Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Co-option of Audience Data and User-Generated Content: Empowerment and Exploitation Amidst Algorithms, Produsage and Crowdsourcing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Audiences

Abstract

This chapter deals with the co-option of audiences’ data as well as user-generated content by institutional powers behind intrusive interfaces. It draws upon longstanding concepts from political economy such as the commodification and exploitation of audiences, as well as digital and free labour, but also discusses these processes in terms of participation, co-creation and audience creativity based on cultural studies-led approaches to audiences. Having identified three major trends in the evolving media landscape, characterized by datafication and intrusions, we specifically examine areas of audiences’ work where new business models of institutional powers center on algorithms and data mining, produsage and crowdsourcing. We argue that processes of co-option constantly oscillate between the empowerment and exploitation of audiences. Looking into the future of audiences in an age of increasing datafication and artificial intelligence, these ambiguities will require increasing attention of academics as well as audiences themselves from critical perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abidin, C. (2015). Communicative intimacies: Influencers and perceived interconnectedness. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, 8. Retrieved from http://adanewmedia.org/2015/11/issue8-abidin/.

  • 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.

  • Albury, K., Burgess, J., Light, B., Race, K., & Wilken, R. (2017). Data cultures of mobile dating hook-up apps: Emerging issues for critical social science research. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andén-Papadopoulos, K. (2014). Citizen camera-witnessing: Embodied political dissent in the age of ‘mediated mass self communication’. New Media & Society, 16(5), 753–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrejevic, M. (2008). Watching television without pity: The productivity of online fans. Television & New Media, 9(1), 24–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrejevic, M. (2009). Exploiting YouTube: Contradictions of user-generated labor. In P. Snickars & P. Vonderau (Eds.), The YouTube Reader (pp. 406–423). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrejevic, M., Hearn, A., & Kennedy, H. (2015). Cultural studies of data mining: Introduction. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4–5), 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrejevic, M., Banks, J., Campbell, J. E., Couldry, N., Fish, A., Hearn, A., et al. (2014). Participations: Dialogues on the participatory promise of contemporary culture and politics. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1089–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aytes, A. (2013). Return of the crowds. Mechanical Turk and neoliberal states of exception. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor. The internet as playground and factory (pp. 79–97). New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakioğlu, B. S. (2016). Exposing convergence: YouTube, fan labour, and anxiety of cultural production in Lonelygirl15. Convergence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, D. (2017). Envisioning the power of data analytics. Information, Communication and Society, 21(3), 465–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchefra, S. (2016). Citizen journalism between interactivity and professionalism. International Humanities Studies, 3(2), 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, second life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A. (2010). News produsage in a pro-am mediasphere: Why citizen journalism matters. In G. Meikle & G. Redden (Eds.), News online: Transformations and continuities (pp. 132–147). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2012). Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism. In R. Lind (Ed.), Produsing theory in a digital world: The intersection of audiences and production in contemporary theory (pp. 15–32). New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication and Society, 20(1), 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter, L. (2013). The source, the resource and the collaborator: The role of citizen journalism in local UK newspapers. Journalism, 14(8), 1091–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpentier, N. (2011a). Media and participation: A site of ideological-democratic struggle. Bristol and Chicago, IL: Intellect.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carpentier, N. (2011b). New configurations of the audience? The challenges of user-generated content for audience theory and media participation. In V. Nightingale (Ed.), The handbook of media audiences (pp. 190–212). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Denison, R. (2011). Anime fandom and the liminal spaces between fan creativity and piracy. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(5), 449–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domp Sadof, K. (2017). Finding a visual voice. The #Euromaidan impact on Ukrainian Instagram users. In U. U. Frömming, S. Köhn, S. Fox, & M. Terry (Eds.), Digital environments. Ethnographic perspectives across global online and offline spaces (pp. 239–250). Bielefeld: Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, E. B., & Pruchniewska, U. (2017). Gender and self-enterprise in the social media age: A digital double bind. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 843–859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, A. S., & Gill, R. (2017). Beauty surveillance: The digital self-monitoring cultures of neoliberalism. European Journal of Cultural Studies (Article first published online).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N. (2007). Bridging the mythical divide: Political economy and cultural studies approaches to the analysis of the media. In E. Devereux (Ed.), Media studies: Key issues and debates (pp. 7–31). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House. (2017). Freedom on the Net 2017. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2017.

  • Fuchs, C. (2017). From digital positivism and administrative big data analytics towards critical digital and social media research! European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., & Mosco, V. (Eds.). (2015). Marx and the political economy of the media. Studies in Critical Social Sciences, Volume 79. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., & Sevignani, S. (2013). What is digital labour? What is digital work? What’s their difference? And why do these questions matter for understanding social media? TripleC, 11(2), 237–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode, L. (2009). Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1287–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimarães Pereira, A., Benessia, A., & Curvelo, P. (2013). Agency in the Internet of Things. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. European Commission. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, A., & Schoenhoff, S. (2016). From celebrity to influencer: Tracing the diffusion of celebrity value across the data stream. In P. D. Marshall & S. Redmond (Eds.), A companion to celebrity (pp. 194–212). Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, D., & Green, L. (2016). The Internet of Toys. Communication Research and Practice, 2(4), 509–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P., & Kollanyi, B. (2016). Bots, #Strongerin, and #Brexit: Computational propaganda during the UK-EU Referendum (Working Paper 2016.1). Oxford: Project on Computational Propaganda. Retrieved from www.politicalbots.org. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2798311.

  • Howard, P., Kollanyi, B., & Woolley, S. C. (2016). Bots and automation over Twitter during the Third US Presidential debate: COMPROP data memo 2016.3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, J. (2006, June 14). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/.

  • Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans & participatory culture. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H., & Carpentier, N. (2013). Theorizing participatory intensities: A conversation about participation and politics. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 19(3), 265–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media. Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorge, A., & Nunes, T. (2018, forthcoming). WTF: Digital ambassadors for the young generation? In S. Duvall (Ed.), Celebrity and youth. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, S., Cook, M., & Dayot, Y. (2017). Smart cities: Towards a new citizenship regime? A discourse analysis of the British Smart City standard. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(4), 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, S., & Shim, D. (2014). Social distribution: K-pop fan practices in Indonesia and the ‘Gangnam Style’ phenomenon. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(5), 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, I. (2016). Web 2.0, UGC, and citizen journalism: Revisiting South Korea’s OhmyNews model in the age of social media. Telematics and Informatics, 33, 546–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication and Society, 20(1), 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleis Nielsen, R., & Graves, L. (2017). ‘News you don’t believe’: Audience perspectives on fake news. Factsheet by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism with the support of Google and the Digital News Initiative. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/Nielsen%26Graves_factsheet_1710v3_FINAL_download.pdf.

  • Leonard, S. (2005). Progress against the law: Anime and fandom, with the key to the globalization of culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 8(3), 281–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children: Full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of 9–16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries. Deliverable D4. London: EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, A. (2006). Cutting code: Software and sociality. Oxford: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, M. (2011). Transmedia teens: Affect, immaterial labor, and user-generated content. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17(1), 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marwick, A. (2015). You may know me from YouTube: (Micro-)celebrity in social media. In S. Redmond & P. D. Marshall (Eds.), A companion to celebrity (pp. 333–349). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner, R. M. (2009). Working for the text: Fan labor and the new organization. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(5), 491–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosco, V. (2009). The political economy of communication (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Ohlheiser, A. (2016, November 18). This is how Facebook’s fake-news writers make money. Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/18/this-is-how-the-internets-fake-news-writers-make-money/?utm_term=.6e3153333db9.

  • Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (Online first).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, M., & Fuchs, C. (2010). Towards a critical theory of alternative media. Telematics and Informatics, 27(2), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senft, T. M. (2008). Camgirls: Celebrity and community in the age of social networks. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. B., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Hermida, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T., et al. (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding gates at online newspapers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smythe, D. W. (1960). On the political economy of communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 37(4), 563–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smythe, D. W. (2006). On the audience commodity and its work. In M. G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies. Key works (Rev. edn., pp. 230–256). Malden, MA, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P., Brooks, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Calo, R., Etzioni, O., Hager, G. et al. (2016). Artificial Intelligence and life in 2030. One hundred year study on Artificial Intelligence: Report of the 2015–2016 Study Panel. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report.

  • Suárez-Villegas, J. C. (2017). El periodismo ciudadano. Análisis de opiniones de periodistas profesionales de España, Italia y Bélgica. Convergencia, 74, 91–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, S. (2017). Inside the Macedonian fake news concept. Wired, 15. Retrieved from www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/.

  • Sunstein, C. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taffel, S. A. (2015). Anti-social | Asocial | Associated: Mapping the social in social media. Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, 9(1). Retrieved from www.hca.uws.edu.au/gmjau/?p=1754.

  • Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture. Politics for the information age. London and Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terranova, T. (2013). Free labour. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor. The internet as playground and factory (pp. 33–57). New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P. N. (2014). Development communication and social change in historical context. In K. G. Wilkins, T. Thomas, & R. Obgregon (Eds.), The handbook of development communication and social change (pp. 7–19). Malden, MA, Oxford and Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellar, A. (2012). The recording industry and grassroots marketing: From street teams to flash mobs. Participations Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 9(1), 95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Murru, M. F. (2016). Digital audiences’ disempowerment: Participation or free labour. Participations. Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 13(1), 422–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vyas, D., Kröner, A., & Nijholt, A. (2016). From mundane to smart: Exploring interactions with ‘smart’ design objects. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 8(1), 63–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, M. (2005). Blogs of war. Weblogs as news. Journalism, 6(2), 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasko, J., Murdock, G., & Sousa, H. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of political economy of communication. Malden, MA, Oxford and Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, B. (2015). Governing software: Networks, databases and algorithmic power in the digital governance of public education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, S., & Howard, P. (Eds.). (2017). Computational propaganda worldwide: Executive summary (Working Paper 2017.11). Oxford: Project on Computational Propaganda.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Medienwissenschaft, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany

    Miriam Stehling

  2. Zagreb University, Zagreb, Croatia

    Lucia Vesnić-Alujević

  3. Universidade Católica Portuguesa, FCH - Palma de Cima, Lisbon, Portugal

    Ana Jorge

  4. Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Campus do IPS, Estefanilha, Setúbal, Portugal

    Lidia Marôpo

Authors
  1. Miriam Stehling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lucia Vesnić-Alujević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Jorge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lidia Marôpo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miriam Stehling .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

    Ranjana Das

  2. University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Brita Ytre-Arne

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stehling, M., Vesnić-Alujević, L., Jorge, A., Marôpo, L. (2018). The Co-option of Audience Data and User-Generated Content: Empowerment and Exploitation Amidst Algorithms, Produsage and Crowdsourcing. In: Das, R., Ytre-Arne, B. (eds) The Future of Audiences. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75638-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation