The “Algorithmic Gatekeeper”: How Dutch Farmers’ Use of YouTube Curates Their Views on the Nitrogen Crisis

Abstract

Dutch farmers are turning to YouTube for insights into the nitrogen crisis. While the platform provides access to diverse information, its algorithmic structure—driven largely by economic interests—personalizes content delivery. This study explores Dutch farmers’ uses and gratifications in using YouTube, and how the YouTube algorithm affects their understanding of the nitrogen crisis. We conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with Dutch farmers and analyzed the data employing thematic analysis. Our findings reveal that farmers use YouTube to educate themselves, navigate laws and regulations, find support for their views, and seek diverse information sources. The platform helps farmers adapt to industry challenges, reinforce their beliefs, and stay informed about alternative perspectives. The study also uncovers the gatekeeping role of the YouTube algorithm, personalizing and curating content about the nitrogen crisis for the farmers.

1. Introduction

Since 2019, the Netherlands has been facing a crisis over nitrogen emissions, leading to widespread protests. In 2015, the Dutch government implemented the PAS policy (Programma Aanpak Stikstof—Nitrogen Approach Program) to address nitrogen emissions while allowing for economic growth and nature restoration in nitrogen-sensitive Natura 2000 areas [1]. The policy aimed to (1) reduce nitrogen emissions by enforcing stricter emission standards and (2) restore nature in areas where high nitrogen levels were causing harm [2].

To clarify, nitrogen itself is not harmful to the environment, but certain nitrogen compounds are. One such compound is ammonia (NH₃), a nitrogen compound released from agriculture—primarily through fertilizers and animal waste—that contributes to climate change and environmental damage in multiple ways. When ammonia from manure enters the atmosphere, it undergoes chemical transformations that can lead to the formation of nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. Additionally, as ammonia settles back to the ground through deposition, it can cause soil acidification, harming plant life and reducing biodiversity.

The PAS policy was ultimately ineffective because it allowed for economic activities that increased nitrogen emissions while relying on uncertain future reductions in nitrogen levels [3]. Under the PAS, companies and projects received government permits to emit a limited amount of nitrogen. These permits were granted as long as overall emissions remained below a predetermined threshold deemed low enough to protect Natura-2000 areas. The PAS also permitted the use of anticipated future reductions as “room for development” [4]. This meant that expected future emission cuts could be allocated to other projects if new legislation was enacted or businesses implemented policies to reduce emissions. However, the PAS failed to achieve its objectives. Many proposed measures were either not implemented or proved less effective than expected, leading to higher-than-estimated emissions and undermining the policy’s intended impact.

For these reasons, the European Court of Justice (EUCJ) rejected the PAS policy in 2018. Consequently, in 2019, the Dutch Council of State ruled that the PAS policy violated the EU habitat directive [5], and abolished the policy on 29 May 2019 [1]. As a result, all emission rights permits were initially revoked, halting at least 18,000 construction and infrastructure projects [6]. This policy change heavily affected Dutch farmers, as all licenses for agricultural expansion were also revoked. In response, Dutch policymakers began exploring alternative measures, including reducing cattle numbers and implementing large-scale farmer buyouts [6]. However, these alternative policies—aimed at curbing nitrogen emissions, of which 46% in the Netherlands stem from animal husbandry—were met with strong criticism from farmers [6].

The nitrogen crisis has received wide attention and sparked debates in both traditional and social media [1]. Organizations like the Farmers’ Defense Force, which extensively communicate and organize themselves through social media platforms [6,7], have been founded in response to the crisis. Additionally, farmers started to organize a series of demonstrations and protests. Long parades of dozens of tractors across highways characterized these protests, leaving piles of trash—such as hay and manure—on the road, eventually blocking main highways and resulting in dangerous situations [8]. Of note, during the elections of March 2023, the BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB)—FarmerCitizenMovement—a political party founded in 2019 and originated through social media under the name of BoerBurgerTweet—FarmerCitizenTweet—became the largest party in the country, showing large support for the agricultural sector in the Netherlands.

Social media have played a significant role in spreading information about the nitrogen crisis and the Dutch farmers’ protests. These platforms amplify the reactions of Dutch farmers and other stakeholders, enabling users to connect, discuss political and social issues, and coordinate actions. For instance, many have used the hashtag #steundeboer (#supportthefarmer) to voice their opinions and organize protests and demonstrations. Additionally, Dutch farmers have also turned to YouTube for insights into the nitrogen crisis.

This study aims to examine Dutch farmers’ uses and gratifications regarding information on the nitrogen crisis on YouTube—i.e., the psychological and practical needs that the YouTube fulfills for famers to use it—as well as the role of YouTube’s algorithm in shaping farmers’ personal perceptions of the crisis. The study aims to demonstrate how rural media studies can challenge conventional assumptions in media research and provide deeper insight into the complexities of modern media landscapes. Hobbis and colleagues [9] argue that media studies are predominantly rooted in urban contexts. They suggest that rural perspectives have often been marginalized and perceived as secondary to urban settings, where rural dimensions are typically framed through a “divide” perspective—positioning rural areas as inherently less developed than urban ones. While some literature addresses rural media [10,11], there remains a significant gap concerning the use of social media in rural areas, particularly in how farmers engage with these platforms. This study seeks to bridge that gap by examining how Dutch farmers interact with YouTube videos about the nitrogen crisis. Specifically, it aims to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the uses and gratifications of Dutch farmers for their engagement with YouTube videos about the nitrogen crisis?

RQ2: In what ways does the YouTube algorithm play a role in Dutch farmers’ views on the nitrogen crisis?

The study examines the interaction between social media platforms, user motivations, and engagement through established theories and concepts. First, the Theoretical Framework section explores the uses and gratifications (U&G) theory in the context of YouTube and addresses YouTube’s algorithmic content delivery system through the lens of the two-step flow theory. Second, the Materials and Methods section details the data collection, management, and analysis processes, along with ethical considerations in social media research. Third, the Results section presents key themes and subthemes identified through the thematic analysis. Finally, the Discussion and Conclusion sections synthesize the connection between theory and findings, answering the research questions, acknowledging study limitations, and offering recommendations for future research.

Our research reveals how farmers’ uses and gratifications in engaging with YouTube videos about the nitrogen crisis shape their personalized understanding of the issue. Additionally, we highlight the role of the YouTube algorithm as a gatekeeper, influencing information flows through the algorithmic two-step flow process.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. U&G Theory and YouTube

As much as algorithms serve as gatekeepers that personalize content for users, users themselves still play an active role in the choice of a social media platform and in the selection of content they want to see and engage with. By examining farmers’ social media use in terms of the Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT), insights can be gained into the motivations and preferences driving Dutch farmers’ engagement with YouTube and their perceptions of the nitrogen crisis.

The UGT, coined by Katz and colleagues [12], is concerned with understanding why people use specific types of media, what needs they have for using them, and what gratifications they gain from doing so. According to this theory, there are “social and psychological origins of needs, which generate expectations of the mass media or other sources which lead to differential patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other activities), resulting in need gratifications and other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones.” [12] (p. 510). The theory refers to the study of the gratifications or benefits that attract and retain users to various media and content that meet their psychological and social needs [13]. UGT helps explain why people choose specific media types by clarifying social and individual gratifications and users’ motives for engaging with media [14].

Two primary assumptions form the basis of the UGT, namely, (1) that individuals are active in making choices about media selection, and (2) that individuals are aware of their motives for doing so. Thus, media effects may depend on the motivations that drive attention to media.

The UGT can be revisited and applied to contemporary online media environments, such as social media. Social media have fundamentally transformed communication by enabling consumers to become content creators [15]. Gao and Feng [16] offer a classification of rewards that is unique to using social media. According to these authors, there are five main needs that can be satisfied for using social media: information searching, entertainment, social engagement, self-expression, and impression management [16]. In the case of YouTube, users can be content consumers, participants, and content creators [17]. Consumers acquire information and entertainment satisfactions, while participants gain rewards related to social interaction and community development. Content creators reach another level of involvement, since they produce novel elements and bits of knowledge that enable them to receive rewards related to self-actualization and self-expression. Producing one’s own content (such as vlogs) on YouTube, users satisfy a range of emotional needs, such as increased self-confidence [18]. Followers may send positive feedback and encouragement to the content creator, which serve as sources of emotional gratifications [19].

For content consumers, YouTube primarily satisfies the need for relaxation and information-seeking [18]. For content creators, the platform fulfills needs related to social recognition, validation, and potential economic interests. The authors conclude that YouTube can generate various types of gratifications. For instance, they identify that users are active participants who customize their accounts based on personalized YouTube recommendations, demonstrating a willingness to engage more as the platform effectively meets their needs [18].

This suggests an interplay between the uses and gratifications of YouTube users and the algorithmic two-step flow process on the platform. On one hand, users’ motivations and needs influence their online behavior in searching for and consuming content. On the other hand, YouTube’s algorithm shapes the content made visible to users. This dynamic interaction allows users to construct their own social reality by engaging with content that aligns with their needs, while also being guided by algorithm-driven information flows.

2.2. Digital Information Flows: The Algorithmic Two-Step Flow Process

To explore the complex processes that allow users to construct different realities through the use of social media platforms, it is necessary to first look at how information in today’s digital environment flows and at the processes that this enables. To do this, we will return to a traditional mass media theory and apply it to the current situation, demonstrating how algorithms on social media platforms personalize information and enable the production of various individualized realities for users. Today’s digital media environment demonstrates a noticeable shift away from traditional patterns of information flows. However, traditional media theories—relating to mass communication—like the two-step flow theory, attributed to Katz and colleagues [20], can still be applied and revisited to unravel the complexity of contemporary information flows and communication systems.

The two-step flow theory implies that personal relationships play a central role in the mediation of relevant information between the mass media and the receiving group [20]. Social networks play a role in what information will and will not reach one and how one understands this information. Certain key figures in these social networks, known as opinion leaders, have relatively large circles of contacts in various domains [21]. The theory assumes that media content flows from the medium (e.g., radio and print) to those opinion leaders, and from them to less active groups of people [20,22]. Mass media, from this perspective, have an indirect effect through opinion leaders and interpersonal communication. According to the two-step flow theory, mass communication content is filtered through the agenda and beliefs of opinion leaders, which often align with those of the group. Hence, opinion leaders serve as active gatekeepers in the process of exposing information to the ostensibly “passive” population of society [22,23].

Efforts have been undertaken to apply this theory to contemporary communication networks and information flows facilitated by digital technologies. Noteworthy is the one-step flow theory by Bennett and Manheim [24], who conclude that socio-technological changes push toward individual isolation [22,24]. The authors contend that the two-step flow’s central component of group mediation is less significant in the age of new media than in the mass media era. They argue that the relationship between people and technology has changed by “observing individuals’ direct interaction with media outlets that are tailored or channeled to match their characteristics.” [22,24] (p. 301). Bennett and Manheim [24] suggest that the use of digital media produces an interaction between the technology and the individual audience member instead of among members of peer groups. Nevertheless, this perception of disintermediation—the reduction of intermediaries between producers and consumers—has been challenged by empirical evidence indicating the ongoing relevance of intermediaries (or opinion leaders) in online social media networks [25,26,27,28].

Thus, the two-step flow theory can still be applied to today’s complex information flows through digital technologies and online communication platforms. In this vein, Soffer [22] argues for an algorithmic two-step flow, where a meta-algorithmic mediation can be understood and conceptualized as a two-step flow process, whereby all inputs, including those pertaining to a “calculated peer group” are employed to personalize the user’s content. Algorithms function to “determine the contents that users are exposed to and create content, sometimes replacing, at least in part, human agents” [22,29] (p. 302). Such algorithms shape the visibility of specific viewpoints and voices, for instance, search engines that rank and organize information, highlighting some of the information while making other information inconspicuous.

It is nonetheless imperative to bear in mind that algorithms are not neutral decision-making systems. They are used, among other things, to increase marketing’s accuracy by accounting for users’ online behaviors [22]. This creates a hierarchy in content presentation, which can be argued to contribute to the construction of modern power relations [30]. Moreover, algorithms construct social reality in a manner that reflects the interests and perspectives of certain groups [31].

Previously, mass media operated differently from modern algorithms. Mass media selection processes involved a time delay and primarily targeted well-defined, fixed general audiences and mass markets. These audiences were identified using limited data sources, such as polls and TV meters in selected households [22]. In contrast, algorithms construct social realities differently. Their selection processes rely on both active, real-time consumer input (e.g., feedback) and passive, individualized data (e.g., user locations) [32].

Digital media environments enable easier and more effective tracking of users’ behavior and preferences. Algorithms can “respond in real-time to evolving trends in consumer behavior, selections, online activities, and content consumption, such as location and social contacts.” [22,32] (p. 305). This way, algorithms resemble interpersonal interactions, similarly to how opinion leaders would relay information to the relevant group [22]. Ultimately, algorithms function as tools that personalize content to which users are exposed to, seemingly fulfilling the role of opinion leaders as gatekeepers in the original two-step flow theory.

Algorithms analyze a peer group and use users’ online behaviors to personalize information [21]. Unlike traditional peer groups, this algorithmic peer group is dynamic and continuously evolving. Social media platforms use algorithms to assess a specific user’s character and behavior [22] (p. 307). Changes in the peer group can occur due to various factors, such as shifts in users’ online activity or location. These changes in behavior result in variations in algorithmic output and the identification of certain categories [22]. As a result, users are exposed to different content based on their evolving, algorithmically determined peer group. However, algorithms predict users’ behavior to present content that they deem engaging, regardless of the users’ actual interests [22,33]. To make these predictions, algorithms rely on the online behavior of other relevant users. The resulting output—recommendations and personalized content—ultimately shapes the construction of social realities.

Algorithmic selection applications construct social realities by shaping daily lives and realities, affecting perceptions of the world and influencing user behavior [32]. The constructed realities become highly personalized since algorithmic reality construction increases “individualization, commercialization, inequalities, and deterritorialization, and decreases transparency, controllability, and predictability.” [32] (p. 255). The fluid nature of algorithmic mediation in the process of online information flows is thus a process of decision-making regarding the social and political agenda. In the context of the Netherlands, this social and political agenda refers to the clash between the government’s intention to cut nitrogen emissions by reducing livestock numbers and the farmers’ opposition to such policies.

3. Materials and Methods

The data were collected from a series of 12 semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted with people employed in the Dutch agricultural sector, impacted by laws and regulations related to the nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands. The interviews, which took place between April and July 2024, were conducted in Dutch and lasted between 30 and 90 min each. Each interview followed a semi-structured interview guide. This guide was divided into seven blocks of questions, derived from the theoretical framework. Participants were asked questions about (a) criteria for participation and socio-demographics, (b) background in the agricultural sector and general use of YouTube, (c) perspectives on the nitrogen debate, (d) uses and gratifications of YouTube in relation to the nitrogen crisis, (e) attitudes towards YouTube as a platform for disseminating information about the nitrogen crisis, (f) experiences and changes in perspectives through watching YouTube videos on the nitrogen crisis, and (g) the reliability of information on YouTube regarding the nitrogen crisis. The complete interview guide can be found in Appendix A. Before conducting the interviews, the interview guide was piloted in one instance and adapted accordingly. Piloting interviews helps to identify flaws, or limitations within the interview design and allows for necessary modifications to the study [34]. In addition, ethics approval was sought and received from the Research Ethics Review Committee at the Faculty of Arts at the University of Groningen (The Netherlands).

3.1. Data Gathering

The participants were selected using a combination of purposive sampling and snowball sampling [35]. Purposive sampling allows for sampling participants who are relevant to the research [35] and was first employed to select participants. A set of criteria was adopted to select participants: the participants (a) had to be employed in the Dutch agricultural sector, and (b) had to use YouTube to gather information about the nitrogen crisis.

Participants were selected to ensure a broad age range, allowing for the consideration of potential similarities or differences across age groups. Initially, the sample was designed to achieve an equal gender distribution. However, this proved to be challenging due to the predominance of men in the field. In addition, participant recruitment was initially done through existing relations between one of the researchers and their acquaintances. Participants were also recruited through posts on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram stories, describing the research and its purpose paired with the criteria for participation. LinkedIn and Facebook were asked to share the post in their networks for more exposure. Potential participants were invited to send an e-mail to the researcher if they were interested in participating in the research. Furthermore, snowball sampling was employed to identify additional participants through referrals from initial interviewees, thereby broadening the pool of potential participants. Snowball sampling allows for sampling a small group of people relevant to the research objectives of a study. These sampled participants are asked to propose other participants who meet the criteria for participation in the study [35]. Following the interviews, participants were asked to recommend two or three others working in the Dutch agricultural sector with different ages and/or backgrounds. This combined approach facilitated the acquisition of diverse perspectives in qualitative data, essential for answering the research questions.

The sample for the study consists of 12 individuals who are all employed in the Dutch agricultural sector and use YouTube for information gathering about the Dutch nitrogen crisis.

Table 1. Overview of participants.

Pseudonym	Age	Gender	Employment
Interviewee 1	29	Male	Arable farmer
Interviewee 2	25	Female	Dairy farmer
Interviewee 3	46	Male	Dairy farmer
Interviewee 4	40	Male	Organic dairy farmer
Interviewee 5	18	Male	In training to become a dairy farmer
Interviewee 6	37	Male	Dairy farmer
Interviewee 7	40	Male	Mechanization in agricultural sector
Interviewee 8	28	Male	Dairy farmer
Interviewee 9	55	Male	Dairy farmer
Interviewee 10	47	Male	Employed in innovation center dairy farming
Interviewee 11	36	Male	Dairy farmer
Interviewee 12	34	Male	Arable farmer

below provides an overview of the participants.

3.2. Semi-Structured Interviews

The data for this study were collected through semi-structured interviews, allowing for flexibility in probing specific topics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data about how Dutch farmers think about their digital practices on YouTube and how these affect their personalized views about the nitrogen crisis. Semi-structured interviews are a suitable method for gaining an insight on individuals’ perspectives for a few reasons. Initially, this approach underscores the significance of the interviewees’ perspectives [35]. Additionally, within semi-structured interviews, respondents are afforded considerable latitude in their responses, with digressions being encouraged as they illuminate aspects they deem relevant [35]. Moreover, semi-structured interviews foster elaborated and in-depth responses. Participants were encouraged to elaborate on topics they found important with regard to the nitrogen crisis and their YouTube use, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of their perspectives.

Before the start of each interview, all participants were presented with an information sheet, explained by the researcher, and a consent form detailing the purpose of the research and the use of the collected data. Before an interview was conducted, the consent form had to be signed and returned. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

3.3. Data Management

All collected data for the study were managed confidentially and stored on password-protected servers. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, thereby allowing for a thorough analysis [35]. Transcripts were done automatically using an automatic transcription service that operates in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Subsequently, transcripts were manually assessed from the recordings and corrected accordingly. During the process of transcribing, pseudonymization was used. This ensured the privacy of the participants. The names of the interviewees were not written down in the transcripts, thus separating the original recordings, containing participants’ personally identifiable information, and the transcripts.

3.4. Data Analysis

To shed light on the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between exposure to information related to the nitrogen crisis on YouTube and personalized views of the topic, a thematic analysis was conducted according to Braun and Clarke’s [36] guidelines. This method “[…] can be applied across a range of theoretical and epistemological approaches.” [36] (p. 78). The method is used for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns and themes, allowing for a rich, qualitative, and interpretative account of the data. It is suitable for examining “[…] the ways in which events, realities, meanings, experiences and so on are the effects of a range of discourses operating within society.” [36] (p. 81). Furthermore, thematic analysis is not bound to any pre-existing theoretical framework. However, the theoretical position of a thematic analysis should be made clear, as it carries with it a number of assumptions about the nature of the data and what they represent [36]. Therefore, it is emphasized that this study is grounded in two theories—namely, Uses and Gratifications Theory and the two-step flow theory. Our theoretical framework informed the development of codes and themes during the data analysis, with a focus on specific aspects of the theories and concepts to identify latent themes and capture underlying patterns.

Three consecutive rounds of coding were carried out to identify the main themes and subthemes within the data using ATLAS.ti 24.1.1. for Windows to code the interview transcripts [37]. The first coding round resulted in 282 open codes, describing interviewees’ answers. Subsequently, these open codes were grouped and combined into eight second-order themes. These second-order themes stemmed from the open codes grouped together as follows: (1) the nitrogen crisis, (2) uses and gratifications, (3) characteristics of YouTube videos about the nitrogen crisis, (4) YouTube’s recommendation algorithm, (5) traditional media coverage, (6) polluted information, (7) social media literacy, and (8) a theme called miscellaneous that grouped all unassigned codes. Second-order themes six and seven were removed after recoding because they were not applicable to answering the research questions. Second-order theme eight was subsumed into the remaining second-order themes after recoding. Second-order themes one, three, and five were inferred from the data. The remaining second-order themes, two and four, were guided by the theoretical framework. Finally, the remaining second-order themes were further clustered into three main themes. Second-order theme one was collapsed into the main theme Voices from the fields. Second-order theme two and five were collapsed into Motivations, needs, and engagement. Lastly, second-order theme three was collapsed into Personalized algorithmic realities. For clarity, the main themes have been subdivided by sub-themes.

3.5. Social Media Research Ethics

The data collected through interviews were, initially, YouTube videos about the nitrogen crisis and subsequent farmers’ protests. These data can be considered publicly available. These videos are uploaded under the hashtags #boerenprotest (farmers’ protest), #stikstofcrisis (nitrogen crisis), or #stikstofdebat (nitrogen debate). Using hashtags to disclose information or opinions on YouTube can be considered public [38]. In this context, users can expect to be observed by strangers [38]. Collecting YouTube videos for research is possible as they are publicly available through the API [39]. However, the use of content collected through APIs may be considered private by participants [38]. The answer to whether the collected data are public or private is not clear-cut and is context-dependent [40]. However, the goal of the research is to study the relationship between YouTube videos and the construction of the nitrogen crisis by YouTube users. Therefore, the content of YouTube videos or post-video discussions was not included in the analysis.

What should be considered is the sensitivity of user activity on YouTube. While the data can be considered publicly available, they can be personal and must be handled accordingly [38,41]. Individuals could be identified by sharing the dataset, for instance, by username, content, or language of comments in their descriptions during the interviews [42]. Moreover, sensitive data include contentious political opinions and activism [38], which, within the nitrogen debate, is prevalent.

Lastly, “the ‘blurring of boundaries’ between researcher and participant is a further consideration.” [38] (p. 11). We reached out to participants through social media accounts. Accordingly, we paid attention to personal online identities and privacy, since they might become searchable [38]. Additionally, two potential concerns exist when conducting informed consent online [42]. The first concern is the lack of face-to-face contact with participants—11 of the 12 interviews were conducted online. This may lead to reduced opportunities for observing participant reactions to the consent process. Moreover, online recruitment and consent processes might increase the likelihood of receiving feedback from participants if questions or concerns arise, as individuals may be more prone to lash out inappropriately online [42]. Consequently, this suggests a heightened sense of security and safety when communicating over the internet.

3.6. Reflexivity

Researchers are encouraged to adopt a reflective stance. Reflexivity acknowledges the influence of the researcher’s cultural, political, and social context [35] (p. 388). Given this, it is important to disclose our background, as it informs our approaches to this research. We come from an urban area in Spain, Barcelona, and a rural area in the Netherlands, Friesland, though not from an agricultural background. We have been living in urban environments for extended periods, meaning that our perspectives may be more aligned with urban dynamics. These personal experiences inevitably shape our research, underscoring the need to acknowledge and address potential biases arising from our background.

4. Results

This section presents the results of the study. The first theme, Voices from the fields, serves as context for the motivations of Dutch farmers to use YouTube as an information source regarding the nitrogen crisis. It reveals the underlying context of the complexity of the nitrogen debate and farmers’ motivations.

The following excerpts were organized by the research questions, presenting the main themes and corresponding subthemes identified through thematic analysis. These highlight Dutch farmers’ motivations for their engagement with YouTube videos about the nitrogen crisis and the ways in which the YouTube algorithm plays a role in the views of the nitrogen crisis by Dutch farmers.

4.1. Voices from the Fields

The first main theme, called Voices from the fields, sheds light on Dutch farmers’ positionalities and how they view the nitrogen crisis as a problem. It covers the farmers’ perspectives on the nitrogen crisis from their professional viewpoints, their opinions on its causes, and their ideas for potential solutions. The theme provides context for the two research questions of this study by offering insights into Dutch farmers’ motivations for engaging with information about the nitrogen crisis on YouTube.

Among the farmers, there was consensus about what they thought was unsatisfactory traditional media coverage about the underlying causes of the nitrogen crisis, the presentation of Dutch farmers, and their role within the nitrogen crisis.

Interviewee 8 expressed feelings of frustration and negative framing of Dutch farmers regarding the nitrogen crisis:

“I think if you watch the NOS (The NOS stands for the Nederlandse Omroep Stichting or Dutch Broadcasting Foundation, which is a Dutch public broadcasting company) news […] I don’t watch that anymore these days because I know anyway that the plants are all dying and that’s because of me, because I’m a farmer. And the housing prices are also going up because: yeah, we can’t build as much and that’s because of me because I’m a farmer. Well, I’ve heard that by now and I don’t believe in that so much anymore.”

(Interviewee 8, 28, male, dairy farmer.)

Interviewee 8 shared that he thinks that traditional media portray Dutch farmers as the primary cause of the nitrogen crisis. However, he disagrees, sharing that he did not think that they are the main cause of the problem. Interviewee 12, a 34-year-old male arable farmer, also expressed feelings about farmers often being portrayed in a bad light. Interviewee 11, a 36-year-old male dairy farmer, noted how he stopped watching TV because the coverage of the nitrogen crisis had a negative impact on him:

“They just showed one side of the story. It was so clearly anti-farming. […] Since then, I actually stopped watching TV altogether. […] Because it just doesn’t make you happy. You get blamed for everything. At least, that was my feeling.”

(Interviewee 11, 36, male, dairy farmer.)

In addition to the unsatisfactory news coverage about the nitrogen crisis, a number of farmers also indicated that Dutch farmers generally are a closed group and prefer to do the work without the interference of others, something most farmers believed complicates the situation because it confirms the negative image they think is painted by traditional media. As Interviewee 3 notes:

“This is also immediately actually the problem of the agricultural sector. […] An average farmer also is something like: ‘Don’t come into my land, don’t come into my yard. Let me do my thing and this is my domain and beyond that I don’t want to deal with anything or anyone’.”

(Interviewee 3, 46, male, dairy farmer.)

Likewise, Interviewee 4, a 40-year-old male biological dairy farmer, acknowledged that Dutch farmers generally are a closed group and need to open up more. This sentiment is observed among most farmers. Moreover, farmers indicated that they often find news coverage about the nitrogen crisis on traditional media insufficient and unsatisfactory.

4.1.1. Reality of the Nitrogen Crisis

This subtheme elaborates on the sentiment that prevails among farmers about the reality of the nitrogen crisis and the underlying issues. This entails how farmers think that the nitrogen crisis, in itself, is not the main problem. Common among the interviewees were comments about the nitrogen crisis being part of a larger social problem, like the housing crisis in the Netherlands, which was often mentioned as the cause of the measures taken regarding the agricultural sector. Interviewee 8 noted the following:

“I wonder whether this nitrogen emission reduction, whether that actually is a means to restore nature? Or is the goal to […] reduce the number of farmers?”

(Interviewee 8, 28, male, dairy farmer.)

When asked to elaborate on what he meant by reducing the number of farmers, Interviewee 8 added:

“Well more and more people are coming to the Netherlands, of course. […] The cities are expanding. I also quite think that the idea comes from a good place of: ‘Gee, we have to live in this densely populated country like the Netherlands and maintain nature.’ But I think the prejudice is that farmers ruin nature. And I think that is misunderstood. Because farmers generally work with nature, because that’s their job.”

(Interviewee 8, 28, male, dairy farmer.)

Interviewee 7, a 40-year-old male employee in mechanization in the agricultural sector, argued in a similar vein. And Interviewee 2, a 25-year-old female dairy farmer, also related the nitrogen crisis to the housing crisis. She also shared how she became aware of the housing sector’s impact by nitrogen emission regulations. At the same time, she viewed this as a positive development, considering that the housing crisis is a pressing social issue affecting a larger portion of the population, which, in turn, raises awareness of the broader consequences of the nitrogen crisis.

4.1.2. Measurement Inconsistencies and Contradictory Regulations

This second subtheme focuses on how many farmers report that the use of various models in nitrogen emission calculations has led to inconsistent results. These inconsistencies have often caused confusion among farmers, making it unclear what actions are permissible within their work. Additionally, the differing models that produce varying outcomes have, according to farmers, resulted in contradictory regulations and measurements. As a consequence, farmers have expressed difficulty in adhering to laws and regulations. Interviewee 12 shared the following insights regarding the lack of clarity surrounding nitrogen emission calculations:

“[…] Are the calculations correct? How is it calculated? I sometimes wonder that indeed. In Germany they have practically no problems with nitrogen and then I think: is it only because that country is bigger and the Netherlands is probably just a bit too full? And therefore we create our own problem? But then, is there actually a problem for nature?”

(Interviewee 12, 34, male, arable farmer.)

Similarly, Interviewee 3 notes that scientific research is lacking and inconsistent, which, in his view, results in insufficiently substantiated judgments.

Additionally, farmers expressed the need for changes in the industry to ensure the sustainability of their work in the future. For instance, Interviewee 7 shared his thoughts on the recently altered derogation regulation:

“Actually now, the biggest problem is derogation. We have too much manure currently. […] But we don’t have too much manure. It’s just not allowed to be spread anymore. And they want to get rid of it. […] The bottom line is that we first have to transport that manure abroad or to arable farmers. […] But too much manure remains and it costs a lot to remove it. For those cattle farmers. They also have to deal with that financially now. […] So you can no longer invest and they are left with the manure. And that manure cannot be removed. That is a big problem.”

(Interviewee 7, 40, male, employee in mechanization in the agricultural sector)

Interviewee 7 highlighted how the recent changes in regulations have left farmers trapped in a situation from which they currently cannot escape. Similarly, Interviewee 3 expressed the belief that the agricultural sector can no longer adapt to the current regulations. He pointed out that the existing regulations are contradictory, where complying with one often leads to violating another. This issue ties into the tendency of Dutch farmers to form a relatively closed community. Interviewee 3 suggested that a potential solution to the inconsistency of the rules and regulations is for Dutch farmers to unite and advocate for themselves collectively. However, they have not been able to do so effectively thus far. Many farmers see themselves as individuals within a larger group and are generally reluctant to speak out, fearing that doing so could negatively impact their businesses.

Overall, this subtheme sheds light on conflicting measurements in nitrogen emission calculations and subsequent suspicious feelings of farmers, along with experiences of being stuck in an unworkable situation.

4.2. Motivations, Needs, and Engagement

This main theme, titled Motivations, needs, and engagement, answers the first research question:

RQ1: What are the uses and gratifications of Dutch farmers for their engagement with YouTube videos about the nitrogen crisis?

The theme highlights the uses and gratifications of Dutch farmers for engaging with YouTube videos concerning information about the nitrogen crisis.

4.2.1. YouTube for Education

This subtheme illustrates how farmers used YouTube for further educating themselves. This often involved looking up information to work within the laws and regulations of the nitrogen crisis, and searching for information to further innovate in order to find ways to make work in the agricultural sector future-proof. Interviewee 5 mentioned how he uses YouTube to educate himself in what is possible in the future within the agricultural sector, particularly focusing on solutions. In doing so, he actively searches for videos about innovative solutions with a future perspective:

“Because I watched a video on YouTube about that, too. There you have one of those, that’s from Lely (Lely Holding is an international family business in the agricultural sector. They provide innovative solutions and tailored services. Lely has a YouTube channel for sharing this information with greater reach [43]), you have one of those separators and then they show how they separate that, how they take the nitrogen and the ammonia and that they take that out. And then that’s put into a liquid, that’s stored in a tank. And then you can spread that separately over the land. And that thicker stuff, you can, for example, heat so that all the bad bacteria go out. […] Because then it’s just good stuff so to speak. So yes, things like that, those are all solutions.”

(Interviewee 5, 18, male, student dairy farmer.)

Likewise, Interviewee 4 mentioned how he actively searches for information about the soil and how he could apply this to his own work. Accordingly, he engages with information not specifically tailored to the agricultural sector and has a broad view of how to apply innovation in the sector:

“I’m also into composting and I had a soil course the other day […] and they were talking about worm compost. I thought: ‘Oh that’s interesting!’ So then they put one of those tiger worms in a container on a small scale. So I thought: ‘Can I do that with my manure too?’ So yeah, then I started searching on YouTube for that and ended up with videos and then I searched more really focusing on something I want to know. […] You end up on YouTube very quickly.”

(Interviewee 4, 40, male, biological farmer)

Interviewee 3 used YouTube in a similar way, and thought there was room for innovation in the area of cultivating soil. He also used YouTube to search for information about soil, and how to apply this in his work. Additionally, Interviewee 6 mentioned that he used YouTube to educate himself on the essence of the nitrogen crisis and to delve deeper into the case so as to be well-informed before sharing his opinions:

“Yes, those technical stories did help me. […] Initially, you think nitrogen, that’s nice stuff, because I just sprinkle that to make the grass grow. So then you think: ‘What’s wrong with nitrogen?’ Then just to delve into how it all fits together. That does just give you a picture that you know what it is about. Without that, you start shouting into the void. So that certainly helped.”

(Interviewee 6, 37, male, dairy farmer.)

Farmers reported being motivated to watch YouTube videos for educational purposes related to the nitrogen crisis, as the platform’s visual cues and longer format conveyed information more effectively than TikTok’s short videos.

Overall, YouTube was a key resource for farmers seeking information on soil innovations and modern cultivation techniques. It also helped them navigate laws and regulations stemming from the nitrogen crisis. The platform’s visual elements provided clearer representations, while its longer videos allowed for in-depth exploration of topics and innovative solutions.

4.2.2. YouTube for Confirming Beliefs

Some farmers used YouTube to reinforce their existing beliefs. They felt disconnected from traditional media coverage, such as newspapers and TV news, and turned to YouTube to find information on the nitrogen crisis that aligned with their pre-existing views. For example, Interviewee 9 shared his thoughts on a map featured in traditional news, which outlined designated areas and the required nitrogen emissions reductions for each:

“I was looking for argumentation of why it’s an unwarranted designation, for example. Or what are those articles that refute those theories that are behind that nitrogen designation. […] I mean, there were a lot of things that were taken as true about the fact that there had to be a huge reduction and to us [farmers] there was too much of a focus on the agricultural sector.”

(Interviewee 9, 55, male, dairy farmer.)

Interviewee 9 used YouTube to search for information that debunked claims made in the nitrogen emissions reduction map, as he disagreed with these claims. He specifically sought content that aligned with his pre-existing beliefs. While he stated that the YouTube videos did not directly influence his viewpoints, he acknowledged that they provided factual support for the stance he had already adopted. Similarly, Interviewee 3 noted that YouTube allows viewers to find content that reinforces their existing beliefs. However, he also pointed out that this applies to individuals across different perspectives. For this reason, he believed that YouTube may contribute to the polarization of the nitrogen debate:

“Yes, those 30 years thinking you were always right and you can also still find confirmation here and there, just as we can find it on YouTube. They can also find it on YouTube. Then you get two camps.”

(Interviewee 3, 46, male, dairy farmer.)

Farmers indicated that they use YouTube to substantiate, support, and confirm their pre-existing viewpoints. For some, this motivation stemmed from a perceived sense of unfairness in the news coverage of the nitrogen crisis by traditional media. In this context, YouTube serves as a means to obtain gratification from news coverage available on the platform. Farmers can search for content themselves, which helps to counter feelings of unfairness and reinforce their own ideas.

4.2.3. YouTube for Alternative Sources

Farmers used YouTube not only to confirm their already existing beliefs, but also to seek alternative sources of information. In this context, alternative sources refer to a variety of perspectives available on YouTube, including content uploaded by both individual users and news outlets. Interviewee 2 perceived YouTube as a neutral platform where users can share diverse content:

“YouTube really is a medium, when used, it just depends on which person is shown in a video. […] YouTube is just a medium. And the source, the person behind it can change.”

(Interviewee 2, 25, female, dairy farmer.)

This perception highlights the value farmers place on YouTube as a diverse resource for information about the nitrogen crisis. Despite the contradictions, using YouTube to explore multiple sources was one of the most common ways farmers gathered information. Interviewee 8 noted that YouTube, along with the organizations active on the platform, helps him gain a more objective perspective on the nitrogen issue:

“I think with Agrio about the farmers’ protests and Nieuwe Oogst that I do get a bit more of an objective view of what’s actually going on.”

(Interviewee 8, 28, male, dairy farmer.)

Moreover, farmers indicated that they sometimes use YouTube to access information they would not typically seek out because it does not align with their own views on the issue. Some farmers reported doing this to gain a well-rounded understanding of the nitrogen crisis and to better grasp why others may think differently.

Farmers frequently emphasized YouTube’s role in fact-checking and supplementing information obtained from other sources. Interviewee 8 stated that he uses YouTube as a secondary source to deepen his understanding of the crisis and gather additional details. Similarly, Interviewee 6 explained that he relies on YouTube to explore diverse perspectives, helping him form a more comprehensive picture of the situation. He also expressed a sense of unfairness regarding studies on nitrogen emissions in the agricultural sector. To fact-check these studies, particularly their methodologies, he turns to YouTube, watching content from sources such as Stichting Agri Facts (Stichting Agri Facts is an organization that supports independent journalistic research on publications and reports of agricultural and horticultural policy [44]):

“You get a strong sense of unfairness in such studies. And well really, they were solid studies. Well, those were then not included [in decision-making]. […] Things like that are made clear by YouTube.”

(Interviewee 8, 28, male, dairy farmer.)

The Motivations, needs, and engagement theme reveals the diverse ways in which the farmers engaged with YouTube videos about the nitrogen crisis, stemming from educational needs, the desire to confirm pre-existing beliefs, and seeking alternative information sources. YouTube served as a valuable tool for farmers to educate themselves on innovative agricultural practices and to navigate complex laws and regulations. It also provided a platform for them to find support for their perspectives, especially when they felt misrepresented by traditional media. Additionally, YouTube offers access to a broad range of information sources, enabling farmers to fact-check, gain deeper insights, and understand different viewpoints on the nitrogen crisis. This multi-faceted engagement underscores the significance of YouTube in helping farmers adapt to industry challenges, support their beliefs, and remain informed about various perspectives.

4.3. Personalized Algorithmic Realities

The second main theme, titled Personalized algorithmic realities, answers the second research question:

RQ2: In what ways does the YouTube algorithm play a role in Dutch farmers’ views of the nitrogen crisis?

The theme demonstrates how farmers experienced their algorithmic identities, how personalization through the algorithm on YouTube shaped their content consumption, and how this shaped their perspectives of the nitrogen crisis.

4.3.1. Algorithmic Identities

This subtheme examines how farmers recognize the role of algorithms in shaping their content consumption on YouTube. Interviewees described how algorithms consistently presented content aligned with their interests, search history, and online behavior, creating a personalized algorithmic reality. Farmers expressed concerns that this tailored content reduced diversity in perspectives and often reinforced pre-existing viewpoints. For example, Interviewee 2 highlighted the persistent nature of algorithmically curated content about the nitrogen crisis on YouTube:

“Well, it goes slowly, haha. I don’t know how it comes, but it’s there all of a sudden. And if you want it to go, it takes a very long time.”

(Interviewee 2, 25, female, dairy farmer.)

Interviewee 2 highlights the challenge algorithms face in recognizing when a user loses interest in something. These algorithms continuously analyze and track user behavior, categorizing individuals based on their interactions. According to Interviewee 2, past online behavior continues to influence recommendations for an extended period. Interviewee 3 shares a similar experience and adds that he has noticed content similarities across different platforms:

“Yes of course we all know, there is an algorithm behind it. If you look up certain things, then through Facebook you quickly get certain things and you are sent into certain directions. And you also notice that if you’re on YouTube and you look up certain things, then you’re actually pursued for weeks with more data about that. Which sometimes is quite irritating indeed.”

(Interviewee 3, 46, male, dairy farmer.)

Interviewee 3 shared his awareness of an algorithmic identity shaping the content he is presented with across various social media platforms. Additionally, interviewees 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 mentioned how content is also offered to them based on their user behavior on YouTube:

“But the thing is these days, I don’t really actively look for videos. Usually I get them in my algorithm anyway, something comes along again, so to speak. […] I don’t get to see the videos about the nitrogen crisis that I fully disagree with. Those stories from the other perspective, so to speak.”

(Interviewee 6, 37, male, dairy farmer.)

Interviewee 6 explained that he did not actively search for the content himself; instead, YouTube curated it for him based on his algorithmic identity. Additionally, farmers demonstrated an awareness that their algorithmic identities might differ from those of other users, leading to variations in the content presented. This point was further supported by Interviewees 11 and 12. Ultimately, an individual’s algorithmic identity plays a crucial role in shaping the information they encounter on YouTube.

4.3.2. Reduction in Diversity

This subtheme is concerned with the narrowing of perspectives due to algorithmic content curation. Farmers highlighted the risk of developing tunnel vision and reduced exposure to diverse viewpoints. Some shared concerns about future narrow-mindedness and polarization. For instance, Interviewee 4 discussed tunnel vision due to algorithmic curation on social media, illustrating how algorithms can trap users, and pointed out how specific search terms can lead to the presentation of content from a single perspective, reducing users’ exposure to information that does not conform to their pre-existing ideas:

“[…] I think all the voices are there, I guess. Both the, if we’re talking about cows, anti-cows, as well as the pro-cows. I think all the videos are out there. But I do believe, if you search on technical things. […] If you then search on ‘mega stable’, if you start using terms like that, then of course you […] get into the trap of where everything is bad. […] I think if you’re in that once, then you don’t get to see other videos. […] And then your opinion is shaped accordingly.”

(Interviewee 4, 40, male, biological farmer.)

Moreover, Interviewee 11 explained how he deliberately tries to share as little as possible with the platform about his interests, to avoid making his bubble smaller:

“I sometimes get this notification whether I find something more interesting or if I want to see more of that. But I don’t because I don’t want to confine myself to an even smaller bubble.”

(Interviewee 11, 36, male, dairy farmer.)

In a similar vein, Interviewee 9 expressed concerns about the societal implications of algorithmic content curation, noting how he thought it can lead to extreme viewpoints:

“[…] That obviously goes far beyond just nitrogen. […] That’s a societal thing and that’s quite worrisome. I do find that worrisome. That it generally works in such a way that […] people get brainwashed. […] Some people are much more objective than others, and are much more sensitive to it. Sometimes you’re shocked at what kind of point of view some people have. […] They reinforce that with things they have seen on social media or on YouTube from videos they have seen. Not from the newspaper generally. Those are things they do get from news sites where they have clicked on. […] Where those extreme things come from. I do find that very sad.”

(Interviewee 9, 55, male, dairy farmer.)

Interviewees underscored how algorithms tend to reinforce pre-existing viewpoints by predominantly showing content aligned with previous interactions. Farmers stressed that algorithmic filtering not only distorts individual perspectives, but also contributes to broader societal issues, such as extreme viewpoints and the entrenchment in social media bubbles. While YouTube can be a valuable tool for information and education, the potential of algorithms to reduce exposure to different perspectives raised concerns among farmers about its role.

4.3.3. Shaping of Knowledge and Perspective

The last subtheme within Personalized algorithmic realities delves into how farmers recognized the role of algorithms in shaping their knowledge and perspectives concerning the nitrogen crisis. Interviewees discussed the role of algorithms in guiding content consumption, shaping opinions and controlling information flows. Moreover, farmers highlighted concerns about control, polarization, and selective exposure, demonstrating the complex role of algorithms in the dissemination of information. Some farmers expressed that they see algorithms as tools for controlling what information people receive, frequently without them being aware. Interviewee 3 shared that he thinks that built-in algorithms on social media platforms are a means to track users and underscored their pervasive nature. In addition, several interviewees voiced concerns about the dangers of algorithms, particularly their potential to polarize opinions by creating “echo chambers”. Interviewee 6 articulated this fear:

“Yes, those algorithms are life-threatening. That is something that I do think. […] There should be some kind of control on that, I think, of what’s being presented. Because my brother-in-law, say, he’s somewhat mentally challenged. […] He’s also on YouTube, but he totally gets fed with all of those […] extreme right-wing stories and he gets to see all that. And, for myself, I can filter some of it out, so to speak. So that’s what you do then. But yes, those algorithms. […] I find them eerie.”

(Interviewee 6, 37, male, dairy farmer.)

Specifically, Interviewee 6 expressed not only concerns about the content, but also about the lack of control over what is shown and what implications this has for, in this case, vulnerable individuals. Interviewee 9 added to this by explaining how search queries and subsequent clicks guide the direction of information. Moreover, Interviewee 10 noted the implications of search queries on YouTube for the information users may encounter in comparison to YouTube’s recommendation algorithm:

“[…] If you think it through, I believe YouTube also presents me with content that many other viewers appreciate. In that sense, they’re showing me popular and mainstream content, which can subconsciously influence me. I might stop thinking for myself because I could search for much more specific content. However, when I see an interesting thumbnail, I think: “Oh, that’s a nice video” and I click on it. That’s just convenience. So, they are exploiting the consumer’s convenience a bit, as I could make more specific searches if I put more thought into it beforehand.”

(Interviewee 10, 47, male, employee innovation center in dairy farming.)

These acknowledgments reflect an understanding of the governing economic interests behind algorithmic designs and their impact on user behavior. Despite this awareness, the role of algorithms remains pervasive. For instance, Interviewee 12 highlighted the repetitive nature of content on YouTube concerning the nitrogen crisis and noted how the algorithm’s frequent presentation of such content leads users to subconsciously think about it more often.

“[…] When you hear certain statements more often, you start thinking about them. Is there some truth to it? […] If something is repeated often enough you always start thinking about it.”

(Interviewee 12, 34, male, arable farmer.)

Finally, Interviewee 9 summarizes the dual nature of algorithmic content curation, and underscores the challenge of maintaining a balanced perspective amidst the compelling nature of algorithmically driven content, by noting that:

“[…] I think it’s very good to be able to pick up knowledge in that way. Only […] the trick is to not go into one specific direction, so that other sides of the story are no longer highlighted enough. […] Because, if the content fits you, then everything is fine. But if it doesn’t fit you, then it’s presented in a way as if it were the truth. And, of course, that is a bit tricky with that kind of thing, because very often it’s very convincing.”

(Interviewee 9, 55, male, dairy farmer.)

In summary, this theme illustrates the role of algorithms in curating the content that shapes users’ perspectives about the nitrogen crisis. It demonstrates the intricate ways in which algorithms can dictate the flow of information. Farmers’ remarks reveal that while algorithms can efficiently tailor content to user interests, they also raise concerns about control, selective exposure, and polarization.

5. Discussion

Our results show that Dutch farmers’ views on the causes and reality of the nitrogen crisis often differ from those presented in traditional media. Many farmers attributed the crisis to multiple factors, suggesting that regulatory measures should extend beyond agriculture. This aligns with previous research by Hasselaar et al. [45], which frames the nitrogen crisis as a wicked problem—one that is complex, resistant to solutions, and subject to conflicting interpretations (p. 158).

Farmers in our study demonstrated similar perspectives on the crisis and the science behind it, differing from other stakeholders. Wicked problems arise when diverse stakeholders hold competing views on both the problem itself and the evidence supporting it. When the complexity of the nitrogen crisis is reduced to a single cause and a one-dimensional solution, it risks further polarizing the debate over Dutch agriculture’s future [45]. The findings within Voices from the Fields support this view, highlighting how farmers perceive the nitrogen crisis as a wicked problem.

Farmers’ responses also reflected the discourse on YouTube denying the existence of a nitrogen crisis. This aligns with Kamphorst et al. [3], who found that skepticism about the nitrogen issue is prevalent on social media. Additionally, consistent with Bosma and Peeren [46], farmers’ responses revealed “us vs. them” thinking and reinforced the notion of the authentic farmer.

Moreover, the findings within the main theme of Motivations, needs, and engagement reveal that Dutch farmers engage with YouTube videos about the nitrogen crisis for educational purposes, to confirm their existing beliefs, and to seek alternative perspectives. This user behavior aligns with the Uses and Gratifications Theory, which suggests that individuals actively seek media to fulfill their specific needs. Interestingly, YouTube was used as a tool to search for information about the Dutch nitrogen crisis, particularly focusing on how it relates to laws and regulations, as well as innovations applicable to the agricultural sector.

This finding is consistent with Gao and Feng [16], who identify five primary needs that social media can fulfill: information seeking, entertainment, social engagement, self-expression, and impression management. Among Dutch farmers, YouTube was primarily used for information-seeking purposes. Additionally, in line with Shao [17], farmers reported experiencing informational satisfaction when engaging with YouTube videos about the Dutch nitrogen crisis. However, unlike Shao’s [17] broader findings on information consumers, entertainment satisfaction was not observed among the farmers in this study.

The findings of this study partially align with those of Buf and Ștefăniță [18], who argue that YouTube satisfies users’ need for obtaining information. The authors conclude that YouTube generates various gratifications and note that users are active in “customizing their accounts based on appropriate YouTube recommendations, meaning that the respondents were willing to engage more as YouTube met their needs” [18] (p. 86). In line with this, farmers indicated that they used YouTube to substantiate, support, and confirm their pre-existing beliefs about the nitrogen crisis.

The role of the YouTube algorithm was identified as an important factor in shaping the personalized content for farmers about the nitrogen crisis. The theme of Personalized algorithmic realities demonstrates how farmers experience their personal algorithmic identities, how personalization through the YouTube algorithm shapes their content consumption, and how this shapes their views on the nitrogen crisis. Farmers demonstrated high levels of awareness about their individual algorithmic identities and implications thereof. These implications include the reduction in diversity of sources on YouTube stemming from the recommendation algorithm or an increase in selective exposure, as well as shaping of knowledge and perspectives about the nitrogen crisis. YouTube’s architecture and affordances enable the tracking of users’ behavior and preferences, where algorithms relay information to the relevant group [22]. Ultimately, algorithms personalize content based on user behaviors, and, therefore, fulfill the role of opinion leaders and gatekeepers as outlined by the two-step flow theory. In this case, YouTube’s algorithm effectively personalized and curated content for farmers. However, it also raised concerns among farmers about controlled information flows, polarization, and selective exposure.

Dutch farmers primarily turned to YouTube for information related to the nitrogen crisis, stemming from educational needs, desires to confirm pre-existing beliefs, and their search for alternative information sources. YouTube served as a valuable tool for farmers, offering them a way to educate themselves about cutting-edge agricultural practices and navigate complex laws and regulations. It also served as a platform where they could find support to their views, particularly when farmers felt traditional media failed to represent them. Furthermore, YouTube provided access to diverse information sources, allowing farmers to gain deeper insights and explore various perspectives on the nitrogen crisis. This multi-faceted engagement highlights YouTube’s significant role in helping farmers adapt to industry challenges, support their beliefs, and remain informed about different viewpoints.

Farmers also demonstrated knowledge about themselves and related this to their own social media content choices. Various farmers demonstrated an awareness of YouTube’s architecture and affordances, the absence of journalistic standards, and the platform’s economic and political interests. Finally, farmers recognized the multiplicity and malleability of realities constructed through YouTube and the diverse criteria used to assess the realism of content, emphasizing the value of critical engagement, open-mindedness, and respectful dialogue to navigate and contribute to the digital information environment.

6. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to explore Dutch farmers’ engagement with YouTube and how algorithmic flows shape their understanding of the nitrogen crisis. The study identified the uses and gratifications driving farmers’ engagement with YouTube videos on the nitrogen crisis, demonstrating how these factors contributed to their personalized views. Additionally, the YouTube algorithm played a significant role in curating and personalizing content for farmers, acting as both an opinion leader and gatekeeper. This allowed farmers to interact with content organized into computer-calculated identity categories, which in turn shaped their understanding of the nitrogen crisis.

There are several limitations to this study. First, external reliability may be compromised due to the semi-structured nature of the interviews, which occasionally made consistent questioning across participants challenging. Additionally, the interpretation of thematic analysis played a role in categorizing excerpts into themes. Second, achieving theoretical saturation proved difficult, particularly in balancing the number of interviews and ensuring equal gender representation. Due to challenges in accessing this specific population, 12 interviews were conducted. Third, this study could be enhanced by exploring other aspects of Dutch farmers’ YouTube usage, such as their engagement with second-order topics that arise when searching for information related to the nitrogen crisis.

While the study sheds light on the mechanisms shaping Dutch farmers’ personalized views of the nitrogen crisis, it provides a broad overview of several areas that warrant deeper exploration. First, based on interviewees’ responses, further exploration of farmers’ selective exposure to information about the nitrogen crisis on YouTube could enhance the current uses and gratification framework. Second, a comparative study, either qualitative or quantitative (e.g., survey-based), could be valuable for future research by examining the differences and similarities between generations of farmers. This suggestion stems, in part, from a survey conducted by Trouw [47] and mentioned by Hasselaar et al. [45], which found that younger Dutch farmers (under 40) tend to hold more radical positions on the nitrogen emissions debate. Third, future research could investigate whether farmers seek to balance non-journalistic sources with journalistic sources, and explore the reasons behind their choices.

Future research could also include a longitudinal study to examine the role of seasonal work patterns in farmers’ engagement with socio-political issues like the nitrogen crisis. During data collection for this study, participants noted that their focus on issues such as the nitrogen crisis fluctuates with their seasonal workload. Specifically, farmers experience greater work demands during the summer, leaving them less time to engage with such issues. Therefore, conducting a similar study during the winter months, when farmers may have more time to engage with socio-political topics, could provide deeper insights into how seasonal variations affect their perspectives on the nitrogen crisis.

Finally, future research should address the broader issue of climate change misinformation and its dissemination via social media platforms. Such studies could explore how misinformation influences public understanding and policy, offering insights into strategies for combating climate misinformation and improving the accuracy of public discourse on critical environmental issues, such as the nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands.