Regulation, Technology, and Civic Agency: The Case of Facebook

  • Bjarki Valtýsson
Part of the Dynamics of Virtual Work book series (DVW)


This chapter discusses the contradictions of creativity and control connected to internet communications and relates this to regulation and citizens’ civic agency on commercial social media. In empirical terms, the author analyses Facebook’s contractual agreements (data policy and statement of rights and responsibilities) relative to current EU regulation concerning audiovisual media services and telecommunications. Finally, the author compares these findings with citizens’ perceptions of Facebook as a space for civic agency. By emphasising the role of regulation, Facebook as technology, and citizens’ insights concerning their use of commercial social media, this chapter highlights positions that cannot be contained within contradictory terms such as creativity and control but must be described as in-between.


  1. Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolin, G. (2012). The labour of media use. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 796–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, second life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. COM. (2016). 287 final. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in member states concerning the provisions of audiovisual media services in view of changing market realties. European Commission: Brussels.Google Scholar
  8. Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Dahlgren, P. (2011). Mobilizing discourse theory for critical media politics: Obstacles and potentials. In L. Dahlberg & S. Phelan (Eds.), Discourse theory and critical media politics (pp. 222–249). London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Data policy. (n.d.). Facebook.
  11. Dean, J. (2008). Communicative capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics. In M. Boler (Ed.), Digital media and democracy: Tactics in hard times (pp. 101–122). Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations, 1972–1990. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Drucker, S., & Gumpert, G. (2010). Introduction: Regulation convergence. In S. J. Drucker & G. Gumpert (Eds.), Regulating convergence (pp. 1–20). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  14. Freedman, D. (2011). Web 2.0 and the death of the blockbuster economy. In J. Curran, N. Fenton, & D. Freedman (Eds.), Misunderstanding the internet (pp. 69–94). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Fuchs, C. (2010). Labour in informational capitalism and on the internet. The Information Society, 26(3), 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuchs, C. (2013). Class and exploitation on the internet. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor: The internet as playground and factory (pp. 211–224). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Gaskell, G. (2000). Individual and group interviewing. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 38–56). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is connecting: The social meaning of creativity: From DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hartley, J. (2005). Creative industries. In J. Hartley (Ed.), Creative industries (pp. 1–40). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Himanen, P. (2001). The hacker ethic and the spirit of the information age. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  21. ICT Regulation Toolkit. (2006). Impact of convergence.
  22. Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York/London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York/London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York: The Penguin Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marcuse, H. (1998). Some social implications of modern technology. In D. Kellner (Ed.), Technology, war and fascism: Collected papers of Herbert Marcuse (pp. 41–65). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Mosco, V. (2014). To the cloud: Big data in a turbulent world. Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: How change happens when people come together. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  28. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Terms of Service. (n.d.). Facebook.
  30. Terranova, T. (2013). Free labor. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor: The internet as playground and factory (pp. 33–57). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bjarki Valtýsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Arts and Cultural StudiesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations