappey J (2005) The commodification of higher education: flexible delivery and its implications for the academic labour process. In Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ): 2005 Annual Conference (pp. 495–502). Airaanz Valdivia AN (2018) Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism by Safiya Umoja Noble. Feminist Formations 30(3):217–220. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm5861 Wei W, Xie Xingzheng (2020) &. A study on the influencing factors of online knowledge paying users' continued payment intention. Data Analysis and Knowledge Discovery (08), 119–129.魏武 & 谢兴政. (2020). 线上知识付费用户继续付费意向影响因素研究. 数据分析与知识发现 (08), 119–129 Yang X, Hu Xin (2019) &. A study on the influencing factors of knowledge paying behavior in China's mobile Internet based on the MOA perspective - taking Ximalaya FM as an example. New Century Library (10), 29–36.杨昕雅 & 胡鑫. (2019). 基于MOA视角的中国移动互联网知识付费行为影响因素研究——以喜马拉雅FM为例. 新世纪图书馆 (10), 29–36 Zheng S, Tong X, Wan D, Hu C, Hu Q, Ke Q (2023) Quality and Reliability of Liver Cancer–Related Short Chinese Videos on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis Study. J Med Internet Res 25:e47210. https://doi.org/10.2196/47210 Zhou Tao TQ, Deng Shengli (2019) &. A study on the behavior of knowledge paying users based on the IS success model. Modern Intelligence (08), 59–65.周涛, 檀齐 & 邓胜利. (2019). 基于IS成功模型的知识付费用户行为研究. 现代情报 (08), 59–65 Footnotes In Chinese, they are ‘得到’and ‘帆书’. A major Chinese Internet and technology company. in Chinese, it is ‘腾讯’. In Chinese, it is ‘公众号’. A major Chinese Internet and technology company. in Chinese, it is ‘字节跳动’. In 2021, the Chinese government proposed reducing the homework burden of students in compulsory education and reducing the burden of off-campus training. A major Chinese Internet and technology company. in Chinese, it is ‘小红书’. The knowledge-based anchors with great influence include Dong Yuhui on the Oriental Selection platform and Luo Yonghao, who has sold goods on multiple platforms. Although there are relatively few such individuals, they have already gained widespread social attention and will inevitably affect many consumers’ cognition and even attitudes towards knowledge. They are also unique in type and, therefore, deserve special analysis. We understand the intellectual elite as people who have rich knowledge in many or a specific field and have a particular influence on others. This group itself is constantly changing. On the one hand, the field of knowledge itself will continue to change, and on the other hand, the way the intellectual elite influences the public is also constantly changing. There are both traditional academic elites, such as university professors, as well as elites and ordinary practitioners in various industries. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6707077","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":495699648,"identity":"d9614673-1b9d-4365-a38d-e58a08b188b6","order_by":0,"name":"Jun LI","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Vocational and Technical Education, Tongji University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jun","middleName":"","lastName":"LI","suffix":""},{"id":495699649,"identity":"e1874522-d201-415f-a37b-578045a13996","order_by":1,"name":"Ruiqi YANG","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"School of Education, Tianjin University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ruiqi","middleName":"","lastName":"YANG","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-20 11:08:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6707077/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6707077/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95224957,"identity":"e1550460-c34f-4c2a-8501-58880859b1c8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-05 16:24:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":956290,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6707077/v1/9d317672-f5c2-4b80-84b8-44def504d198.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Monetized knowledge: Commodification of knowledge in Chinese Internet space and its impact","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWith the development of technology and the widespread use of intelligent terminals, more and more people are participating in the production of knowledge in the Chinese Internet space, and various knowledge products have been formed. Furthermore, some people try to convert knowledge products into economic benefits and commodify knowledge through knowledge payment and advertising revenue. Knowledge, thus, has been commodified to a certain extent, and market logic has gradually penetrated the knowledge production and dissemination process. Due to the particularity of Chinese society and the Chinese Internet space, knowledge commodification in the Chinese context is particularly significant and, therefore, deserves in-depth analysis. As a prelude to such an analysis, the factors that make the Chinese Internet space unique must be understood.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirstly, the Chinese Internet space has its own characteristics, mainly influenced by technological implementations, content production, user interactions and regulatory policies, creating an ecosystem distinct from the global system. Internet knowledge production and consumption in China have adapted to the local market environment. Specifically, the Chinese Internet focuses on satisfying local demands through interface designs that align with Chinese users\u0026rsquo; aesthetic preferences and functionalities attuned to local usage habits. This contrasts with Western platforms, such as YouTube, that prioritize cross-cultural and multilingual universality, which tend to use algorithms and designs intended to attract a global user base. Moreover, regulatory policies also play a significant role in shaping the Chinese Internet ecosystem, with platforms implementing content management and control practices that follow local guidelines and regulations, which differ from those that govern Western platforms to a large extent (King et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondly, contemporary Chinese society has an intense knowledge anxiety. McKinsey\u0026rsquo;s 2023 report confirmed a growing demand for high-quality information met by flexible, personalized and cost-effective online learning models (McKinsey and Company, 2023). In 2023, China\u0026rsquo;s online education market expanded substantially, with the digital education sector reaching a valuation of 413.3\u0026nbsp;billion yuan, marking a year-to-year increase of 14.17%. Further, the knowledge anxiety has manifested among young Chinese people especially, as demonstrated by their strong belief in the Internet\u0026rsquo;s ability to provide high-quality educational content. In 2022, data from bilibili, China\u0026rsquo;s largest video streaming platform, indicated that the top ten most frequently viewed videos related to higher education courses were predominantly watched by users around 23 years old. The top three most popular courses were advanced mathematics, linear algebra and probability theory, all in the mathematics discipline.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThirdly, because of social and cultural traditions, knowledge has always played an essential role in Chinese society, supported by a strong belief that it can fundamentally alter one\u0026rsquo;s destiny. From ancient times, historical Chinese principles, such as Confucianism\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;unity of knowledge and action\u0026rsquo; and Taoism\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;unity of heaven and man\u0026rsquo;, emphasized the practical application of knowledge. Because of China\u0026rsquo;s unique cultural traditions, the esteemed status of knowledge in society and the characteristics of its Internet space, the commodification of knowledge in the Chinese Internet space exhibits distinct features in contrast to those found in the English-speaking world, making it a subject worthy of analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this paper, we answer the following questions to deepen our understanding of the complex and subtle relationships between knowledge and the market, technology and society on the Chinese Internet: What new forms of knowledge commodification have emerged in the Chinese Internet space? What are the similarities and differences between these forms? What new developments and changes have occurred in the relationship between knowledge and the market in commodification? What impact do these changes have? To address these questions, in this article we first examine and clarify the concept of knowledge commodification. Building upon existing research, we then sort out and compare and contrast several forms of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space. Next, we analyze the changes in the relationship between knowledge and the market under commodification and explore the impacts of this phenomenon. Finally, we extend the discussion to the mechanisms of knowledge production and dissemination on the Internet.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Knowledge commodification: literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003eScholars in the fields of education, media studies and the sociology of knowledge have had extensive discussions on the commodification of knowledge. We reviewed these discussions to answer the following questions: What is the definition of knowledge commodification and what are its effects on society? What traditional domains reflect the commodification of knowledge in society? How do Internet influencers shape the perception of knowledge commodities?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Definition of knowledge commodification\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo elicit a definition of commoditization, Karl Polanyi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), in his work \u003cem\u003eThe Great Transformation\u003c/em\u003e, critically examines the commodification of labour, land and money, which he terms \u0026lsquo;fictitious commodities\u0026rsquo;. He contends that the concept of commodities is used to align market mechanisms with various aspects of industrial life. While labour, land and money are indispensable to the economic system, Polanyi emphasizes that they are not genuine commodities manufactured for market sale. Instead, these elements are fundamental to human society and should not be governed by market dynamics. He further asserts that the assumption that items traded in the market must inherently be produced for this purpose is false concerning these elements. Moreover, he also explained that the notion of commodity fiction serves as a crucial organizational principle that profoundly influences nearly every institution within society, impacting them in diverse and significant ways.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJessop (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) built on Polanyi\u0026rsquo;s concept of fictitious commodities, originally applied to land, labour and money, arguing that knowledge can also be considered a fictitious commodity in the contemporary knowledge-based economy. \u0026lsquo;Polanyi\u0026rsquo;s analysis of fictitious commodities can be applied to knowledge in modern capitalism, where it is treated as a commodity for exchange in the market, despite its inherent nature as a collective good\u0026rsquo;. Jessop\u0026rsquo;s extension of Polanyi\u0026rsquo;s theory to the realm of knowledge highlights the complex dynamics in the knowledge-based economy, where the intrinsic value of knowledge conflicts with its treatment as a market commodity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne prominent characteristic of knowledge commodification is its role as a critical production factor in the market economy. Rotta and Teixeira (2009) highlighted that \u0026lsquo;knowledge commodification involves the encoding of knowledge, its detachment from manual labour, and its distribution through profit-oriented markets\u0026rsquo;. Their perspective underscores how knowledge becomes a standalone commodity, distinct from traditional labour processes, emphasizing its integral role in modern capitalist economies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn reality, knowledge may reflect a rather mixed economic state. The commodification of knowledge may take the form of non-commoditization, semi-commoditization and complete commodification. Non-commoditized knowledge is widely present in human knowledge exploration and communication outside of the market exchange; knowledge that is originally generated outside of the market channel but is used for profit purposes and obeys the logic of market competition can be regarded as semi-commoditized knowledge. Fully commodified knowledge is produced and disseminated purely for profit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Traditional domains of knowledge commodification\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most important areas when discussing the commodification of knowledge are education and media.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the commodification of knowledge in the education domain, the key argument is that education is seen not only as the pursuit of valuable knowledge but also as a business process that brings maximum benefits to students as customers. Jacob (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) articulated that the commodification of knowledge is part of a global process wherein everything is becoming commodified. Universities and higher education institutions face pressure to commodify knowledge to promote economic growth through innovation and entrepreneurship. This trend is supported by other literature, such as \u0026lsquo;knowledge and education as international commodities\u0026rsquo;, which positions education as a consumer product designed to enhance market skills. Specifically, Kauppinen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) argued that education is seen as a business process that brings as many future benefits as possible to students as customers. In this sense, schools become profit-seeking institutions, and knowledge is increasingly seen as material to be produced, protected and sold in the market. Sappey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) contended that the commodification of higher education represents one of the most significant structural changes in the field; educational value is determined by the direct benefits it provides to student consumers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpanding the discussion to a global perspective, Philip G. Altbach and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted the increasing trend of viewing education as an international commodity. This trend has become progressively more evident under the World Trade Organization\u0026rsquo; s General Agreement on Trade in Services. Altbach and co-authors argued that education is no longer only about meeting the needs of civil society; it is seen as a means of developing skills needed to compete in the marketplace. They further asserted that globalization and the commodification of education affect the nature and purpose of education and trigger wider debates on equity and the quality of education. Through the commodification of education, educational institutions and transnational corporations have reaped significant economic benefits by providing market-oriented educational products and services (Altbach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedia is another crucial field in the commodification of knowledge. With the growth of the Internet and social media, knowledge is now disseminated in various media forms and can be commercialized through advertisements, subscriptions, paid content and other means. In this field, knowledge or information content is integrated into a product and either sold to customers or provided to the public for free but in exchange for advertising revenue generated through the attention obtained. In the case of the content being sold to customers, the media product containing knowledge content is a commodity. In the case of the content being provided to the public for free in exchange for advertising revenue, the attention of readers or viewers can be regarded as a commodity. The media obtains users\u0026rsquo; attention by providing information content and selling it to advertisers in some way. In this process, the knowledge content plays a role in attracting widespread attention and converting it into a commodity. Thus, knowledge itself is also commoditized to a certain extent (Doyle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Building on this idea, Mardon and Belk (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) studied how social media influencers impact consumer collectives by disseminating knowledge. They found that commodifying knowledge on social media platforms makes knowledge dissemination more extensive and efficient while providing economic returns to knowledge producers (Mardon et al., 2018). This process changes traditional modes of knowledge dissemination and introduces new business models and economic benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 New forms of knowledge commodification on the Internet\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Chinese Internet space, new forms of knowledge commodification have emerged. The one most often discussed by scholars is undoubtedly the knowledge influencer, who spreads and commodifies knowledge through social media platforms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMardon and fellow researchers (2023) discussed this phenomenon, emphasising the role of credibility and content quality. They pointed out that knowledge influencers leverage their knowledge to build their reputation and to monetize content through sponsorships, advertisements and brand collaborations (Mardon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Chen and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) explored identity signalling among knowledge influencers in China. They highlighted how these influencers, known as \u0026lsquo;Knowledge Wanghong\u0026rsquo;, create and sell knowledge products directly to fans on platforms. These products, which can be in textual, audio or video format, cater to a wide range of interests, those related to including academic topics, current affairs and practical advice (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). To thrive in the competitive online environment, knowledge celebrities use identity signalling to convey their expertise and build trust with their audience. Some researchers also examined micro-celebrities on platforms like YouTube and Instagram, revealing similar identity management patterns and monetization strategies. These influencers establish a stable and appealing image to build familiarity and loyalty among followers, leveraging their influence to generate economic benefits. They demonstrate the importance of maintaining a consistent and authentic online identity to foster trust and engagement with an audience (Lou et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInvestigations have been conducted to examine the quality of the knowledge produced by knowledge influencers. Empirical studies have found that the quality of knowledge content associated with more interactions or more sharing in the Internet space is better. However, even the knowledge content in the most criticised video websites is not all of low quality. For example, an analysis of the content from short videos on preventing burns on video platforms in China indicated that videos containing correct suggestions received more likes, comments and shares and had a stronger influence than those containing inaccurate or incorrect information (Qin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Another study found that on the same video platform, the quality of short video content related to liver cancer was not significantly correlated with the number of likes and comments. Still, the number of times a video was shared was positively correlated with the quality of the video; that is, those videos that were shared more often were more likely to be of high quality (Zheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, knowledge inherently possesses qualities related to both public good and commodities. The commodification of knowledge has been extensively examined across diverse fields, including education, media and, more recently, the digital realm. Moreover, the Internet has brought about new ways of commodifying knowledge, reflecting a shift that has profound social and economic implications. It drives educational institutions and knowledge producers towards market-oriented approaches, leading to the privatisation and potential appropriation of public knowledge. Therefore, recognising these dynamics is crucial for addressing the challenges posed by knowledge commodification in contemporary society.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Basic forms of knowledge commodification in Chinese Internet space","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe expansion of the Internet has revolutionized the production and dissemination of knowledge, enabling it to be widely dispersed in completely new ways and, therefore, commodified across various digital platforms. Online platforms, such as social media networks, digital learning environments and content-sharing sites, have become vital arenas wherein knowledge is created, shared and commercialized. This digital landscape has given rise to new forms of knowledge producers and influencers who leverage their expertise to generate income and build their brands.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Major Chinese Internet platforms that enable the commodification of knowledge\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo understand how knowledge commodification manifests in China\u0026rsquo;s digital landscape, it is useful to have an overview of the major Internet platforms facilitating this process. To some extent, these platforms have borrowed from similar Western platforms, but because they operate independently and differently from their Western counterparts, the way knowledge is produced, shared and commodified has been changed, which has led to unique patterns of knowledge production, dissemination and commodification in the Chinese Internet.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this section, we explore the main Chinese Internet platforms \u0026ndash; including iGet and Fanshu, WeChat, bilibili, Douyin and EAST BUY, and RED \u0026ndash; to illustrate how they enable the commodification of knowledge and influence user engagement in the Chinese online space.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.1 iGet and Fanshu\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe knowledge service app iGet is well known in China. The platform offers a variety of knowledge payment products, including audio courses, e-books and column articles. Its content covers various fields, such as economics, psychology, workplace skills and personal growth, aiming to provide users with a systematic learning experience. Similarly, the Fanshu app enables users to understand a typical book in about 45 minutes through concise book interpretations. It has expanded its business across the reading industry, encompassing book publishing, online live e-commerce, offline training and physical bookstores, facilitating both reading and learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoth platforms use a typical pay-for-knowledge model, generating revenue through course sales and subscription services. They strategically leverage the influence of celebrities and experts to enhance brand value and trust. By employing expansion strategies, such as corporate partnerships and community engagement, both iGet and Fanshu have carved out unique niches in the highly competitive online education market, gaining significant visibility and a stable user base. Simultaneously, the knowledge offered by these platforms has received formal recognition. For example, in June 2020, institutions like the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business and the Open Education Institute of East China Normal University recognized learning proofs from iGet, creating synergy between mainstream adult education and quality online content platforms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.2 WeChat\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWeChat is a multifunctional social media platform launched by Tencent\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e in 2011 that integrates various features similar to those of WhatsApp and Facebook. It offers functionalities such as messaging, public accounts, applets and groups, making it a comprehensive platform for communication, social networking and content sharing. As a result, WeChat is an important channel for a wide range of knowledge dissemination.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge commodification on the WeChat platform is primarily realized through content production. The public account\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e feature enables both direct payment for articles and the conversion of high levels of engagement into advertising revenue. Various companies, institutions and individuals use the public account function to share professional knowledge and accumulate followers. To enhance user engagement and retention, some accounts offer interactive features, such as live broadcasts with experts, or create communities for knowledge sharing and interaction, aiming to increase user loyalty through in-depth communication and discussion. With increased user demand and enhanced platform capabilities, its introduced advertisements and soft promotions to generate revenue. The platform also directly sells knowledge content by offering paid subscription services and single-purchase high-quality articles, and by launching online courses, thus employing various commodification methods.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.3 bilibili\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginally established as a video platform focusing on the animation, comics and gaming culture, bilibili has since expanded into various fields, such as education, science and technology, and lifestyle content. Many content creators (commonly called \u0026lsquo;UP owners\u0026rsquo; by their users) share their knowledge using video tutorials and lectures, including a wealth of domestic university courses and many high-quality resources from abroad.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBilibili allows content creators to commodify their knowledge content primarily through direct payments for content, various incentive programs, fan rewards and brand partnerships. Many Chinese university students find bilibili\u0026rsquo;s videos more helpful for exam revision than their university courses, so they are willing to pay for it, underscoring the importance of content creators\u0026rsquo; efforts in generating valuable educational content. Unlike YouTube, which offers significant revenue sharing from pre-roll advertisements and relies on mechanisms like ad type selection, audience engagement monitoring, revenue distribution systems and strict creator eligibility requirements, bilibili provides minimal revenue sharing from such ads. Instead, the platform emphasizes monetization through paid content and direct audience engagement. Bilibili has launched various paid systematic courses on topics like scientific research, fitness and psychological counselling to diversify its revenue streams. However, despite these efforts, monetization still largely depends on the individual commercial strategies of content creators. Bilibili\u0026rsquo;s focus on paid content and direct audience engagement underscores its distinctive role in commodifying knowledge within China\u0026rsquo;s digital landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.4 Douyin and EAST BUY\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDouyin is currently the leading short video platform in China, launched by ByteDance\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e in 2016, attracting many content creators and viewers with its powerful recommendation algorithm mechanism and large user base. EAST BUY is a new live-streaming platform launched by New Oriental (China\u0026rsquo;s educational institution), positioning itself as a live-streaming platform that focuses on selecting high-quality products for its customers; it is an excellent product and technology company that continues to provide self-owned agricultural goods as its core products.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn both platforms, enterprises and individuals sell products while sharing knowledge with their customers. The knowledge shared during this process has become the crucial means to attracting customers\u0026rsquo; attention, leading to the emergence of the \u0026lsquo;goods with knowledge\u0026rsquo; model. Notably, the rise of the \u0026lsquo;goods with knowledge\u0026rsquo; model has led many knowledge-based anchors to gain popularity. These anchors explain the advantages of products and how to use them through professional knowledge, increasing the audience\u0026rsquo;s trust. For example, Dong Yuhui, the star anchor of EAST BUY, has advanced to prominence not just through sales but also by leveraging knowledge in his recommendations. Notably, EAST BUY exemplifies the successful transformation of an educational organization under China\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;double-decrease policy\u0026rsquo;\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e, discovering a new profit model where knowledge, although not a commodity itself, is deeply embedded in the sales process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.5 RED\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRED is a rapidly growing e-commerce and social media platform that has garnered immense popularity among young Chinese users in recent years. Like Instagram, users mainly share their daily lives, beauty tips, travel experiences and similar information through graphics and short videos. In addition, RED is a popular platform for brand promotion, especially for fashion and beauty brands. As such, brands can collaborate with key opinion leaders for product promotion. Indeed, many young people regard RED as the most useful search engine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRED\u0026rsquo;s knowledge realization is not \u0026lsquo;knowledge payment\u0026rsquo; traditionally. Its algorithmic mechanism and degree of commercial standardization are not as good as those of the four platforms previously described. However, its content contains much practical information and many life skills, which are freely exchanged among users, forming a kind of informal knowledge sharing and dissemination. This platform meets people\u0026rsquo;s demand for personalized and practical information. Further, it assumes the role of a search engine and becomes their preferred platform for finding inspiration and obtaining information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Three knowledge commodification models\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the introduction of major platforms that facilitate the commodification of knowledge on the Chinese Internet, we identified the following three primary models of knowledge commodification.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first is the \u003cem\u003edirect knowledge payment model\u003c/em\u003e, in which knowledge content or services are sold outright as commodities. In this model, users pay fees to access digital products, such as courses, articles or tutorials, allowing them to learn conveniently. Furthermore, the delivery of these products is characterized by low barriers to entry, ease of use, fragmentation and efficiency. On platforms like iGet and Fanshu, the knowledge products sold are not merely simple content presentations; they also include knowledge services, reorganized in various ways to enhance the learning experience. This includes decomposing, sorting and filtering the material to present essential insights and practical applications. Sometimes, these platforms even provide personalized suggestions based on content analyses and distilled summaries. Additionally, the model has evolved to include online education and community-based learning, meeting the high demand for quality, accessible information in an information-saturated era.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second primary model of knowledge commodification is the \u003cem\u003eknowledge-based Internet influencer model\u003c/em\u003e, according to which knowledge is not directly sold and purchased but, rather, used as a means to attract the attention of Internet users; audience reach gained during this process is exchanged for advertising and other income. In this model, the primary commodity is the audience\u0026rsquo;s attention. Knowledge-based influencers can attract significant attention by producing, curating and disseminating valuable knowledge online. Unlike traditional influencers who gain fame through entertainment or gaming, these individuals leverage their expertise to build an audience. This indirect commodification of knowledge parallels the conventional media industry\u0026rsquo;s model; while knowledge itself is not directly sold as a commodity, it is sold to advertisers or merchants, enabling knowledge producers to benefit economically. However, not all knowledge content creators prioritize monetization initially; many start by sharing knowledge to build influence. As their audience grows, they may incorporate advertising to monetize their content, blurring the line between sharing knowledge for profit and for altruistic purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third commodification model is the \u003cem\u003eknowledge-based live streamer model\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, wherein attention is gained through knowledge, and products are directly sold online simultaneously. While general knowledge-based Internet celebrities monetize their knowledge through advertising and other indirect means, knowledge-based anchors directly sell products online while delivering educational content. Some studies have pointed out that the language expressions of knowledge anchors with stronger personal styles are attractive. They highlight their charm through storytelling, leisurely sharing rhythm and high-frequency sentence output, establishing an effective image recognition system on this basis (Jing Qi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Since knowledge sharing and teaching conducted by knowledge-based anchors are attached to product sales, this form of knowledge commodification can be considered attached to the ordinary product market.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the commodification of knowledge in the Chinese Internet space exhibits a diverse range of forms. The ways of realizing knowledge must meet the conditions for commodification. Whether it is paid knowledge or content shared by Internet celebrities and anchors, such information has largely been separated from the production processes of material goods and physical labour. It is encoded and presented in a form that is relatively independent of the physical world, becoming increasingly disembedded from its social roots and integrated into the economic order of the Internet space. Consequently, the value of knowledge producers is at least partly based on their ability to generate financial benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the differences between the multiple forms of commodification cannot be ignored. Generally, the three forms of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space exhibit notable variations in terms of their degree of commodification, the markets they engage in and their interactions with the broader commodity economy. Additionally, the potential for transformation between these forms exists, as outlined in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree main forms of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWay to commodify knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePaying for\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eknowledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn exchange for audience engagement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge-based sales\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDegree of commodification\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComplete commodification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSemi-commodification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSemi-commodification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethods of commodifying\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eknowledge\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDirect methods:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eselling knowledge as a product or service\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndirect methods:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eusing knowledge to attract widespread attention in exchange for advertising fees provided by third-party merchants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndirect methods:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eusing knowledge to attract widespread attention and sell other products\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRelated industries\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation and\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003etraining industry\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedia industry\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSales of physical goods, media\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eindustry\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRelated markets\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eoutside the\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInternet\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarkets for knowledge products and services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarkets for attention\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarkets for\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eattention and\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eordinary goods\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecognizing the potential for mutual transformation among different forms of knowledge commodification is important. A common strategy to sell knowledge products or services directly often involves creating popular content to attract widespread attention and promote extensive dissemination. Once a substantial follower base is established, creators may transfer from generating revenue through advertising to offering paid content and services, enticing a portion of their audience to purchase their knowledge products and services. In such scenarios, the monetization mechanism shifts from advertising-based revenue typical of knowledge-based influencers to direct knowledge payments, transitioning from the indirect to the direct commodification of knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. The impact of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the previous section, we examined models of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space. For each model, we highlighted how knowledge is produced, monetized and consumed in the digital space. In this section, we explore the broader consequences of knowledge commodification, focusing on its impact on the characteristics of knowledge itself and on various aspects of society. Specifically, we analyze how the commodification process influences the quality, value and accessibility of knowledge and how it reshapes cultural perceptions of knowledge and information sharing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 \u0026lsquo;Usefulness\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;popularity\u0026rsquo;: how commodification shapes knowledge characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDifferences in the various forms of knowledge commodification can have a subtle impact on the content characteristics of knowledge. The core feature of commodified knowledge in the form of knowledge payment models is often usefulness. The reason for this is that users are inclined to pay for content that provides practical value or specialized expertise. In contrast, the most important feature in the form of knowledge influencers and live-streaming hosts tends to be popularity, emphasizing content that appeals to a broad audience and encourages engagement. This focus on popularity can lead to content that prioritizes entertainment and inclusivity over in-depth knowledge (Masuda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the knowledge payment model, where usefulness is the crucial quality, users directly spend money to purchase knowledge, often hoping the knowledge can help them solve a specific problem and, in the process, improve their knowledge and abilities. Here, when users pay to purchase knowledge products, the purchase even takes on an investment value, similar to investing in one\u0026rsquo;s education and human capital. Conversely, the knowledge produced and disseminated by the knowledge-based influencer and anchor models possesses different characteristics. Since exchanging traffic for profits is the key to monetization, this knowledge needs to attract widespread attention. Therefore, its dominant characteristics can be summarized as \u0026lsquo;popularity\u0026rsquo;, a quality encompassing various possibilities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical value is the most important focus of the knowledge payment model and is the main reason knowledge producers directly receive user payments and maintain the knowledge platform. Empirical research on knowledge payment behaviour indicates that the content and service quality of online knowledge platforms have a significant positive impact on the value and demand satisfaction users perceive the knowledge product to have and further affect users\u0026rsquo; willingness to pay; moreover, factors such as the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of knowledge products will directly affect users\u0026rsquo; payment behaviour (Zhou Tao et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Wei Wu, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompared with knowledge payment model, popularity is a key feature of the knowledge produced and disseminated by knowledge-based Internet influencers and anchors, making it slightly different from paid knowledge. As some studies have suggested, much of the popular knowledge content tends to focus on entertainment, and some of it may even be vulgar. However, examining the content that is widely spread on the Internet reveals that popular knowledge content is not necessarily entertaining or of low quality. Some knowledge content maintains several excellent qualities. For instance, some knowledge producers engage practitioners with high professional standards in fields like medical physics to evaluate popular high-quality knowledge content selected by the author. These professionals assess the correctness, accuracy and logic of the knowledge presented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePopularity is an inclusive quality that can mean both appeal, as appeal is an essential source of popularity, and usefulness, for knowledge that has the potential to be commodified in Internet spaces \u0026ndash; that is, to satisfy people\u0026rsquo;s needs in some way and, thus, become popular \u0026ndash; and may have many other features as well. For example, knowledge content that is highly time-sensitive and analyses and comments on current social hot topics may become viral. Other knowledge products are popular only because of the high quality of the content. Of course, many knowledge products of poor quality either appeal to and tease people\u0026rsquo;s most basic emotional reactions, sell anxiety, are superficial or biased, are unscientific and imprecise or are simply fallacious.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegardless of the form of commodification, as long as the producers of the knowledge content hope to discover the realization of knowledge, they will follow the logic described to produce content and try their best to make this knowledge practical, engaging, high quality and able to arouse people\u0026rsquo;s emotions. As such, commodification will affect or even shape the characteristics and quality of the knowledge itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 \u0026lsquo;Inclusivity\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;polarization\u0026rsquo;: other social transformations resulting from knowledge commodification\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the impact on knowledge content previously explained, the commodification of knowledge also has a deeper effect on other aspects of society.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirstly, traditionally marginalized knowledge can gain prominence through the Internet, and commodifying this knowledge may reinforce this trend. In traditional media and education, essential and classic knowledge often takes center stage. On the contrary, the Internet allows for more frequent visibility of lower-status traditional knowledge, as well as marginalized practical and local knowledge, which is further amplified by commodification. As noted, for knowledge-based Internet celebrities, popularity is a key feature of commodified knowledge. The diverse body of knowledge produced by Internet celebrities enables individuals from various fields to share and monetize insights that are often overlooked in formal education and daily life. Consequently, the traditional knowledge hierarchy is disintegrating, resulting in a new, dynamic knowledge order that offers a richer array of information, skills and perspectives at a lower cost.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondly, as the once marginalized knowledge gradually emerged in the Internet space, a group of new and more diverse intellectual elites\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e also gradually emerged, and the commodification of knowledge influenced and shaped this process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor a long period, intellectual elites came from specific fields in society, such as literature, science and the arts, and their number was relatively small. Many of them held positions in universities, in research institutions in specific fields and in the media, and they had fixed incomes in their fields. In the Internet space, because the connection between knowledge and the market is more direct, knowledge owners can share information with the public more conveniently, thus creating a new group of intellectual elites who are not necessarily attached to traditional media and schools, with more diverse backgrounds and fields and in more significant numbers\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e. In this process, because there are more ways to realize knowledge, owners of unique local and personal knowledge in different fields may obtain additional income or even make a living through the Internet. Since, in the process, they impact many audiences, some new intellectual elites have gradually gained influence, expanding the impact of traditional intellectual elites.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThirdly, knowledge in the Internet space is polarizing, and the commodification of knowledge has played an essential role in promoting this.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe content in the Internet space has always been inherently mixed. With the advancement of knowledge commodification, this mixture has further increased, showing a trend towards polarization: on the one hand, much knowledge content is entirely one-sided and misleading but widely consumed information, mixed with errors and prejudices, and the quality is worrying; on the other hand, some popular knowledge products are also of high quality. As a result, this polarization may expand knowledge differences between multiple groups. Some people absorb a lot of low-quality and erroneous information on the Internet. Conversely, others can use high-quality knowledge products well, continuously learning and improving their knowledge system. When this difference is solidified or strengthened due to reasons such as region, age and social group, it may widen the knowledge difference within the entire society, thus yielding a more far-reaching impact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the nature of the Internet fundamentally shapes the characteristics of the knowledge it carries, which are distinct from those found in other media formats, regardless of commodification. However, because the market logic regulated by the algorithm mechanism has penetrated the dissemination of knowledge in the Internet space, the characteristics of this knowledge as described are, therefore, further influenced and shaped by the commodification of knowledge. Hence, exploring the impact of the commodification of knowledge in the Internet space under the influence of market logic and algorithm recommendation mechanisms is worthwhile.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. The combined influence of market and algorithmic mechanisms on knowledge production and dissemination","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the public discourse and academic debate, Internet-based knowledge is frequently criticised for containing biased, superficial and erroneous content. Critics argue that the mechanisms of knowledge production and dissemination within the digital space contribute to this degradation, suggesting that the commodification of knowledge erodes its objectivity and accuracy (Valdivia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, as the literature review herein indicates, the reality is much more complicated. Based on the analysis presented, we searched deeper into the influence of the market and algorithmic mechanisms behind the commodification of knowledge in the digital space. We explored how these forces shape the production and dissemination processes and how they either hinder or support the development of objective and accurate knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 The complex role of market mechanisms\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe advent of the Internet has dramatically facilitated the sharing and dissemination of knowledge. However, previous discussions have primarily focused on the production and distribution of knowledge through non-market channels. With the commodification of knowledge, market mechanisms have increasingly penetrated and influenced knowledge production and dissemination processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the economic realm, a subtle relationship exists between knowledge and the market. On the one hand, knowledge is a critical element of financial activities, including producing, circulating and selling commodities. The knowledge possessed by economic actors plays a vital role in effective market operations. In other words, economic activities and markets cannot function without knowledge. On the other hand, the market serves as a core mechanism for information transmission. Knowledge scattered across various sectors of society is mobilized through the price system to facilitate the production and operation of commodities. Hayek (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1945\u003c/span\u003e) pointed out that society contains a vast amount of fundamental but unsystematically organized knowledge \u0026ndash; knowledge about specific times and places \u0026ndash; and that everyone makes decisions based on this knowledge. Yet, the market is the important mechanism for transmitting this knowledge and information. By using the price system, it enables individuals to take correct actions with only limited information. Therefore, the market effectively mobilizes and utilizes the knowledge dispersed among different individuals in society (Hayek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1945\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Internet space, personal and local knowledge can be spread in a more convenient manner, while the commodification of knowledge further promotes and reinforces this process. Some knowledge content producers share knowledge in the Internet space based on their actual work or business experience in a specific field, and by helping users break through the original information barriers, they have gained widespread attention and realized monetization. Some knowledge content producers even mobilize more users on the Internet, fully absorb those users\u0026rsquo; knowledge through comments or direct contacts, sort it, summarize it and then share it with all users.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, this second type of content producer does not initially own the knowledge scattered among countless users. However, through the Internet platform, these knowledge producers can continuously mobilize and obtain local knowledge and personal knowledge that was originally dispersed among different people and then monetize this knowledge. It is precisely because these content creators can monetize the knowledge they have obtained that they have more continuous motivation to produce and share knowledge content, thereby realizing the dissemination of knowledge on a larger scale. In this case, the market mechanism, in mobilizing local knowledge, helps content producers increase their knowledge and make profits based on it, thereby promoting the continuous production and dissemination of knowledge content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Interaction between market behaviour and non-market behaviour\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough market logic influences the production and dissemination of knowledge in the Internet space, it is not the sole determinant of user behaviour. For example, when knowledge anchors sell goods, although their purpose is undoubtedly to sell more products to customers, much knowledge content sharing and many explanations are also involved in the product promotion process. Customers do not just perform simple purchasing activities during this process; rather, they have a considerable amount of viewing behaviour before and after the purchase behaviour. Some customers deliberately learn knowledge and gain intellectual insight through this viewing. For the knowledge live streamers, content sharing and commodity sales behaviour are interspersed, and for the customers, the purchasing behaviour and viewing behaviour are intertwined.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn analyzing knowledge-based anchors, some scholars have reported that knowledge anchors give commodities specific cultural and symbolic meanings through the knowledge taught in the process of commodity sales. As such, the key to determining consumers\u0026rsquo; purchase of goods is no longer limited to the rational factors of pursuing utility maximisation as an economic person in the shopping process; such determinations also encompass the perceptual factors attached to the commodity, including a spiritual culture, in addition to the use value. Therefore, this live broadcast behaviour is not only an instrumental activity for selling goods but also a symbolic activity for selling the spiritual culture (Li Xiaoxiao and Liu Linping, 2023). This means that consumption behaviour does not completely follow the market logic; instead, it is influenced by additional demands and expectations that involve emotions and feelings, which are embedded within social behaviour. In other words, the commodified knowledge not only follows the pure market logic in its sharing and dissemination process: it is accompanied by the intervention of personal, social and emotional factors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3 The joint effect of market mechanism and algorithm mechanism\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe dissemination of content in the Internet space is affected by market mechanisms \u0026ndash; those that are more popular and more liked by people are more likely to be disseminated \u0026ndash; and algorithmic mechanisms, especially algorithmic mechanisms involving content recommendations, determining what content users can see on the pages of related applications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe algorithm mechanism is important in disseminating content, including knowledge, on the Internet. As an intermediary force, it jointly determines the actual dissemination of content together with the market mechanism. The market in the Internet space, therefore, has rules that are different from those in the real world and can be regarded as a market regulated by the algorithm mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn different Internet platforms, the algorithm recommendation mechanisms differ to some extent. However, in general, they all include the following aspects. The first is labelling the content according to its characteristics, with the same content often corresponding to multiple labels based on the user\u0026rsquo;s past content viewing habits, forming a labelling or interest portrait of the user. The second common aspect is recommending content to users with relevant labels or portraits; then, based on the user\u0026rsquo;s viewing behaviour and feedback evaluation - mainly reflected in the form of completion ratios, likes, comments and favorites - making a secondary recommendation on content, with the more popular content recommended to more users. In addition, on multiple Internet platforms, users may also give direct monetary rewards to content creators in multiple ways. Thus, the relevant algorithm recommendation mechanism will have an important impact on disseminating and realising knowledge-based Internet celebrities\u0026rsquo; knowledge content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo better understand this, we can refer to the media industry. Although the logic of the knowledge commodification of knowledge-based influencers is similar to that of the media industry, significant differences can also be found between the two due to the existence and influence of the algorithm recommendation mechanism. The most important of these is that the media dissemination channels are relatively certain, mainly depending on the distribution and sales channels the media already has. In contrast, the dissemination of Internet content is more uncertain because the algorithm recommendation mechanism regulates it; in addition, it is jointly determined by the user\u0026rsquo;s preferences, interactions and forwarding behaviours and algorithms. Furthermore, readers and viewers are no longer just passive audiences of the media but are partially involved in the process of knowledge production, participating in and influencing the production of knowledge content through various interactive methods, such as comments, likes and bullet screens, and on this basis, influencing the channels and methods of knowledge realisation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the algorithm recommendation mechanism is often criticised for the fact that it usually results in the information obtained by users being filtered and highly homogeneous, which leads to users seeing more personalised customised content that meets their preferences, thus forming an information cocoon; this criticism is not without reason, but the other side of this is that the algorithm recommendation mechanism makes the content supply in the Internet space better match the user, thereby forming a large number of content market segments or niche markets to meet the demands of users with different preferences and expectations. In terms of the production and consumption of knowledge content, this means that even those very knowledge content niches may form a large number of long-tail markets in the Internet space, and content creators have the opportunity to produce knowledge in areas where the audience does not seem to be too large and does not rely on advertisements in the relevant market segments to exchange for revenue. The advertising revenue in this market segment can motivate content creators to continue producing knowledge products.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, in the Internet space, knowledge commodification is accompanied by changes in the relationship between knowledge and the market. From one perspective, the market mechanism can better mobilise the local knowledge owned by different individuals, and by helping content producers to earn profits, it promotes the continuous production and dissemination of knowledge content. From another perspective, the logic of the market is not the only logic that affects people\u0026rsquo;s behaviour. Knowledge-based anchors also share and explain knowledge content when selling goods, and users\u0026rsquo; purchasing and knowledge-learning behaviours are also intertwined. In addition, the market mechanism alone cannot determine the dissemination of knowledge in the Internet space. As an intermediary force, the algorithm mechanism jointly determines the dissemination of knowledge content with the market mechanism. A certain market mechanism regulated by the algorithm mechanism plays a key role in disseminating knowledge and other content, and the algorithm mechanism can also help form many niche market segments, thereby encouraging relevant content creators to produce knowledge in niche areas.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Further discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAccording to the sociology of knowledge, objectivity in knowledge does not emerge spontaneously but is underpinned by specific social mechanisms. The distinction between science and mythology, or everyday common sense, hinges not on cognitive superiority but on unique codes and mechanisms that structure knowledge organization. Science adheres to these codes, whereas other forms of knowledge do not. The objectivity of knowledge resides within the social networks and practice codes that knowledge producers have developed over time. This network of social relations upholds truth and imbues knowledge with the power to transcend its production context, thus achieving objectivity. Established codes of conduct and association also support the natural and social sciences\u0026rsquo; sustained public legitimacy and objectivity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom the sociology of knowledge perspective, professional and academic knowledge production and dissemination are based on a special set of associative codes; the review process employed by academic journals is a typical embodiment of this associative code. Many academic journals follow a similar review process. After preliminary review by the editor, the articles that initially achieve a certain academic quality are sent to external review experts. The objectivity and fairness of the review process are guaranteed through a double-masked review. However, the quality of papers in academic journals differs greatly. Some academic journals are full of low-quality papers, while even some journals with good reputations occasionally publish articles with errors that they must later withdraw. Although this can guarantee quality to a certain extent, it proves that much knowledge that has gone through the review process is problematic. From this point of view, traditional knowledge production cannot fully guarantee the production of high-quality new knowledge; moreover, the quality of academic products is also uneven.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe recommendation and dissemination mechanism jointly determined by the Internet space\u0026rsquo;s market mechanism and algorithm mechanism is also a kind of association code. Its specific mechanism varies across different Internet platforms. However, the core of this association code is a production, correction and dissemination mechanism in which content creators, readers, viewers and listeners participate together. A closed group of professionals does not determine the dissemination of content; it is jointly influenced by a wider social public. This association code is undoubtedly lacking in controlling the professionalism of knowledge content. Anyone can produce and disseminate their knowledge products, facilitating the promotion of radical, out-of-line and even extreme voices and opinions and making them easier to spread. However, this association code also contains a certain error correction mechanism. Due to the widespread existence of interactive methods, such as comments and bullet screens, readers and viewers with relevant professional knowledge can point out deficiencies and errors in the information, which plays a role in identifying corrections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore importantly, the recommendation and dissemination mechanism of the Internet may spread incorrect knowledge through its inherent logic. However, it also has the potential to encourage the production and dissemination of high-quality content. Popularity does not necessarily mean vulgarity, superficiality and low quality. By improving the knowledge level of readers, listeners and viewers and raising their expectations and demands for high-quality content, the market mechanism will naturally promote the production of high-quality knowledge products. These high-quality knowledge products will also reach more people through forwarding, commenting and liking. Of course, producing and disseminating high-quality knowledge content faces some challenges. For example, with respect to videos, the content on short video platforms is easier to monetize. Conversely, the content of long videos is more difficult to monetize, which may hurt the production of high-quality content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnlike the current academic field, there is often open, clear and direct criticism and dialogue against certain content on the Internet. This is a special correction mechanism. To a certain extent, it makes up for the negative impact of the continuous dissemination of incorrect knowledge. However, this kind of direct criticism and dialogue in public spaces is relatively scarce in the academic production of some disciplines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom this viewpoint, although the associative codes with market and algorithm mechanisms as the core followed by knowledge production and dissemination in Internet space are far from guaranteeing the objectivity and correctness of knowledge, the recommendation algorithms of Internet platforms themselves are constantly being revised and improved, so they have the potential for continuous optimization in the future. For example, to encourage creators of high-quality medium-length and long videos, some Internet platforms have considered replacing the video playback volume with the user\u0026rsquo;s playback time so that users can choose videos with more quality content rather than simply choosing those with more attractive titles and covers. Some Internet platforms also mark obvious errors in widely disseminated content for readers\u0026rsquo; reference. We also envision two possible directions for optimizing algorithm mechanisms here:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the Internet platform, learn from and refer to the editor plus external review joint review mechanism used in academic knowledge production. Let experts in the relevant fields among readers and viewers judge and comment on the applicable content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTake advantage of the characteristics of the Internet space that embraces all rivers, give full play to its function as a \u0026lsquo;marketplace of ideas\u0026rsquo;, and present as many different and even conflicting views as possible around the same theme so that the audience can experience a more comprehensive exposure to the knowledge of the relevant theme.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat is worth observing and studying in the long term is to what extent the algorithm mechanism can be continuously iterated and improved in the future. Also worthy of investigation is whether, in some way, the mechanism can judge and distinguish the quality of knowledge to be more conducive to the dissemination and production of correct knowledge so that more people can benefit from active and passive learning in the Internet space.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing this article, a strategy is proposed to enhance knowledge utilization within the Internet space. This involves incorporating high-quality digital knowledge products into school curriculums and social training programs, enriching educational and training resources. Relevant educational authorities are advised to rigorously assess these online knowledge products\u0026rsquo; accuracy and scientific basis, considering their complexity and difficulty level. Those who meet the criteria should be integrated into the educational system through well-considered and logical methods. By leveraging these \u0026lsquo;market-tested\u0026rsquo; knowledge products, the availability of high-quality educational resources can be substantially broadened. This approach validates the utility of popular online content and ensures its academic value is harnessed effectively.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.Competing interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.Availability of data and materials\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets analyzed in this study consist of publicly available content from major Chinese internet platforms. All data were collected through open APIs/web crawling methods in compliance with the platforms\u0026apos; terms of service.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.Ethical statements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.Informed consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;This study does not involve human participants or their data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.Authors contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Author1 and Author2. Author1 wrote the first draft of the manuscript and Author2 commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltbach PG, Reisberg L, Rumbley LE (2019) \u003cem\u003eTrends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 22), Brill\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen X, Chua AY, Pee LG (2022) Who Sells Knowledge Online? An Exploratory Study of Knowledge Celebrities in China. Internet Res 32(3):916\u0026ndash;942. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-07-2020-0378\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/INTR-07-2020-0378\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChild F, Frank M, Law J, Sarakatsannis J (2023) What do higher education students want from online learning? Educ Pract, 1\u0026ndash;9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoyle G (2016) Managing in the Distinctive Economic Context of Media. \u003cem\u003eManaging Media Firms and Industries: What\u0026rsquo;s So Special About Media Management?\u003c/em\u003e Cham. Springer International Publishing, pp 175\u0026ndash;188. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08515-9_10\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-08515-9_10\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHayek FA (1945) American Economic Association. Am Econ Rev 35(4):519\u0026ndash;530\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJacob M (2003) Rethinking Science and Commodifying Knowledge. Policy Futures Educ 1(1):125\u0026ndash;142. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.1.3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2304/pfie.2003.1.1.3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJessop B (2007) Knowledge as a Fictitious Commodity: Insights and Limits of a Polanyian Perspective. na. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/9780230607187_7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/9780230607187_7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJing Qi (2023) Beyond product power: A study on the practical logic of live streaming by knowledge anchors. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Communication\u003c/em\u003e (6), 88\u0026ndash;95景琦. (2023). 超越产品力: 知识型主播直播带货实践逻辑研究. 当代传播 (6), 88\u0026ndash;95\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKauppinen I (2014) Different meanings of \u0026lsquo;knowledge as commodity\u0026rsquo;in the context of higher education. Crit Sociol 40(3):393\u0026ndash;409. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0896920512471218\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0896920512471218\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKing G, Pan J, Roberts ME (2013) How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression. Am Polit Sci Rev 107(2):326\u0026ndash;343. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055413000014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/s0003055413000014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Jun (2023) \u0026lsquo;The transformation of knowledge paradigm in the Internet era - the rise of mobile knowledge\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eTsinghua University Education Research\u003c/em\u003e, 44(01), 65\u0026ndash;75. 李俊. (2023) \u0026lsquo;互联网时代知识范式的变革\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;流动知识的兴起\u0026rsquo;, 清华大学教育研究, 44(01), 65\u0026ndash;75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi X, Liu Linping (2023) \u0026amp;. Class preference, cultural capital and emotional machine: A digital ethnographic study of the phenomenon of Oriental Selection Live Broadcasting. \u003cem\u003eExploration and Debate\u003c/em\u003e (01), 103\u0026ndash;112\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;179.李潇晓 \u0026amp; 刘林平. (2023). 阶层偏好、文化资本与情感机器\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;东方甄选直播现象的数字民族志研究. 探索与争鸣 (01), 103\u0026ndash;112\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;179\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLou C, Yuan S (2019) Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media. J Interact Advertising 19(1):58\u0026ndash;73. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMardon R, Belk R (2018) Materializing Digital Collecting: An Extended View of Digital. Materiality\u0026rsquo; Marketing Theory 18(4):543\u0026ndash;570. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1470593118767725\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1470593118767725\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMardon R, Cocker H, Daunt K (2023) How Social Media Influencers Impact Consumer Collectives: An Embeddedness Perspective\u0026rsquo;. J Consum Res 50(3):617\u0026ndash;644. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jcr/ucad003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMasuda H, Han SH, Lee J (2022) Impacts of influencer attributes on purchase intentions in social media influencer marketing: Mediating roles of characterizations. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 174:121246. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121246\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121246\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePolanyi K (2002) The great transformation. Readings economic Sociol, 38\u0026ndash;62\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin L, Zheng M, Schwebel DC, Li L, Cheng P, Rao Z, Hu G (2023) Content quality of web-based short-form videos for fire and burn prevention in China: Content analysis. J Med Internet Res 25:e47343. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2196/47343\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2196/47343\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRotta T, Teixeira R (2019) The commodification of knowledge and information. Oxf Handb Karl Marx 379\u0026ndash;402. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.013.23\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.013.23\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSappey J (2005) The commodification of higher education: flexible delivery and its implications for the academic labour process. \u003cem\u003eIn Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ): 2005 Annual Conference\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 495\u0026ndash;502). Airaanz\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValdivia AN (2018) Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism by Safiya Umoja Noble. Feminist Formations 30(3):217\u0026ndash;220. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm5861\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.abm5861\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWei W, Xie Xingzheng (2020) \u0026amp;. A study on the influencing factors of online knowledge paying users' continued payment intention. \u003cem\u003eData Analysis and Knowledge Discovery\u003c/em\u003e (08), 119\u0026ndash;129.魏武 \u0026amp; 谢兴政. (2020). 线上知识付费用户继续付费意向影响因素研究. 数据分析与知识发现 (08), 119\u0026ndash;129\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang X, Hu Xin (2019) \u0026amp;. A study on the influencing factors of knowledge paying behavior in China's mobile Internet based on the MOA perspective - taking Ximalaya FM as an example. \u003cem\u003eNew Century Library\u003c/em\u003e (10), 29\u0026ndash;36.杨昕雅 \u0026amp; 胡鑫. (2019). 基于MOA视角的中国移动互联网知识付费行为影响因素研究\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;以喜马拉雅FM为例. 新世纪图书馆 (10), 29\u0026ndash;36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng S, Tong X, Wan D, Hu C, Hu Q, Ke Q (2023) Quality and Reliability of Liver Cancer\u0026ndash;Related Short Chinese Videos on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis Study. J Med Internet Res 25:e47210. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2196/47210\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2196/47210\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou Tao TQ, Deng Shengli (2019) \u0026amp;. A study on the behavior of knowledge paying users based on the IS success model. \u003cem\u003eModern Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e (08), 59\u0026ndash;65.周涛, 檀齐 \u0026amp; 邓胜利. (2019). 基于IS成功模型的知识付费用户行为研究. 现代情报 (08), 59\u0026ndash;65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIn Chinese, they are \u0026lsquo;得到\u0026rsquo;and \u0026lsquo;帆书\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA major Chinese Internet and technology company. in Chinese, it is\u0026nbsp;\u0026lsquo;腾讯\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIn Chinese, it is\u0026nbsp;\u0026lsquo;公众号\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA major Chinese Internet and technology company. in Chinese, it is\u0026nbsp;\u0026lsquo;字节跳动\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIn 2021, the Chinese government proposed reducing the homework burden of students in compulsory education and reducing the burden of off-campus training.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA major Chinese Internet and technology company. in Chinese, it is\u0026nbsp;\u0026lsquo;小红书\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe knowledge-based anchors with great influence include Dong Yuhui on the Oriental Selection platform and Luo Yonghao, who has sold goods on multiple platforms. Although there are relatively few such individuals, they have already gained widespread social attention and will inevitably affect many consumers\u0026rsquo; cognition and even attitudes towards knowledge. They are also unique in type and, therefore, deserve special analysis.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWe understand the intellectual elite as people who have rich knowledge in many or a specific field and have a particular influence on others. This group itself is constantly changing. On the one hand, the field of knowledge itself will continue to change, and on the other hand, the way the intellectual elite influences the public is also constantly changing.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere are both traditional academic elites, such as university professors, as well as elites and ordinary practitioners in various industries.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"knowledge, commodification, knowledge payment, market, knowledge production","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6707077/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6707077/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eKnowledge has always played an essential role in Chinese society. Today, the emphasis on knowledge has led people to seek more efficient ways to acquire it. Our article highlights three primary and differing forms of knowledge commodification in the Chinese Internet space: knowledge payment, knowledge Internet celebrities and knowledge live streamers. By analyzing five representative knowledge platforms on the Chinese Internet, we found the core feature of knowledge in knowledge payment is usefulness, and the essential feature of knowledge disseminated by knowledge Internet celebrities and live streamers is popularity. Moreover, the commodification of knowledge has other implications, especially on knowledge production and diffusion. We explain the mechanisms behind this, finding that the market\u0026rsquo;s logic is not the only logic that affects people\u0026rsquo;s behavior, and the user\u0026rsquo;s purchase and knowledge-learning behavior are intertwined. Additionally, the algorithm mechanism codetermines the dissemination of knowledge content as an intermediary force with the market mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Monetized knowledge: Commodification of knowledge in Chinese Internet space and its impact","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-11 07:50:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6707077/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6a645ccc-749b-4bf6-be57-d34ad50d01d1","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":52643483,"name":"Business and commerce/Economics"},{"id":52643484,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":52643485,"name":"Social science/Sociology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-04T16:23:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-11 07:50:52","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6707077","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6707077","identity":"rs-6707077","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}