Digitalization and datafication: managerial, commercial and societal consequences
Implications from the texts include Zuboff’s managerial advice on embracing data intellective skill and teaching employees and setting vision of informating from use of information technology. Commercial aspect of these trends includes desires to automate, datafy and algorithmically govern. Societal consequences contain critique on algorithmic governance privacy, bias, opacity and human-life datafication.
Zuboff (1985)’s Automate/Informate
Zuboff in her paper considers that strategy with information technology has been mostly automative in nature. That is it is expected to bring better control and continuity to the organization. However, unintended and autonomous consequences can also be informative. This means increased comprehensibility, due to information technology produces data, which needs to be interpreted.
Thus, she suggests that people need to develop intellective ability, which consists ability to think abstractly with theoretical knowledge and inductive skills. Only in this case people understand data and from it produce technological innovation. Also the following question needs to be addressed in case of information technology use: “are we people working for technology” or “are we smart people working around the technology”. On top of that, vision and language are important factors of overcoming barriers of new information technology. In particular, new vocabulary needs to come from within and vision needs address interdependence of human minds and sophisticated production systems.
Mejias & Couldry (2019)’s Datafication
Datafication is process of transforming something to data. In the context of Mejias and Couldry, datafication is defined as transformation of human life to data through process of quantification and the generation of different kinds of value from data. The critique includes political economic angle of Marx, critiquing both datafication as labour abuse, as capital and as commodification, legal studies angle of loss of privacy and self-right and decolonial theory through data colonialism of legitimized narratives of extraction and dispossession. Authors suggest that human life cannot be all datafied (center and peripheries) and resistance can be achieved through individual strategic opt-out to broader awareness of treatment as objects.
Katzenbach & Ulbricht (2019)’s Algorithmic governance
Katzenbach and Ulbricht in their paper lay out a framework to conceptualize algorithmic governance. In particular, the define algorithm as computer-mediated epistemic procedures which are complex, and governance as coordination between actors based on rules. They present critiques on algorithmic governance with concerns of loss of human agency (through AI influences), datafication surveillance, bias, opacity and nonexistence of neutral and objective algorithms. Also, they draw algorithmic governance along two fundamental axis to classify them. One axis is concerned with transparency, which adheres to democracy, another axis is concerned with the degree of automation, which concerns responsibility and accountability in terms of ethical subject. The figure below highlights the classification.
Trust in data: consequences for politics, democracy and justice
O’Neil (2019)’s Weapons of Math Destruction
To determine whether system is a Weapon of Math Destruction (WMD), there are three questions to consider:
- Is the system opaque?
- Is it fair?
- Is it scalable?
Thus, components of opaqueness, damage and scale are present in every WMD.
O’Neil observes WMDs across a way of life. She mentions university rankings, for-profit colleges, predictive policing, job application parsing, scheduling systems and health programs on job, insurance, credit systems, predatory advertising and micro-targeting. She is “outraged by all sorts of WDMs” (p. 179), expressing critique on these systems, which target mainly poor, but also makes an argument that WDMs also target middle and rich class. These WDMs feed into each other and thus it is difficult to bring to WMDs one by one (p. 199). Figure below shows summarized concepts.
The following sequence represents a model creation (including WDMs). She ties the solution to WDMs to moral choices on data, which WDM designers make, but also includes external regulation of laws auditing the models, protecting right on personal data, giving up on models in certain sectors, building morally good systems.
Social life in a media-saturated world
Hjarvard (2017)’s Mediatization
Hjarvard (2017) sheds light on research field of meditization studies. He draws distinctions between mediation and mediatization. He defines mediation as the use of media for communication and interaction and mediatization as long-term social and cultural changes due to the increased presence of media*. He sees that mediatization research goes beyond structuration theory of mediation, where focus is on effect, such as ‘how media effects people’ or ‘how people make use of media’. Viewing mediatization as historic, dychronic, he conceptualizes mediatization as two waves: first happening first half of twentieth century with mass media and second as digital media integrating into other institutions. Thus, media is semi-institution, both independent, yet integrated into other institutions. Mediatization can be also viewed from civilizational or modern perspective, where civilizational views it as in a broad historic context, while modern adheres to that this is new phenomenon, especially due to digital landscape. He also covers 3 metaphors of media: media as conduit (amplifying), media as languages (framing), media as environment (costructuring), where they interestingly seem to fall under modern, symbolic-interpretive and post-modern buckets, if such distinction is made.
Treem & Leonardi (2013)’s Social Media Use in Organizations
Treem & Leonardi in their paper make a affordance-based approach to conceptualize what is it that makes social media useful in organization. They identified four affordances of social media use in organizations for communicating. These are visibility, persistence, editability and association. To shortly elaborate on those categories, visibility entails greater ability to view and see, persistence of content piling up, editability to more concretely communicate and later alter content and association ability to see links between people and/or content. While other traditional CMCs might allow these as well, social media affords all of them simultaneously. The figure shows that social media affords new types of behaviours which were previously difficult or impossible to achieve before, which in turn alter communicational processes, such as socialization, information sharing and power relations.
Digital technology, AI and new intimacies
Bozdağ (2024)’s intimacy economy
I am sorry but this is for some reason really confusing paper. First of all, author observes that we are increasingly shifting away from attention economy towards intimacy economy. Author proposes AMIE framework to relate HI (Human Intimacy), AII (AI Intimacy), Avatar Sphere and concept of PP (Prism).
Pentina et al. (2023)’s AI relationship formation
Pentina et al. in their paper look how Social Chatbots (SCs) and particularly AI play a role in relationship development. They observe that
- AI Antromorphism is positively related to AI Social Interactions (AISI), where antromorphism refers human-like physical characteristics and emotional competencies.
- AI Authencity is positively related to AISI, where authencity refers to ability to learn and preserve memory.
- AISI mediates AI attachment formation with AI Antromorphism and AI Authencity as drivers and AI Attachment as consequence.
- AISI is positively related to AI attachment formation.
- Relationship strength (AI attachment) is highly contextual on motivation of using AI-SCs.
Digital Transformations of consumption: Digital brand communities and influencers
Schembri & Latimer (2016)’s brand communities
They highlight in the paper how online brand communities create brand culture. They provided contextual case of Behance. In particular for this case, they observe how community creates culture by construction of self, emotional relationships (with both brand and other people), storytelling and ritualistic behaviours.
Campbell & Rapp (2020)’s influencers
In their paper, they establish that use of influencers in the marketing is on the rise. They define influencer as relatively new phenomenon, someone who posts to social media in exchange for compensation. They observe influencers as having three functional components: the audience, the endorser and the social media manager. The audiences addresses aspects of reach, targeting and attention. The component of the endorser establishes celebrity (admired status), expert (knowledge) and consumer (resonating with followers) status. The social media manager aspect is concerned with strategist (knows followers), producer (knows how to create stuff), community manager (knows how to manage followers).
Digital transformations of social relationships: Dating platforms
Bandinelli & Gandini (2022)’s dating apps
They observe that dating apps have been marketized and platformized. They observe that people using these apps are managing their brand, because they understand they need to attract as many potential people to match with them and thus they not only have to brand themselves in their true form, they also have to brand themselves so that they are desirable for the other side. This market is fluctuating and they have to learn to signal correctly and read the signs.While it may seem that dating apps offer rational solution to dating, it actually creates more uncertainty in the market of love with people guarding their brand and opening up with balancing the trust and risk.
Sobieraj & Humphreys (2021)’s forced empowerment
Authors compare in their paper Tinder and Bumble and how the affordances affect empowerment and its perception. In particular, as following figure shows, technological design choice, which is based on cultural understanding, and perception on how to use technology form together technological affordances. In this regard, for example Tinder and Bumble have designed swiping feature, which is perceived as a way to speed-swipe and play the algorithm, affording gamification of the platform. When it comes to empowerment, women in Bumble have opportunity and have to start the conversation, which is thus considered as forced empowerment and can induce anxiety. However, in case of Tinder, both sides can initiate the conversation and thus women are free in that sense, yet they are judged and can be perceived as negatively aggressive. This is the paradox, where there is no win situation.
Digital exposure: individuals, organizations and societies in a datafied world
Flyverbom (2019)’s The Digital Prism
The book looks at prevalent transparency paradox: that digital technologies and internet lead more transparency in companies and societies. However, this is far from reality. Those, who boast as enabling information and transparency through their digital technology offerings, are actually those, who themselves are not really transparent nor offer actually transparency. This concept, Flyverbom captures, as management of visibilities is about actually seeing transparency as communication, not a simple conduit which offers a view inside. This communicative aspect is inherent in all individuals, companies and societies. It is wrong to necessarily draw equal sign between better world and transparency. Technologies are not simply machines that kill secrecy - rather they afford processes of seeing, knowing and governing. Transparency efforts produce subtle forms of control that operate not only through observation, but also through the shaping of conduct, identification and other aspects of human life in organizations (p. 104).
Digital platforms and big tech from data capitalism to democratic control
West (2019)’s Data Capitalism
In the paper, they observe data capitalism having roots of humble beginning and developing into world of commodification of data. The following roadmap tries to capture the developments.
Bradford (2023)’s Digital Constitution
In this paper, EU’s Digital Constitution is uncovered, which digs deep into fundamental ideas in them and offers critique to this approach. First of foremost, EU’s principles, which stand on principles of privacy, democracy and fairness. Right for privacy and other fundamental rights is ensured with GDPR, Digital Service Act and AI act. Democracy and media protection is established with Digital Service Act and Copyright Directive and AI act. Fairness comes with regulation of platform workers, Antitrust, Digital Markets Act and Digital Service Tax. EU’s Digital Single Market is grounded on policy objectives of fundamental rights, democracy and fairness, and ensuring better economic functioning of the single market. This is fundamentally different from US and China, where US is more relaxed and China is more restricted. However, while EU tries to find balance with protecting citizen and businesses, it receives critique of impeding innovation, raising costs, having internal divisions, ineffective enforcement and displaying digital protectionism and regulating imperialism in form of Brussels Effect.
Flyverbom (2024)’s Big Tech
Paper informs of how Big Tech, defined as technologies which have achieved unique and dominant status in key areas of society and impact users’ fundamental rights. The ownership and dependence of Big Tech makes countries vulnerable in three main areas: economic, democratic and security vulnerabilities. In order to strive for better society faced with Big Tech, paper suggests 7 principles, among others using open sources educational computer systems free from commercial big tech, big tech’s platforms safe place to shop, no being forced to use big tech’s services, public sector independence from big tech’s services and ensuring overview of big tech’s influence on digital infrastructure, having alternatives of big tech’s services, making data accessible.
The role of technological developments for political mobilization and civic engagement
Savigny (2013)’s empowerment in media
The paper challenges the notion of media with narratives as empowering us, audiences and citizens. It views empowerment as ‘options or opportunity of groups who have been previously discriminated against, or structurally disadvantaged due to factors such as race, gender, class, disability, religion, sexual orientation’ (p. 16). Author challenges the liberal theory viewing empowerment as an implicitly positive term. Author argues that empowerment ‘is structurally dependent upon an individuals’ or groups’ relationship with the political and mediated system within which those individuals or groups are situated’ (p. 13).
Leybold and Nadegger (2023)’s management of stigmatization
The paper looks at stigmatization of sex-work and pole dancers in Instagram. Authors observe that despite shadowban in Instagram as a form of disruption of communicative (separation of community) as stigmatization, pole dancers renegotiate, reshape and reconstruct the stigma they are subject to. In particularly, they are under vicious cycle of trying to reconstruct while being prevented to communicate with the stigmatizers. They question how to still break free from it and reshape their stigma despite communicative separation as stigmatization. They observe that in case of pole dancers in Instagram, they employed both distancing from the stigma and then embracing the sigma itself. This happened firstly through siding with stigmatizer, Instagram, framing ‘pole dancing as sport and athleticism’, while distancing itself from sex-work category. However, after Instagram apologizing for shadowban, the community still felt stigmatized and root-cause of the perceived problem was not solved. Therefore, they also engaged in empathizing with other stigmatized groups and in particular with sex-work, in order to address the root cause of opaque content moderation practices such as shadowban. Their study shows that ‘how multiple, interlinked stigma-management strategies are necessary for organizing the process toward stigma removal’ (p. 24).
Digital responsibility and ethics in the era of social media and AI: Towards a fairer future
Jawrahi et al. (2022)’s AI and human intelligence
In the paper, overview of artificial intelligence, human intelligence and hybrid intelligence is given. In particular, they break down that human intelligence and artificial intelligence are different. In fact, human intelligence is more general and can more flexible, while artificial intelligence excels more in specific tasks and can achieve better efficiency and accuracy than humans. They also observe that these are fundamentally different intelligences, because both sides do not know knowledge of the other, i.e. human unique intelligence or human’s tacit knowledge (of neural systems) is unattainable for AIs and black box of AI knowledge or machine’s tacit knowledge is undecipherable for humans. Hybrid intelligence can be divided into two parts: human-augmented AI and augmented human intelligence. The former highlights that even in AI, there are (often hidden) human work which goes into training and deploying AI, while the latter entails making us of AI to augment humans in their life. Thus, fundamentally, paper tries to oust the misconceptions of AI as used and applied everywhere and being so powerful. It more tries to argue that both have its strengths and weakness with humans still dictating the AI and importance of investigating the interactions between AI and humans to achieve hybrid intelligence.