<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I also agree with Andrew's point on user agency - the field of
science and technology studies has a long tradition in showing how
user groups participate in the stabilization of technologies.. hence
Google users, for example, but also FB users and others do gain
something from the services provided.. that's why they're them; no
one forces them to do so. Corporate technologies do help users and
website providers and marketers to reach their own goals of
connecting, finding information, sharing content, advertising etc. -
Theo Röhle coined Google's strategy a "system of punishments and
rewards" - a pattern I found in almost all interviews I conducted
with various stakeholders involved in the social construction of
search technology. So the question is indeed: How appropriate are
concepts like exploitation and the political economy of new media to
describe mechanisms of enacting and stabilizing powerful actors like
Google & co.? Even though I think the notion of exploitation is
a valuable tool to explain how Google and others gain money from
users' activities and marketing purposes (as Christian explained in
his work very well), it excludes other societal actors participating
in these dynamics.. In a recent article I hence tried to show that a
shift of perspective is needed from impacts new media have on
society towards dynamics/ power relations involved in the enactment
and shaping of new media co-produced by heterogneous actors
including users and their agency.. the paper was just recently put
online :) <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2012.676056">http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2012.676056</a><br>
<br>
I'd love to hear what people have to say about this! Also, the
concept of rent has been used by Matteo Pasquinelli in his article:
"Google’s PageRank Algorithm: A Diagram of the Cognitive Capitalism
and the Rentier of the Common Intellect" published in the book "Deep
Search" - where you can also find the article by Theo Röhle.. this
might be an interesting book for some readers of the list!
Pasquinelli's article is online as well: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://matteopasquinelli.com/bibliography">http://matteopasquinelli.com/bibliography</a><br>
<br>
Thanks for a great discussion! I'm already looking forward to
continuing it in Uppsala, Astrid<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 12.04.2012 09:43, schrieb Christian Fuchs:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F868799.6010700@uti.at" type="cite">From
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:m.andrejevic@uq.edu.au">m.andrejevic@uq.edu.au</a>
<br>
<br>
I agree with Andrew -- an economic approach will not fully explain
the Internet; I see what's taking place here not as an attempt to
saturate the field of explanation with economics, but rather to
try to figure out, from a critical perspective, just what is
taking place economically in the realm of social media. Not trying
to explain everything with economics, in other words, but rather
highlighting that there is an economic bit that still needs
explaining and understanding, precisely because there are
important ways in which it differs from what came before. To pick
up on Andrew's invocation of Marx, one of the bases for collection
action is some understanding of the terms of exploitation that
structure social relations. From this perspective to analyze and
critique exploitation is not to constrain "agency" but rather to
start to trace the outlines for the impetus and ends for
collective action. I use scare quotes, because "structure-agency"
talk tends to reproduce a false opposition (familiar in the
so-called debate between political economy and cultural studies)
-- as if pointing out the way in which power relations structure
available options poses a challenge to the idea that political
action is possible (rather than an incitement to it). To my mind
wrestling with these questions and trying to update or reconsider
our formulations is doing precisely what Andrew suggests: not
discounting future forms/bases of collective action, but figuring
out what form they might take, and on what basis. I'm very much
looking forward to hearing more about these.
<br>
<br>
As for Andrew's claim that there is a "notable absence of
reflection on the agency of users in the political economy of the
Internet" -- I'd need a bit more context/explanation to know
whether I agree. Clearly, the "agency" of users has been a central
theme of the theoretical reception of the Internet more broadly --
and, from what I've seen, this has carried over into political
economic analyses which try to make sense of the ways in which
interactivity, choice, pleasure, sociability, etc, co-exist with
forms of exploitation, the reproduction and exacerbation of
existing power relations, and so on. Much of the critical
political economic work followed upon the celebratory claims made
for the empowering/democratizing character of the Internet -- not
to write them off so much as to figure out how they might live up
to their promise (which meant pointing out the ways in which they
fell short, and why). But I feel I'm missing the main point here.
I'm looking forward to hearing more about the forms of user
"agency" that have not (yet) been reflected on.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net">Discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net">http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>