Audiences’ Coping Practices with Intrusive Interfaces: Researching Audiences in Algorithmic, Datafied, Platform Societies

  • Anne Mollen
  • Frederik Dhaenens


People in their role as audiences are increasingly confronted with intrusive digital media technologies that seek to collect personal data, shape people’s media experiences through algorithms and increasingly work towards establishing what is already being called a platform society. This tendency will become even more pertinent in the near future with the Internet of Things permeating many more aspects of our everyday lives. Software interfaces are thus becoming important objects of scientific inquiry. However, even though in their materiality interfaces promote very specific forms of media practices, people’s sense-making and interpretations still need to be considered as part of future audience research. In this context, we propose the idea of audiences’ coping practices when facing intrusive media interfaces in their exploitive, formative, ubiquitous and excluding character. By juxtaposing coping practices with intrusive media we sketch current and projected trends in audience research that focus on the power behind intrusive media on the one side and on people’s sense-making on the other side.


Intrusive media technologies Digital media platforms Coping practices Datafication Internet of things 


  1. Anderson, C. W. (2011). Deliberative, agonistic, and algorithmic audiences: Journalism’s vision of its public in an age of audience transparency. International Journal of Communication, 5, 529–547.Google Scholar
  2. Andrejevic, M. (2008). Watching television without pity. Television & New Media, 9(1), 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Apperley, T., & Parikka, J. (2015). Platform studies’ epistemic threshold. Games and Culture, 1–21.Google Scholar
  5. Arvidsson, A. (2006). ‘Quality singles’: Internet dating and the work of fantasy. New Media & Society, 8(4), 671–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakardjieva, M., & Smith, R. (2001). The internet in everyday life: Computer networking from the standpoint of the domestic user. New Media & Society, 3(1), 67–83.Google Scholar
  7. Baym, N. (2013). Data not seen: The uses and shortcomings of social media metrics. First Monday, 18(10).Google Scholar
  8. Baym, N., & boyd, d. (2012). Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 320–329.Google Scholar
  9. Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bermejo, F. (2009). Audience manufacture in historical perspective: From broadcasting to Google. New Media & Society, 11(1–2), 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berry, D. (2011). The computational turn: Thinking about digital humanities. Culture Machine, 12. Retrieved from
  12. Bertel, T. F. (2014). ‘Why would you want to know?’ The reluctant use of location sharing via check-ins on Facebook among Danish youth. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 22(2), 162–176.Google Scholar
  13. Best, K., & Tozer, N. (2012). Scaling digital walls: Everyday practices of consent and adaptation to digital architectural control. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(4), 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bogost, I., & Montfort, N. (2009). Platform studies: Frequently questioned answers. Digital Arts and Culture, 1–6.Google Scholar
  15. Bolin, G., & Schwarz, J. A. (2015). Heuristics of the algorithm: Big data, user interpretation and institutional translation. Big Data & Society, 2(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  16. boyd, d. (2008). Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1), 13–20.Google Scholar
  17. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, J., Couldry, N., De Kosnik, A. T., Gillespie, T., Jenkins, H., Kelty, C., et al. (2014). Participations: Dialogues on the participatory promise of contemporary culture and politics PART 5: PLATFORMS. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1446–1473.Google Scholar
  19. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cunningham, S. J., Bainbridge, D., & Falconer, A. (2006). More of an art than a science: Supporting the creation of playlists and mixes. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval.Google Scholar
  22. De Ridder, S. (2015). Are digital media institutions shaping youth’s intimate stories? Strategies and tactics in the social networking site Netlog. New Media & Society, 17(3), 356–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Ridder, S., Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Romic, B. (2016). Challenges when researching digital audiences: Mapping audience research of software designs, interfaces and platforms. Participations, 13(1), 374–391.Google Scholar
  24. de Souza e Silva, A. (2006). From cyber to hybrid: Mobile technologies as interfaces of hybrid spaces. Space and Culture, 9(3), 261–278.Google Scholar
  25. Eisenlauer, V. (2014). Facebook as a third author—(Semi-)automated participation framework in social network sites. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ekbia, H. R. (2016). Digital inclusion and social exclusion: The political economy of value in a networked world. The Information Society, 32(3), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuchs, C. (2011). An alternative view of privacy on Facebook. Information, 2(1), 140–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fuchs, C. (2013). Societal and ideological impacts of deep packet inspection internet surveillance. Information, Communication & Society, 16(8), 1328–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuchs, C. (2014). Critique of the political economy of informational capitalism and social media. In C. Fuchs & M. Sandoval (Eds.), Social media and the information society (pp. 51–65). New York and Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Gane, N., & Beer, D. (2008). New media: The key concepts. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  31. Georgalou, M. (2016). ‘I make the rules on my wall’: Privacy and identity management practices on Facebook. Discourse & Communication, 10(1), 40–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies. Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gillespie, T. (2015). Platforms intervene. Social Media + Society, 1(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gudelunas, D. (2012). There’s an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality and Culture, 16(4), 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hagen, A. N. (2015). The playlist experience: Personal playlists in music streaming services. Popular Music and Society, 38(5), 625–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hallinan, B., & Striphas, T. (2016). Recommended for you: The Netflix prize and the production of algorithmic culture. New Media & Society, 18(1), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Helmond, A. (2015). The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hepp, A. (2012). Mediatization and the ‘molding force’ of the media. Communications, 37(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2012). User-generated content, free labour and the cultural industries. Ephemera, 10(3/4), 267–284.Google Scholar
  42. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Just, N., & Latzer, M. (2016). Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the internet. Media, Culture & Society, 39(2), 238–258.Google Scholar
  45. Kibby, M. (2009). Collect yourself. Information, Communication & Society, 12(3), 428–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Koops, B.-J. (2011). Forgetting footprints, shunning shadows: A critical analysis of the ‘right to be forgotten’ in big data practice. SCRIPTed, 8(3), 229–256.Google Scholar
  47. Lammes, S. (2016). Digital mapping interfaces: From immutable mobiles to mutable images. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1019–1033.Google Scholar
  48. Levin, A. M., Dato-on, M. C., & Rhee, K. (2004). Money for nothing and hits for free: The ethics of downloading music from peer-to-peer web sites. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12(1), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Livingstone, S. (2007). The challenge of engaging youth online: Contrasting producers’ and teenagers’ interpretations of websites. European Journal of Communication, 22(2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Livingstone, S., & Das, R. (2013). The end of audiences? In J. Hartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 104–121). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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. London: EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  53. Lyons, J. B., Stokes, C. K., Eschleman, K. J., Alarcon, G. M., & Barelka, A. J. (2011). Trustworthiness and IT suspicion: An evaluation of the nomological network. Human Factors, 53(3), 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mackenzie, A. (2006). Cutting code: Sociality and software. New York and Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  55. Manago, A. M., Graham, M. B., Greenfield, P. M., & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 446–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Manovich, L. (2001). Language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Manovich, L. (2013). Sofware takes command. New York: Bloosmbury Academic.Google Scholar
  58. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McKelvey, F. R. (2014). Algorithmic media need algorithmic methods: Why publics matter, 39(4). Retrieved from
  60. Mollen, A., Saariketo, M., & Kleut, J. (2016). Intersecting audience activities: An audience studies perspective on the materiality of design, platforms and interfaces. Participations, 13(1), 360–373.Google Scholar
  61. Morris, J. W., & Powers, D. (2015). Control, curation and musical experience in streaming music services. Creative Industries Journal, 8(2), 106–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nagy, P., & Neff, G. (2015). Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society, 1(2).Google Scholar
  63. Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Niederer, S., & van Dijck, J. (2010). Wisdom of the crowd or technicity of content? Wikipedia as a sociotechnical system. New Media & Society, 12(8), 1368–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nowak, R. (2016). Consuming music in the digital age: Technologies, roles and everyday life. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Plantin, J.-C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2016). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310. Google Scholar
  67. Poster, M. (1995). The second media age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  68. Rieder, B., & Röhle, T. (2017). Digital methods: From challenges to Bildung. In M. T. Schäfer & K. van Es (Eds.), The datafied society. Studying culture through data (pp. 109–124). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Schäfer, M. T., & van Es, K. (2017). The datafied society. Studying culture through data. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shuker, R. (2016). Understanding popular music culture. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Sundin, O. (2017). Critical algorithm literacies: An emerging framework. Paper presented at ECREA Digital Culture and Communication Section Conference, Brighton.Google Scholar
  72. Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  73. van Dijck, J. (2013). ‘You have one identity’: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture and Society, 35(2), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208. Retrieved from
  75. van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2015). Social media and the transformation of public space. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Münster, RTG “Trust and Communication in a Digitized World”MünsterGermany
  2. 2.Department of Communication Sciences—Campus AulaGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations