Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Audiences

Abstract

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.

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

  • 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 

  • Andrejevic, M. (2008). Watching television without pity. 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 

  • Apperley, T., & Parikka, J. (2015). Platform studies’ epistemic threshold. Games and Culture, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, A. (2006). ‘Quality singles’: Internet dating and the work of fantasy. New Media & Society, 8(4), 671–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Baym, N. (2013). Data not seen: The uses and shortcomings of social media metrics. First Monday, 18(10).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baym, N., & boyd, d. (2012). Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 320–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermejo, F. (2009). Audience manufacture in historical perspective: From broadcasting to Google. New Media & Society, 11(1–2), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. (2011). The computational turn: Thinking about digital humanities. Culture Machine, 12. Retrieved from http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/viewDownloadInterstitial/440/470.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogost, I., & Montfort, N. (2009). Platform studies: Frequently questioned answers. Digital Arts and Culture, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Eisenlauer, V. (2014). Facebook as a third author—(Semi-)automated participation framework in social network sites. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C. (2011). An alternative view of privacy on Facebook. Information, 2(1), 140–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C. (2013). Societal and ideological impacts of deep packet inspection internet surveillance. Information, Communication & Society, 16(8), 1328–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gane, N., & Beer, D. (2008). New media: The key concepts. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgalou, M. (2016). ‘I make the rules on my wall’: Privacy and identity management practices on Facebook. Discourse & Communication, 10(1), 40–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gillespie, T. (2015). Platforms intervene. Social Media + Society, 1(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, A. N. (2015). The playlist experience: Personal playlists in music streaming services. Popular Music and Society, 38(5), 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallinan, B., & Striphas, T. (2016). Recommended for you: The Netflix prize and the production of algorithmic culture. New Media & Society, 18(1), 117–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmond, A. (2015). The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hepp, A. (2012). Mediatization and the ‘molding force’ of the media. Communications, 37(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesmondhalgh, D. (2012). User-generated content, free labour and the cultural industries. Ephemera, 10(3/4), 267–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kibby, M. (2009). Collect yourself. Information, Communication & Society, 12(3), 428–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lammes, S. (2016). Digital mapping interfaces: From immutable mobiles to mutable images. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1019–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2007). The challenge of engaging youth online: Contrasting producers’ and teenagers’ interpretations of websites. European Journal of Communication, 22(2), 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  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. London: EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, A. (2006). Cutting code: Sociality and software. New York and Oxford: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manovich, L. (2001). Language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manovich, L. (2013). Sofware takes command. New York: Bloosmbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, F. R. (2014). Algorithmic media need algorithmic methods: Why publics matter, 39(4). Retrieved from http://cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2746/2495.

  • 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 

  • Morris, J. W., & Powers, D. (2015). Control, curation and musical experience in streaming music services. Creative Industries Journal, 8(2), 106–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, P., & Neff, G. (2015). Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society, 1(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, R. (2016). Consuming music in the digital age: Technologies, roles and everyday life. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Poster, M. (1995). The second media age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schäfer, M. T., & van Es, K. (2017). The datafied society. Studying culture through data. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shuker, R. (2016). Understanding popular music culture. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundin, O. (2017). Critical algorithm literacies: An emerging framework. Paper presented at ECREA Digital Culture and Communication Section Conference, Brighton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J. (2013). ‘You have one identity’: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture and Society, 35(2), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208. Retrieved from https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/datafication.

  • van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2015). Social media and the transformation of public space. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Münster, RTG “Trust and Communication in a Digitized World”, Münster, Germany

    Anne Mollen

  2. Department of Communication Sciences—Campus Aula, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Frederik Dhaenens

Authors
  1. Anne Mollen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frederik Dhaenens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Mollen .

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

Mollen, A., Dhaenens, F. (2018). Audiences’ Coping Practices with Intrusive Interfaces: Researching Audiences in Algorithmic, Datafied, Platform Societies. In: Das, R., Ytre-Arne, B. (eds) The Future of Audiences. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75638-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation