Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Datafied Social Goods
References
All Topics
Sociology
Political Sociology

Transversal Politics of Big Tech

Profile image of Tobias LiebetrauTobias Liebetrau

International Political Sociology

https://doi.org/10.1093/IPS/OLAC020
visibility

…

description

23 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Our everyday life is entangled with products and services of so-called Big Tech companies, such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook. International relations (IR) scholars increasingly seek to reflect on the relationships between Big Tech, capitalism, and institutionalized politics, and they engage with the practices of algorithmic governance and platformization that shape and are shaped by Big Tech. This collective discussion advances these emerging debates by approaching Big Tech transversally, meaning that we problematize Big Tech as an object of study and raise a range of fundamental questions about its politics. The contributions demonstrate how a transversal perspective that cuts across sociomaterial, institutional, and disciplinary boundaries and framings opens up the study of the politics of Big Tech. The discussion brings to the fore perspectives on the ontologies of Big Tech, the politics of the aesthetics and credibility of Big Tech and rethinks the concepts of legitimacy and ...

Figures (2)
Figure 1. Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster fired into space in 2018 aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket test flight, carrying a dummy astronaut (“starman”).
Figure 1. Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster fired into space in 2018 aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket test flight, carrying a dummy astronaut (“starman”).
Figure 2. The Google Home, designed to blend in to its surroundings through soft colours and fabrics. For more examples produced by Google see https://tinyurl.com/ yc49cam8. CC BY-SA 2.0, NDB Photos.
Figure 2. The Google Home, designed to blend in to its surroundings through soft colours and fabrics. For more examples produced by Google see https://tinyurl.com/ yc49cam8. CC BY-SA 2.0, NDB Photos.

Related papers

Framing the Narrative: News Media Coverage of Big Tech Discourse
Luis Manuel Arellano Cervantes

Universität Salzburg, 2024

Previous research suggests that public hearings involving Big Tech generate significant media and public attention, raising awareness of the impact of Big Tech on society. However, there is not a full understanding of how Big Tech ideology and discourse are articulated in public hearings and how they are reflected by the news media. This study fills the gap by providing an analysis of Big Tech discourse during the 2020 antitrust hearing before the House Judiciary Committee of the U.S., and how it was framed in the news coverage of The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Employing a Critical Discourse Analysis lens, the research conducted a thematic analysis to identify salient topics in the public hearing and a semantic analysis to uncover the ideology shaping the discourse. The news media coverage was studied with a framing analysis to identify if the Big Tech discourse was being challenged or uncritically reproduced.The results show that Big Tech discourse can be understood by applying a framework of six themes: 1) Objectives: Big Tech as guardian of American ideals, above being providers of services/products; 2) Activities: trustworthy platform management, downplaying profit-driven actions; 3) Norms and Values: Championing self-regulation and compliance with policies, facilitating public speech rather than platform moderation; 4) Resources of Power/Position in Society: Big Tech as gateways for human needs, rather than entities commodifying data; 5) Group Relations: Benefit providers to allies and competitive fighters to adversaries; 6) Identity: Big Tech articulates their relevance through American exceptionalism, their societal role through the Californian Ideology, and their origins with the American Dream.The framing analysis identified three types of frames. Articles with the economic consequences frame were the least critical, echoing Big Tech’s activities and group relations. Articles with the attribution of responsibility frame were the most critical, challenging Big Tech's activities, values, norms, power resources, and group relations. The conflict frame had a mixed approach, challenging Big Tech’s activities and values. This research confirms that Big Tech discourse aims at maintaining current digital regulation and that news media is critical to their stance, however in some instances it can reproduce Big Tech positions. This research contributes by offering a six-point framework that can be applied to analyze Big Tech discourse in various settings.

View PDFchevron_right
Contemporary Technology Discourse and the Legitimation of Capitalism
Eran Fisher

European Journal of Social Theory, 2010

At the center of contemporary discourse on technology -or the digital discourse -is the assertion that network technology ushers in a new phase of capitalism which is more democratic, participatory, and de-alienating for individuals. Rather than viewing this discourse as a transparent description of the new realities of techno-capitalism and judging its claims as true (as the hegemonic view sees it) or false (a view expressed by few critical voices), this paper offers a new framework which sees the digital discourse as signaling a historical shift in the technological legitimation of capitalism, concurrent with the emergence of the post-Fordist phase of capitalism. Technology discourse legitimated the Fordist phase of capitalism by stressing the capacity of technology and technique to mitigate exploitation. It hence legitimated the interventionist welfare state, the central planning in businesses and the economy, the hierarchized corporation, and the tenured worker. In contrast, contemporary technology discourse legitimates the post-Fordist phase of capitalism by stressing the capacity of technology to mitigate alienation. It hence legitimates the withdrawal of the state from markets, the dehierarchization and decentralization of businesses, and the flexibilization of production and the labor process.

View PDFchevron_right
Resisting Commodification: Subverting the Power of the Global Tech Companies
Maria Bäcke

Bandung

In our digitised world, information and communication technologies (ict s) are used everywhere. In schools all over the world the well-known, easy-to-use, and highly affordable Google Education is used, but is this a safe and sustainable solution? A number of services online are free in terms of users not having to pay any money for their usage, but many companies, of which Google is one, instead make their money from the exploitation of what is labelled non-personal user data, Big Data, which is harvested from the users of their free services. This type of data mining or data harvesting can be used for other purposes as well, such as for intelligence reasons, where a foreign power may capitalise on user data from another country, but it may also be to control a country’s own population. Asymmetrical power distribution is inevitable and, drawing on Deleuze and Guattari’s theories of power and subversion, my aim is to increase the awareness of the non-monetary costs involved in the c...

View PDFchevron_right
The Power of Big Tech Corporations as Modern Bigness and a Vocabulary for Shaping Competition Law as Counter-Power
Pauline Phoa

Routledge eBooks, 2022

View PDFchevron_right
Rethinking 'Inherently Political Technologies' Through Platform Cooperatives
Shaked Spier

Philosophy & Technology, 2025

In his seminal work on the politics of technology, Langdon Winner introduces the notion of "inherently political technologies." Technologies are inherently political, either by requiring specific social and political conditions to function or by being strongly compatible with such conditions. However, Winner's definition identifies inherently political technologies only as those that align with or reproduce existing social and political conditions, such as mainstream digital platforms (e.g., Airbnb, UberEats), but overlooks those that actively resist or undermine those conditions, such as cooperative digital platforms (e.g., Fairbnb, CoopCycle). Because of its conceptual limitations, Winner's definition fails to fully capture the political nature of platform cooperatives in particular, and of radical technologies in general. This paper builds on Winner's original notion and amends it to include the dimension of resistance to social and political conditions as an additional criterion for technologies to qualify as inherently political, thereby making the concept more relevant to contemporary (digital) technological realities. The paper then applies this revised conceptualization to platform cooperatives and explores its broader theoretical implications.

View PDFchevron_right
‘Here in the US’: Identity narratives, national beliefs and corporate governance values in Big Tech Hearing discourse
Ico Maly

First Monday

Starting from the idea that understanding Big Tech ideologies is a prerequisite for assessing how major tech corporations see a (re)organization of society, this paper offers an analysis of the opening statements of the CEOs of four of these corporations during 2020 antitrust hearings before the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee. These statements were ‘critical discourse moments’ that foregrounded the beliefs of the CEOs in the collision between their discourse and that of government and politics. Using a critical perspective on discourse analysis as a main research approach, this research found that the opening statements blended (inter)national imaginaries, identity narratives and corporate values. Together, these factors communicated the notion of an ideal society in which tech companies awarded themselves a dual role: (1) national conductors towards what we call ‘techno/opportunity’ for individuals, and (2) politically neutral agents in the service of American world do...

View PDFchevron_right
Platform Battlefield: Digital Infrastructures in Capitalism 4.0
Carlotta Benvegnù, Niccolò Cuppini, Mattia Frapporti, Maurilio Pirone
View PDFchevron_right
The Politics of Commoditization in Global ICT Industries: A Political Economy Explanation of the Rise of Apple, Google, and Industry Disruptors
Kenji Kushida

Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 2015

The global Information and Communications Technologies industry has experienced a rapid, radical reorganization of industry leaders and business models-most recently in mobile. New players Apple and Google abruptly redefined the industry, bringing a wave of commoditization to carriers and equipment manufacturers. Technologies, corporate strategies, and industry structures are usually the first places to look when explaining these industry disruptions, but this paper argues that it was actually a set of political bargains during initial phases of telecommunications liberalization, which differed across countries, that set the trajectories of development in motion. This paper shows how different sets of winners and losers of domestic and regional commoditization battles emerged in various ICT industries around the world. Carriers won in Japan, equipment manufacturers in Europe, and eventually, computer services industry actors rather than communications firms emerged as winners in the US. These differences in industry winner outcomes was shaped by the relative political strength of incumbent communications monopolies and their will to remain industry leaders, given the political system and political dynamics they faced during initial liberalization. The US computer services industry, which developed independently of its telecommunications sector due to antitrust and government policy, eventually commoditized all others, both domestically and abroad. This paper contends that a political economy approach, tracing how politics and regulatory processes shaped industry structures, allows for a better understanding of the underlying path dependent processes that shape rapidly changing global technological and industry outcomes, with implications beyond ICT.

View PDFchevron_right
The Janus Faces of Silicon Valley
Maha Rafi Atal

Review of International Political Economy, 2021

In recent years, the power of large technology corporations has become a focus of public debate in both developed and developing countries. This growing chorus brings together complaints about breaches of privacy and data protection, competition and market consolidation, and electoral and other political interference. The most powerful of these companies have grown into behemoths by establishing themselves both as purveyors of their own products, and as the hosts of “platforms” that circumscribe, and profit from, the activities of other organizations. This platform function gives these companies substantial power over their commercial rivals, who depend upon these platforms to operate. More fundamentally, this article argues, the dual function of these “platform companies” allows them to straddle the very categories that we use to organize our understanding of the political and economic world. They are at once product companies, service companies and infrastructure companies; players in the market and markets of the marketplace; private platforms and public spheres. The straddling of these categories places these companies in the institutional cracks of the regulatory system. Moreover, companies consciously exploit this regulatory straddling to thwart challenges to their power. This article argues that such deliberate shape-shifting has allowed these companies to control the political and economic stage on which their own power must be contested, and compromised the ability of scholars, the public and ultimately states to see clearly, and therefore constrain, that power.

View PDFchevron_right
[9781782548751 - Handbook of Digital Politics] Introduction conceptualizing digital politics
Erik Amna
View PDFchevron_right

References (81)

  1. ACKERLY, BROOKE . 2018. Just Responsibility: A Human Rights Theory of Justice . New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. ADORNO, THEODOR, AND MAX HORKHEIMER . 1979. Dialectic of Enlightenment . London: Verso.
  3. AMOORE, LOUSIE . 2020. Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  4. ANDERSEN, CHRISTIAN ULRIK, AND SØREN BRO POLD . 2018. The Metainterface: The Art of Platforms, Cities, and Clouds . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  5. ARADAU, C., M. HOIJTINK, AND M. LEESE . 2019a. "Technology, Agency, Critique: An Interview with Claudia Aradau." In Technology and Agency in International Relations , edited by M. Hoijtink and M. Leese, 188- 203. London: Routledge.
  6. ARADAU, CLAUDIA, TOBIAS BLANKE, AND GILES GREENWAY . 2019b. "Acts of Digital Parasitism: Hacking, Human- itarian Apps and Platformisation." New Media & Society 21 (11-12): 2548-65.
  7. ARADAU, CLAUDIA, AND MARTINA TAZZIOLI . 2020. "Biopolitics Multiple: Migration, Extraction, Subtraction." Millennium: Journal of International Studies 48 (2): 198-220.
  8. ARENDT, HANNAH . 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil . New York: Viking Press.
  9. ---. 2003. Responsibility and Judgment , edited by Jerome Kohn. New York: Schocken Books.
  10. ARORA, PAYAL . 2016. "Bottom of the Data Pyramid: Big Data and the Global South." International Journal of Communication 10 (19): 1681-99.
  11. ARVIDSSON, ADAM . 2011. "General Sentiment: How Value and Affect Converge in the Information Econ- omy." The Sociological Review 59 (2_suppl): 39-59.
  12. ATAL, MAHA RAFI . 2021. "The Janus Faces of Silicon Valley." Review of International Political Economy 28 (2): 336-50.
  13. AUSTIN, JONATHAN LUKE . 2019. "Security Compositions." European Journal of International Security 4 (3): 249- 73.
  14. AUSTIN, J.L., R. BELLANOVA, AND M. KAUFMANN . 2019. "Doing and Mediating Critique: An Invitation to Practice Companionship." Security Dialogue 50 (1): 3-19.
  15. BASARAN, TUGBA, DIDIER BIGO, EMMANUEL-PIERRE GUITTET, AND R.B.J. WALKER , eds. 2017. "Transversal Lines; An Introduction." In International Political Sociology -Transversal Lines . London and New York: Routledge.
  16. BAUMAN, ZYGMUNT, DIDIER BIGO, PAULO ESTEVES, ELSPETH GUILD, VIVIENNE JABRI, DAVID LYON, AND R.B.J. WALKER . 2014. "After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance." International Political Sociology 8 (2): 121-44.
  17. BELLANOVA, R., AND G. GONZÁLEZ FUSTER . 2018. "No (Big) Data, No Fiction? Thinking Surveillance with/against Netflix." In The Politics and Policies of Big Data: Big Data Big Brother? , edited by A. Rudinow Saetnan, I. Schneider, and N. Green, 227-46. London: Routledge.
  18. BERLEANT, ARNOLD. 2010. Sensibility and Sense: The Aesthetic Transformation of the World . Exeter: Imprint.
  19. BIGO, DIDIER, AND R.B.J. WALKER . 2007. "Political Sociology and the Problem of the International." Millen- nium: Journal of International Studies 35 (3): 725-39.
  20. BLEIKER, ROLAND . 2000. Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press
  21. BONEFELD, WERNER, AND KOSMAS PSYCHOPEDIS . 2005. Human Dignity: Social Autonomy and the Critique of Capi- talism . London: Ashgate.
  22. BRÜHL, TANJA, AND MATTHIAS HOFFERBERTH . 2013. "Global Companies as Social Actors: Constructing Private Business in Global Governance." In The Handbook of Global Companies , edited by John Mikler, 351-70. Oxford: Wiley.
  23. CHANDLER, D., AND C. FUCHS . 2019. Digital Objects, Digital Subjects: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Capitalism, Labour and Politics in the Age of Big Data . London: University of Westminster Press. https://doi.org/ 10.16997/book29 .
  24. CHRISTENSEN, KRISTOFFER KJAERGAARD, AND TOBIAS LIEBETRAU . 2019. "A New Role for 'the Public'? Exploring Cyber Security Controversies in the Case of WannaCry." Intelligence and National Security 34 (3): 395- 408. CHUN, WENDY HUI KYONG . 2011. Programmed Visions: Software and Memory . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  25. COLLINS, BRIAN, JOSÉ MARICHAL, AND RICHARD NEVE . 2020. "The Social Media Commons: Public Sphere, Agonism, and Algorithmic Obligation." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 17 (4): 409-25.
  26. COULDRY, NICK, AND ULISES A. MEJIAS . 2019. "Data Colonialism: Rethinking Big Data's Relation to the Contemporary Subject." Television & New Media 20 (4): 336-49.
  27. CRAWFORD, KATE, AND JASON SCHULTZ . 2019. "AI Systems as State Actors." Columbia Law Review 119 (7): 1941-72.
  28. CULPEPPER, PEPPER D., AND KATHLEEN THELEN . 2020. "Are We All Amazon Primed? Consumers and the Politics of Platform Power." Comparative Political Studies 53 (2): 288-318.
  29. DE GOEDE, MARIEKE . 2017. "Afterword: Transversal Politics." In Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology , edited by Xavier Guillaume and Pinar Bilgin, 353-65. London: Routledge.
  30. ---. 2020. "Engagement All the Way Down." Critical Studies on Security 8 (2): 101-11
  31. DEWEY, JOHN . 2012. The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry . University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
  32. DWOSKIN, ELIZABETH . 2018. "Facebook Looks Back to Look Ahead." The Washington Post , January 23.
  33. ERSKINE, TONI . 2008. "Locating Responsibility: The Problem of Moral Agency in International Relations." In The Oxford Handbook on International Relations , edited by C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal, 699-707. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. FLYVERBOM, MIKKEL, RONALD DEIBERT, AND DIRK MATTEN . 2019. "The Governance of Digital Technology, Big Data, and the Internet: New Roles and Responsibilities for Business." Business & Society 58 (1): 3-19.
  35. FOER, FRANKLIN . 2017. "Facebook's War on Free Will." The Guardian , September 19.
  36. FORESTAL, JENNIFER . 2020. "Beyond Gatekeeping: Propaganda, Democracy, and the Organization of Digital Publics." The Journal of Politics 83 (1): 306-20. DOI: 10.1086/709300.
  37. FRASER, NANCY . 1990. "Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy." In Habermas and the Public Sphere , edited by Craig Calhoun, 109-42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  38. GALLOWAY, SCOTT. 2017. The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google . New York: Port- folio/Penguin.
  39. GARUD, RAGHU, ARUN KUMARASWAMY, ANNA ROBERTS, AND LE XU . 2020. "Liminal Movement by Digital Platform-Based Sharing Economy Ventures: The Case of Uber Technologies." Strategic Management Journal 43 (3): 447-75.
  40. GORWA, R., R. BINNS, AND C. KATZENBACH . 2020. "Algorithmic Content Moderation: Technical and Political Challenges in the Automation of Platform Governance." Big Data & Society 7 (1): 1-15.
  41. GRONAU, JENNIFER, AND HENNING SCHMIDTKE . 2016. "The Quest for Legitimacy in World Politics: Interna- tional Institutions' Legitimation Strategies." Review of International Studies 42 (3): 535-57. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ips/article/17/1/olac020/6969127 by guest on 09 January 2023
  42. GROS, VALENTIN, MARIEKE DE GOEDE, AND BESTE ˙I Ş LEYEN . 2017. "The Snowden Files Made Public: A Material Politics of Contesting Surveillance." International Political Sociology 11 (1): 73-89.
  43. HARAWAY, DONNA . 1988. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of the Partial Perspective." Feminist Studies 14(3): 575-99.
  44. HAYLES, N. KATHERINE . 2017. Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  45. HOFFMANN, ALVINA . 2021. "The Transnational and the International: From Critique of Statism to Transver- sal Lines." Cambridge Review of International Affairs 1-15.
  46. HOFMANN, JEANETTE, CHRISTIAN KATZENBACH, AND KIRSTEN GOLLATZ . 2016. "Between Coordination and Regu- lation: Finding the Governance in Internet Governance." New Media & Society 19 (9): 1406-23.
  47. HUYSMANS, JEF, AND JOAO PONTES NOGUEIRA . 2016. "Ten Years of IPS: Fracturing IR." International Political Sociology 10 (4): 299-319.
  48. ---. 2020. "International Political Sociology as a Mode of Critique: Fracturing Totalities." International Political Sociology 15 (1): 2-21.
  49. ISAAC, MIKE, SHEERA FRANKEL, AND CECELIA KANG . 2020. "Now More Than Ever, Facebook is a 'Mark Zucker- berg Production'." The New York Times , May 16.
  50. JACKSON, P. T., AND D. H. NEXON . 1999. "Relations before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics." European Journal of International Relations 5 (3): 291-332.
  51. KLEIN, EZRA . 2018. "Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook's Hardest Year, and What Comes Next." Vox , April 2. KLONICK, KATE . 2019. "The Facebook Oversight Board: Creating an Independent Institution to Adjudicate Online Free Expression." Yale Law Journal 129: 2418-99.
  52. KLUGE, ALEXANDER, AND OSKAR NEGT . 2016. Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere . London: Verso.
  53. KRATOCHWIL, FRIEDRICH . 2006. "On Legitimacy." International Relations 20 (3): 302-308.
  54. LEANDER, ANNA . 2019. "Sticky Security: The Collages of Tracking Device Advertising." European Journal of International Security 4 (3): 322-44.
  55. LEYSHON, A., N. THRIFT, AND L. CREWE . 2016. "Leveraging Affect: Mobilizing Enthusiasm and the Co- Production of the Musical Economy." In The Production and Consumption of Music in the Digital Age , 262-276. Routledge.
  56. LIEBETRAU, TOBIAS, AND KRISTOFFER K. CHRISTENSEN . 2021. "The Ontological Politics of Cyber Security: Emerging Agencies, Actors, Sites, and Spaces." European Journal of International Security 6 (1): 25-43.
  57. LISLE, DEBBIE . 2016. "Waiting for International Political Sociology: A Field Guide to Living In-Between." International Political Sociology , 10 (4): 417-33.
  58. LU, CATHERINE . 2017. Justice and Reconciliation in World Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  59. MAGHALAES, JOAO CARLOS, AND NICK COULDRY . 2021. "Giving by Taking Away: Big Tech, Data Colonialism, and the Reconfiguration of Social Good." International Journal of Communication 15: 343-62.
  60. MARICHAL, JOSÉ. 2012. Facebook Democracy: The Architecture of Disclosure and the Threat to Public Life . Burling- ton: Ashgate.
  61. MILAN, STEFANIA, AND EMILIANO TRERÉ. 2019. "Big Data from the South(s): Beyond Data Universalism." Television & New Media 20 (4): 319-35.
  62. MOL, ANNEMARIE . 1999. Ontological Politics: A Word and Some Questions, in Actor Network Theory and After , edited by Johan Law and John Hassard, 74-89. Oxford: Wiley.
  63. ---. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  64. ---. 2010. "Actor-Network Theory: Sensitive Terms and Enduring Tensions." Kölner Zeitschrift Für Sozi- ologie Und Sozialpsychologie , 50 (1): 253-69.
  65. OYEDEMI, TOKS DELE . 2020. "Digital Coloniality and 'Next Billion Users': The Political Economy of Google Station in Nigeria." Information, Communication & Society 24 (3): 329-43.
  66. PELZER, PETER, KOEN FRENKEN, AND WOUTER BOON . 2019. "Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Platform Economy: How Uber Tried (and Failed) to Change the Dutch Taxi Law." Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 33: 1-12.
  67. RAHMAN, SABEEL K. 2018. "The New Utilities: Private Power, Social Infrastructure, and the Revival of the Public Utility Concept." Cardozo Law Review 39: 1621-89.
  68. SADOWSKI, JONATHAN . 2019. "When Data Is Capital: Datafication, Accumulation, and Extraction." Big Data & Society 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718820549 .
  69. SCHERER, GEORG ANDREAS, AND GUIDO PALAZZO . 2011. "The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and Its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy." Journal of Management Studies 48(4): 899-931.
  70. SCHOUTEN, PEER . 2014. "Security as Controversy: Reassembling Security at Amsterdam Airport." Security Dialogue 45 (1):23-42.
  71. SEIDL, TIMO . 2020. "The Politics of Platform Capitalism: A Case Study on the Regulation of Uber in New York." Regulation & Governance 16 (2): 357-74.
  72. SOLON, OLIVIA . 2016. "Facebook's Fake News: Mark Zuckerberg Rejects 'Crazy Idea' that it Swayed Voters." The Guardian , November 11.
  73. SRIVASTAVA, SWATI. 2020. "Corporate Responsibility." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies . Ox- ford: Oxford University Press.
  74. ---. 2021. "Algorithmic Governance and the International Politics of Big Tech." Perspectives on Politics doi: 10.1017/S1537592721003145.
  75. THRIFT, NIGEL . 2010. "Understanding the Material Practices of Glamour." In The Affect Theory Reader , edited by Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, 289-308. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  76. YOUNG, IRIS MARION . 2004. "Responsibility and Global Labor Justice." Journal of Political Philosophy 12(4): 365-88.
  77. WEST, SARAH MYERS . 2019. "Data Capitalism: Redefining the Logics of Surveillance and Privacy." Business & Society 58 (1):20-41.
  78. WU, TIM . 2018. The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age . New York: Columbia Global Reports. ZUBOFF, SHOSHANA . 2015. "Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civi- lization." Journal of Information Technology 30 (1): 75-89.
  79. ---. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power . New York: Public Affairs.
  80. ZUCKERBERG, MARK . 2018. "Opening Statement: 'Facebook, Social Media Privacy, and the Use and Abuse of Data'." U.S. Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees Joint Hearings, April 10.
  81. ZÜRN, MICHAEL . 2016. "Opening up Europe: Next Steps in Politicisation Research." West European Politics 39 (1): 164-82.

Related papers

Big Tech’s Partnership with Authoritarianism
Marc O Jones

Middle East Report, 2023

The problem of digital repression and digital authoritarianism is often framed as something done exclusively by states like China, Iran or Russia. But this framing is a misconception. Authoritarian regimes across the world and US-based Big Tech converge in transnational repression through a combination of content control, surveillance and data collection. Driven by profits, Big Tech platforms often selectively moderate content, amplifying certain narratives while suppressing others based on corporate interests or geopolitical alignments. These tech giants, with their vast reach and influence, exceed or complement the power of states, enabling a broader scope for repression.

View PDFchevron_right
Sphere transgressions: reflecting on the risks of big tech expansionism
Steven R . Kraaijeveld, Tamar Sharon

Information, Communication & Society, 2024

The rapid expansion of Big Tech companies into various societal domains (e.g., health, education, and agriculture) over the past decade has led to increasing concerns among governments, regulators, scholars, and civil society. While existing theoretical frameworks-often revolving around privacy and data protection, or market and platform power-have shed light on important aspects of Big Tech expansionism, there are other risks that these frameworks cannot fully capture. In response, this editorial proposes an alternative theoretical framework based on the notion of sphere transgressions, which draws on political philosopher Michael Walzer's theory of justice. The editorial not only introduces the sphere transgressions framework, but it also highlights its potential to generate novel research questions. Furthermore, this editorial introduces eight articles and one commentary from a group of interdisciplinary scholars that critically examine Big Tech expansionism by reflecting on this expansionism from the perspective of different societal spheres or by engaging with the sphere transgressions framework itself.

View PDFchevron_right
Power, Pixels and Politics: The Geopolitics of Emerging Technologies in the Digital Age
Dr. Srinivasan Chari

Great Britain Journals Press - london journal Press, 2025

In a world progressively identified by the interplay of power and innovation, this research paper permeates into diverse fragments of the subject to intricately explore the profound geopolitical ripples generated by emerging technologies. The most perspicacious and inevitable aspects stem from the history, till date, and, for the most part, the future; hence we might be pondering over all of that, starting from the steam engines of the Industrial Revolution, incessantly forward-looking to today’s artificial intelligence, blockchain, and quantum computing breakthroughs; technology has always been both a beacon of progress and a Pandora’s box of challenges. Needless to allude to anything further, these innovations now, most certainly, act as the architects of a new global order, reshaping alliances, disrupting traditional power dynamics, and carving fresh battlegrounds in cyberspace and beyond. As the U.S. and China lock horns in a digital arms race, competing for technological hegemony, the stakes rise beyond mere dominance in silicon and code. This contest represents a seismic shift in international relations, where data becomes the new oil, and innovation, the currency of influence. Against this backdrop, ethical quandaries proliferate, from the erosion of privacy and the specter of mass surveillance to the widening chasm of technological inequality. These tensions highlight a critical question: Can the rapid march of technological advancement be steered to unify rather than divide? Scanning through a historical lens, this paper, nonetheless, intends to revisit transformative eras; most obviously, from the Industrial Age to the Digital Revolution - scrupulously endeavouring to draw parallels to the current landscape. The analyses are about the tug-of-war between state sovereignty and global governance, where emerging technologies concurrently empower nations and create vulnerabilities. The chronicled evaluation unto the present age of digitisation underscores the urgency for robust frameworks to ensure that the digital age reflects humanity's collective aspirations rather than amplifies its divisions. Ultimately, this study serves as both a clarion call and a roadmap, advocating for a harmonious convergence of innovation, ethics, and governance. It invites policymakers, technologists, and global citizens to weave a future where the threads of progress are not frayed by the pressures of competition but united by the shared pursuit of stability, equity, and sustainability.

View PDFchevron_right
The Techno-Political Complex: Future Perspectives on Western Economy and Politics in the Digital Age
Klaus J. vor der Horst

mimeo, 2025

The rise of tech giants like Alphabet, Microsoft, and Apple has reshaped Western economies and democracies through network effects, data monopolies, and economies of scale. This paper explores four future scenarios: (1) unchecked monopolization of digital markets, (2) regulatory interventions to restore competition, (3) decentralized disruption via blockchain and emerging technologies, and (4) a dystopian fusion of state and corporate power. Drawing on Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction, the analysis highlights the critical role of regulatory policies, particularly within the European Union, in balancing innovation, competition, and sovereignty. A coordinated international approach is essential to ensuring a sustainable and democratic digital future. Keywords Tech monopolies, digital economy, Schumpeter, creative destruction, regulatory policy, EU digital strategy, blockchain disruption, antitrust law, platform economy, digital sovereignty, AI governance, big tech regulation, geopolitics of technology.

View PDFchevron_right
Disruption, Embedded. A Polanyian Framing of the Platform Economy
Gernot Grabher

Sociologia, 2020

Digital platforms disrupt – not just incumbent industries, but also academic imaginations about the future course of capitalism. While some scholars envision the next great transformation towards the ultimate marketization, others anticipate a post-capitalism based on digitally revitalized notions of community and reciprocity. Starting from this controversy, the article advances a Polanyian perspective to push beyond the ostensibly antagonistic dynamics of more or less market. More specifically, the emergence of digital platforms is perceived from the angle of three key drivers that propelled the great transformation towards marketization: technology, science, state. While the break-through of marketization, in Polanyi’s view, was prompted by the steam engine, the emergence of platforms is driven by the digital infrastructures of cloud computing, big data and algorithms; and while markets were scientifically legitimized by economics, platforms deploy network theories that, through t...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Sociology
  • Political Sociology
  • Political Science

    • Cited by

    Assembling Publics: Microsoft, Cybersecurity and Public‐Private Relations
    Tobias Liebetrau

    Politics and Governance

    In this article, we advance the literature on publics in international politics by exploring the nexus between publicness and big tech companies. This nexus finds a significant expression in the increasing impact of big tech companies to mediate disputes over societal problems, deliver social goods and rearticulate public-private relationships. We develop an analytical framework by combining recent scholarship on assemblage theory and publics, allowing us to understand publicness as enacted in practices which revolve around issues and rearticulate relations of authority and legitimacy. To demonstrate the value of the framework, we show how Microsoft is involved in assembling publicness around cybersecurity. Microsoft does so by problematising and countering state-led cybersecurity activities, questioning the state as a protector of its citizens and proposing governance measures to establish the tech sector as authoritative, and legitimate “first responders.” With this rearticulating...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved