Collective action against algorithmic systems provides an opportunity for a small group of individuals to strategically manipulate their data to get specific outcomes, from classification to recommendation models. This effectiveness will invite more growth of this type of coordinated actions, both in the size and the number of distinct collectives. With a small group, however, coordination is key. Currently, there is no formal analysis of how coordination challenges within a collective can impact downstream outcomes, or how multiple collectives may affect each other's success. In this work, we aim to provide guarantees on the success of collective action in the presence of both coordination noise and multiple groups. Our insight is that data generated by either multiple collectives or by coordination noise can be viewed as originating from multiple data distributions. Using this framing, we derive bounds on the success of collective action. We conduct experiments to study the effects of noise on collective action. We find that sufficiently high levels of noise can reduce the success of collective action. In certain scenarios, large noise can sink a collective success rate from $100\%$ to just under $60\%$. We identify potential trade-offs between collective size and coordination noise; for example, a collective that is twice as big but with four times more noise experiencing worse outcomes than the smaller, more coordinated one. This work highlights the importance of understanding nuanced dynamics of strategic behavior in algorithmic systems.

As learning systems increasingly influence everyday decisions, user-side steering via Algorithmic Collective Action (ACA)-coordinated changes to shared data-offers a complement to regulator-side policy and firm-side model design. Although real-world actions have been traditionally decentralized and fragmented into multiple collectives despite sharing overarching objectives-with each collective differing in size, strategy, and actionable goals, most of the ACA literature focused on single collective settings. In this work, we present the first theoretical framework for ACA with multiple collectives acting on the same system. In particular, we focus on collective action in classification, studying how multiple collectives can plant signals, i.e., bias a classifier to learn an association between an altered version of the features and a chosen, possibly overlapping, set of target classes. We provide quantitative results about the role and the interplay of collectives' sizes and their alignment of goals. Our framework, by also complementing previous empirical results, opens a path for a holistic treatment of ACA with multiple collectives.

We initiate a principled study of algorithmic collective action on digital platforms that deploy machine learning algorithms. We propose a simple theoretical model of a collective interacting with a firm's learning algorithm. The collective pools the data of participating individuals and executes an algorithmic strategy by instructing participants how to modify their own data to achieve a collective goal. We investigate the consequences of this model in three fundamental learning-theoretic settings: the case of a nonparametric optimal learning algorithm, a parametric risk minimizer, and gradient-based optimization. In each setting, we come up with coordinated algorithmic strategies and characterize natural success criteria as a function of the collective's size. Complementing our theory, we conduct systematic experiments on a skill classification task involving tens of thousands of resumes from a gig platform for freelancers. Through more than two thousand model training runs of a BERT-like language model, we see a striking correspondence emerge between our empirical observations and the predictions made by our theory. Taken together, our theory and experiments broadly support the conclusion that algorithmic collectives of exceedingly small fractional size can exert significant control over a platform's learning algorithm.