Meet Your New Overlords: How Digital Platforms Develop and Sustain Technofeudalism

Katrina Geddes
{"title":"Meet Your New Overlords: How Digital Platforms Develop and Sustain Technofeudalism","authors":"Katrina Geddes","doi":"10.7916/JLA.V43I4.6127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most digital natives are familiar with YouTube’s anti-piracy algorithm, Content ID. Yet few are familiar with the long-term socio-political consequences of its use. This paper argues that the unlimited power of platforms to regulate access to user-generated content through algorithms like Content ID leads to three perverse outcomes. First, the removal of lawful content falsely flagged as “infringing” results in the suppression of legitimate speech, and a reduction in the diversity of online discourse. Secondly, the erosion of lawful exceptions and limitations to copyright protection through algorithmic adjudication alters the fundamental social contract established by Congress between copyright owners and users; displaces decades of carefully developed fair use jurisprudence; and transfers adjudicatory power from courts to corporations. Thirdly, the monetization of user-generated content, not by users, but by copyright owners (following the flagging of content as “infringing”) is symptomatic of the systemic exploitation of users that is occurring on digital platforms, also known as “technofeudalism”. This paper situates the specific inadequacies of Content ID within the broader socio-political context of technochauvinism, data colonialism, and the neoliberal privatization of governance in order to understand why users keep returning to YouTube even after their content has been removed and their labor monetized by third parties. It examines the increasing pressure placed on platforms to perform quasi-judicial functions (for example, adjudicating the right to be forgotten under the GDPR, and property and expressive rights under the new EU copyright directive) and the algorithms they develop in order to execute their new roles. It concludes by arguing that the convergence of adjudicatory and enforcement power within the hands of a few corporate algorithms demands a fundamental reconceptualization of the user-platform relationship.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V43I4.6127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Most digital natives are familiar with YouTube’s anti-piracy algorithm, Content ID. Yet few are familiar with the long-term socio-political consequences of its use. This paper argues that the unlimited power of platforms to regulate access to user-generated content through algorithms like Content ID leads to three perverse outcomes. First, the removal of lawful content falsely flagged as “infringing” results in the suppression of legitimate speech, and a reduction in the diversity of online discourse. Secondly, the erosion of lawful exceptions and limitations to copyright protection through algorithmic adjudication alters the fundamental social contract established by Congress between copyright owners and users; displaces decades of carefully developed fair use jurisprudence; and transfers adjudicatory power from courts to corporations. Thirdly, the monetization of user-generated content, not by users, but by copyright owners (following the flagging of content as “infringing”) is symptomatic of the systemic exploitation of users that is occurring on digital platforms, also known as “technofeudalism”. This paper situates the specific inadequacies of Content ID within the broader socio-political context of technochauvinism, data colonialism, and the neoliberal privatization of governance in order to understand why users keep returning to YouTube even after their content has been removed and their labor monetized by third parties. It examines the increasing pressure placed on platforms to perform quasi-judicial functions (for example, adjudicating the right to be forgotten under the GDPR, and property and expressive rights under the new EU copyright directive) and the algorithms they develop in order to execute their new roles. It concludes by arguing that the convergence of adjudicatory and enforcement power within the hands of a few corporate algorithms demands a fundamental reconceptualization of the user-platform relationship.
认识你的新霸主:数字平台如何发展和维持技术封建主义
大多数数字原生代都熟悉YouTube的反盗版算法Content ID。然而,很少有人熟悉使用它的长期社会政治后果。本文认为,平台通过content ID等算法对用户生成内容的访问进行监管的无限权力会导致三种反常的结果。首先,删除被错误标记为“侵权”的合法内容导致合法言论受到压制,并减少了网络话语的多样性。其次,通过算法裁决对版权保护的合法例外和限制的侵蚀改变了国会在版权所有者和用户之间建立的基本社会契约;取代了几十年来精心发展的合理使用法理;并将审判权从法院转移到公司。第三,用户生成内容的货币化,不是由用户,而是由版权所有者(在内容被标记为“侵权”之后),这是数字平台上对用户的系统性剥削的症状,也被称为“技术封建主义”。本文将内容ID的具体不足置于技术沙文主义、数据殖民主义和治理的新自由主义私有化的更广泛的社会政治背景下,以理解为什么即使用户的内容被删除,他们的劳动被第三方货币化,用户仍然会返回YouTube。它研究了平台执行准司法功能(例如,根据GDPR裁决被遗忘权,以及根据新的欧盟版权指令裁决财产和表达权)所面临的越来越大的压力,以及它们为执行新角色而开发的算法。它的结论是,裁决和执行权集中在少数公司算法手中,要求对用户平台关系进行根本性的重新概念化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信