Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
In the age of ubiquitous technologies, algorithmic agents pervade all aspects of our (online) lives. A growing number of connected digital devices track our activities and store our data on digital platforms or in the Cloud (Van Dijck 2014; Porcaro 2016). They give us recommendations for songs and movies, filter news or rank search results based on our past experiences (Bodo et al. 2017). This chapter focuses on the co-option of audiences’ digital production and data, as seen through the lens of stakeholders. Based on 15 interviews conducted with stakeholders from eight European countries, we show how this heterogenous community, consisting of players with different stakes, sees and evaluates the processes of co-option of audiences by digital platform owners, for their own purposes. The results highlight the dialectical nature of co-option and the sometimes conflicted relationship between commercial players and creative audiences, and show how this relationship is managed from both sides.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514. CrossRef
Afromeeva, E., Liefbroer, M., & Lilleker, D. (2017). Post-truth: Its meaning and implications for democracy. Political Insight. Political Studies Association. Retrieved from www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/blog/post-truth-its-meaning-and-implications-democracy.
Beer, D. (2018). Envisioning the power of data analytics. Information, Communication and Society, 21(3), 465–479.
Benessia, A., & Guimarães Pereira, A. (2015). The dream of the Internet of Things: Do we really want, can and need to be smart? In A. Guimarães Pereira & S. Funtowicz (Eds.), Science, philosophy and sustainability: The end of the Cartesian dream (pp. 78–99). Routledge Explorations in Sustainability and Governance. New York: Routledge.
Ben-Shahar, O. (2017). The failure of transparency. Testimony. Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Retrieved from http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20171129/106659/HHRG-115-IF17-Wstate-Ben-ShaharO-20171129.pdf.
Bilton, R. (2017, September 28). All the news that’s fit for you: The New York Times is experimenting with personalization to find new ways to expose readers to stories. Nieman Lab. Retrieved from www.niemanlab.org/2017/09/all-the-news-thats-fit-for-you-the-new-york-times-is-experimenting-with-personalization-to-find-new-ways-to-expose-readers-to-stories/.
Bodo, B., Helberger, N., Irion, K., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Moller, J., van de Velde, B., et al. (2017). Tackling the algorithmic control crisis—The technical, legal, and ethical challenges of research into algorithmic agents. The Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 19, 133–180.
Boucher, P., Nascimento, S., Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Guimãraes Pereira, A. (2014). Ethics dialogues. JRC science and policy reports. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
Bunz, M. (2014). The silent revolution: How digitalization transforms knowledge, work, journalism and politics without making too much noise. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRef
Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). The entrepreneurial vlogger: Participatory culture beyond the professional-amateur divide. In P. Snickars & P. Vunderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 89–107). Stockholm: Mediehistoriskt.
Das, R., & Graefer, A. (2017). Provocative screens: Offended audiences in Britain and Germany. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRef
Duffy, E. B. (2016). The romance of work: Gender and aspirational labour in the digital culture industries. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 19(4), 441–457. CrossRef
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. E. (2015). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), E4512–E4521. CrossRef
European Commission. (2017). Call for tender: Study to raise awareness about algorithms. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/call-tender-study-raise-awareness-about-algorithms.
European Parliament. (2016, December 8). Hearing on the fundamental rights implications on big data. Brussels: European Parliament.
European Parliament. (2017, November 7). Debate democracy in the age of algorithms. Brussels: European Parliament.
Frau-Meigs, D., Velez, I., & Flores, J. (2017). Public policies in media and information literacy in Europe: Cross-country comparisons. London and New York: Routledge.
Freedom House. (2017). Freedom on the net 2017. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2017.
Fuchs, C. (2012). Dallas Smythe today—The audience commodity, the digital labour debate, Marxist political economy and critical theory. Prolegomena to a digital labour theory of value. TripleC, 10(2), 692–740.
Gillespie, T. L. (2012). Can an algorithm be wrong? Limn, 2. Retrieved from https://limn.it/can-an-algorithm-be-wrong/.
Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2016). European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a ‘right to explanation’. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.08813.pdf.
Hellen, N. (2017). Net self-regulation fails children. The Times. Retrieved from www.thetimes.co.uk/article/net-self-regulation-fails-children-j9c6vvm9h.
Howard, P. (2015). Pax technica. How the Internet of Things may set us free or lock us up. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jin, D. Y. (2015). Digital platforms, imperialism and political culture. London: Routledge.
Just, N., & Latzer, M. (2016). Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the internet. Media, Culture and Society, 39(2), 238–258. CrossRef
Kennedy, H., Poell, T., & van Dijck, J. (2015). Introduction: Special issue on data and agency. Data & Society, 2(2), 1–7.
Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication and Society, 20(1), 14–29. CrossRef
Livingstone, S. (2004). What is media literacy? Intermedia, 32(3), 18–20.
Livingstone, S. (2015). Children’s digital rights. Intermedia, 42(4/5), 20–24.
Lupton, D. (2014). Health promotion in the digital era: A critical commentary. Health Promotion, 30(1), 174–183. CrossRef
Mascheroni, G., & Holloway, D. (Eds.). (2017). The Internet of Toys: A report on media and social discourses around young children and IoToys. DigiLitEY. Retrieved from http://digilitey.eu.
Ming Liu. (2017, November 11). Artificial intelligence starts to revolutionise luxury industries. Financial Times. Retrieved from www.ft.com/content/1c2a6b24-a514-11e7-8d56-98a09be71849.
Morozov, E. (2017, February 17). So you want to switch off digitally? I’m afraid that will cost you…. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/19/right-to-disconnect-digital-gig-economy-evgeny-morozov.
Mosco, V. (2017). Becoming digital: Toward a post-internet society. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. CrossRef
Napoli, P. M. (2013, May 5). The algorithm as institution: Toward a theoretical framework for automated media production and consumption. Fordham University Schools of Business Research Paper. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2260923.
Ofcom. (2016). Communications market report 2016. Retrieved from www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/26826/cmr_uk_2016.pdf.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossRef
Pavlíčková, T., & Kleut, J. (2016). Produsage as experience and interpretation. Participations. Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 13(1), 349–359.
Plantin, J. C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P., & Sandvig, C. (2016). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media and Society. Pre-publication version. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553.
Schrock, A. (2017). When communication can contribute to data studies: Three lenses on communication and data. International Journal of Communication, 11(9), 701–709.
Selbst, A., & Powles, J. (2017). Meaningful information and the right to explanation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(4). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3039125.
Sterling, B. (2014). The epic struggle of the Internet of Things. Moscow: Strelka Press.
US subcommittees on digital commerce and consumer protection and communications and technology, digital commerce and consumer protection hearing on ‘algorithms: How companies’ decisions about data and content impact consumers’. November 29, 2017. Retrieved from https://energycommerce.house.gov/news/press-release/subdccp-subcommtech-examine-algorithms-consumer-protection-online/.
van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.
Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Murru, M. F. (2016). Digital audiences disempowerment: Participation or free labour. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 13(1), 422–430.
Vesnić-Alujević, L., Breitegger, M., & Guimãraes Pereira, A. (2016). What smart grids tell about innovation narratives in the European Union: Hopes, imaginaries and policy. Energy Research and Social Science, 12, 16–26. CrossRef
Woolley, S., & Howard, P. N. (2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics. Political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents. Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10(9). Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6298/1809.
- Algorithms and Intrusions: Emergent Stakeholder Discourses on the Co-option of Audiences’ Creativity and Data
- Chapter 6