After the techlash

IF 1.8 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
T. Flew
{"title":"After the techlash","authors":"T. Flew","doi":"10.1177/02673231231186581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Regulation—The very idea In 2018, the Economist newspaper identified a ‘techlash’ that was holding Big Tech responsible for multiple imbalances and inadequacies of local and global communication systems (Economist, 2018). The immediate background was intensifying public and policy debate in the wake of Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelation of massive online surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency, the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal revealing Facebook’s involvement in the monetization of personal information and its recycling for political gain, and other instances of whistleblowing exposing abuses of power in and by communication (Di Salvo, 2022). In a slightly longer historical perspective, the techlash was responding to a new category of critical infrastructure that had become entrenched in less than two decades: the internet as configured by the Big Five platforms (Alphabet [Google], Amazon, Apple, Meta [Facebook], and Microsoft). The two books I review here together offer knowledgeable and balanced guidance—in the complementary genres of textbook systematics and essayistic reflections—for readers to understand how the ‘platformization’ of the internet came about in the first place, and to reflect further on what might be the sequel to platformization. What comes after the techlash is still an open question, subject to geopolitical contestations and scholarly interventions imagining what the internet could become, beyond cycles of tech utopias and dystopias since the 1990s. The common theme of the two volumes is regulation and its constituents: Who should regulate digital platforms—the platforms themselves, communities of users, political authorities, or some public-private partnership—and what is to be regulated: technical standards, business models, freedoms of information and communication? The subtitle of the essay Review Essay","PeriodicalId":47765,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Communication","volume":"38 1","pages":"415 - 421"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231231186581","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Regulation—The very idea In 2018, the Economist newspaper identified a ‘techlash’ that was holding Big Tech responsible for multiple imbalances and inadequacies of local and global communication systems (Economist, 2018). The immediate background was intensifying public and policy debate in the wake of Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelation of massive online surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency, the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal revealing Facebook’s involvement in the monetization of personal information and its recycling for political gain, and other instances of whistleblowing exposing abuses of power in and by communication (Di Salvo, 2022). In a slightly longer historical perspective, the techlash was responding to a new category of critical infrastructure that had become entrenched in less than two decades: the internet as configured by the Big Five platforms (Alphabet [Google], Amazon, Apple, Meta [Facebook], and Microsoft). The two books I review here together offer knowledgeable and balanced guidance—in the complementary genres of textbook systematics and essayistic reflections—for readers to understand how the ‘platformization’ of the internet came about in the first place, and to reflect further on what might be the sequel to platformization. What comes after the techlash is still an open question, subject to geopolitical contestations and scholarly interventions imagining what the internet could become, beyond cycles of tech utopias and dystopias since the 1990s. The common theme of the two volumes is regulation and its constituents: Who should regulate digital platforms—the platforms themselves, communities of users, political authorities, or some public-private partnership—and what is to be regulated: technical standards, business models, freedoms of information and communication? The subtitle of the essay Review Essay
技术冲击之后
2018年,《经济学人》确定了一种“技术冲击”,认为大型科技公司应对地方和全球通信系统的多重失衡和不足负责(《经济学人》,2018年)。当前的背景是,2013年爱德华·斯诺登(Edward Snowden)揭露了美国国家安全局(nsa)的大规模在线监控活动,2018年剑桥分析公司(Cambridge Analytica)丑闻揭露了Facebook参与个人信息货币化和再利用以获取政治利益,以及其他揭露通信领域滥用权力的举报事件,公众和政策辩论不断加剧(Di Salvo, 2022)。从更长的历史角度来看,科技革命是对一种新的关键基础设施类别的回应,这种基础设施在不到20年的时间里已经根深蒂固:由五大平台(Alphabet、亚马逊、苹果、Meta和微软)配置的互联网。我在这里回顾的这两本书,以教科书系统论和散文论反思的互补形式,为读者提供了知识渊博、平衡的指导,帮助他们理解互联网的“平台化”最初是如何产生的,并进一步思考平台化的后续可能是什么。科技冲击之后会发生什么,仍是一个悬而未决的问题,除了上世纪90年代以来科技乌托邦和反乌托邦的循环之外,还会受到地缘政治争论和学术干预的影响,想象互联网会变成什么样子。这两卷书的共同主题是监管及其组成部分:谁应该监管数字平台——平台本身、用户社区、政治当局或一些公私合作伙伴关系——以及应该监管什么:技术标准、商业模式、信息和通信自由?论文的副标题
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
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Communication is interested in communication research and theory in all its diversity, and seeks to reflect and encourage the variety of intellectual traditions in the field and to promote dialogue between them. The Journal reflects the international character of communication scholarship and is addressed to a global scholarly community. Rigorously peer-reviewed, it publishes the best of research on communications and media, either by European scholars or of particular interest to them.
×
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