Algorithms and Intrusions: Emergent Stakeholder Discourses on the Co-option of Audiences’ Creativity and Data

  • Lucia Vesnić-Alujević
  • Miriam Stehling
  • Ana Jorge
  • Lidia Marôpo


In the age of ubiquitous technologies, algorithmic agents pervade all aspects of our (online) lives. A growing number of connected digital devices track our activities and store our data on digital platforms or in the Cloud (Van Dijck 2014; Porcaro 2016). They give us recommendations for songs and movies, filter news or rank search results based on our past experiences (Bodo et al. 2017). This chapter focuses on the co-option of audiences’ digital production and data, as seen through the lens of stakeholders. Based on 15 interviews conducted with stakeholders from eight European countries, we show how this heterogenous community, consisting of players with different stakes, sees and evaluates the processes of co-option of audiences by digital platform owners, for their own purposes. The results highlight the dialectical nature of co-option and the sometimes conflicted relationship between commercial players and creative audiences, and show how this relationship is managed from both sides.


  1. Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afromeeva, E., Liefbroer, M., & Lilleker, D. (2017). Post-truth: Its meaning and implications for democracy. Political Insight. Political Studies Association. Retrieved from
  3. Beer, D. (2018). Envisioning the power of data analytics. Information, Communication and Society, 21(3), 465–479. Google Scholar
  4. Benessia, A., & Guimarães Pereira, A. (2015). The dream of the Internet of Things: Do we really want, can and need to be smart? In A. Guimarães Pereira & S. Funtowicz (Eds.), Science, philosophy and sustainability: The end of the Cartesian dream (pp. 78–99). Routledge Explorations in Sustainability and Governance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ben-Shahar, O. (2017). The failure of transparency. Testimony. Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Retrieved from
  6. Bilton, R. (2017, September 28). All the news that’s fit for you: The New York Times is experimenting with personalization to find new ways to expose readers to stories. Nieman Lab. Retrieved from
  7. Bodo, B., Helberger, N., Irion, K., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Moller, J., van de Velde, B., et al. (2017). Tackling the algorithmic control crisis—The technical, legal, and ethical challenges of research into algorithmic agents. The Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 19, 133–180.Google Scholar
  8. Boucher, P., Nascimento, S., Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Guimãraes Pereira, A. (2014). Ethics dialogues. JRC science and policy reports. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  9. Bunz, M. (2014). The silent revolution: How digitalization transforms knowledge, work, journalism and politics without making too much noise. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). The entrepreneurial vlogger: Participatory culture beyond the professional-amateur divide. In P. Snickars & P. Vunderau (Eds.), The YouTube reader (pp. 89–107). Stockholm: Mediehistoriskt.Google Scholar
  11. Das, R., & Graefer, A. (2017). Provocative screens: Offended audiences in Britain and Germany. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duffy, E. B. (2016). The romance of work: Gender and aspirational labour in the digital culture industries. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 19(4), 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. E. (2015). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), E4512–E4521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2017). Call for tender: Study to raise awareness about algorithms. Retrieved from
  15. European Parliament. (2016, December 8). Hearing on the fundamental rights implications on big data. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  16. European Parliament. (2017, November 7). Debate democracy in the age of algorithms. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  17. Frau-Meigs, D., Velez, I., & Flores, J. (2017). Public policies in media and information literacy in Europe: Cross-country comparisons. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Freedom House. (2017). Freedom on the net 2017. Retrieved from
  19. Fuchs, C. (2012). Dallas Smythe today—The audience commodity, the digital labour debate, Marxist political economy and critical theory. Prolegomena to a digital labour theory of value. TripleC, 10(2), 692–740.Google Scholar
  20. Gillespie, T. L. (2012). Can an algorithm be wrong? Limn, 2. Retrieved from
  21. Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2016). European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a ‘right to explanation’. Retrieved from
  22. Hellen, N. (2017). Net self-regulation fails children. The Times. Retrieved from
  23. Howard, P. (2015). Pax technica. How the Internet of Things may set us free or lock us up. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jin, D. Y. (2015). Digital platforms, imperialism and political culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Just, N., & Latzer, M. (2016). Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the internet. Media, Culture and Society, 39(2), 238–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kennedy, H., Poell, T., & van Dijck, J. (2015). Introduction: Special issue on data and agency. Data & Society, 2(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
  27. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication and Society, 20(1), 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Livingstone, S. (2004). What is media literacy? Intermedia, 32(3), 18–20.Google Scholar
  29. Livingstone, S. (2015). Children’s digital rights. Intermedia, 42(4/5), 20–24.Google Scholar
  30. Lupton, D. (2014). Health promotion in the digital era: A critical commentary. Health Promotion, 30(1), 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mascheroni, G., & Holloway, D. (Eds.). (2017). The Internet of Toys: A report on media and social discourses around young children and IoToys. DigiLitEY. Retrieved from
  32. Ming Liu. (2017, November 11). Artificial intelligence starts to revolutionise luxury industries. Financial Times. Retrieved from
  33. Morozov, E. (2017, February 17). So you want to switch off digitally? I’m afraid that will cost you…. The Guardian. Retrieved from
  34. Mosco, V. (2017). Becoming digital: Toward a post-internet society. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Napoli, P. M. (2013, May 5). The algorithm as institution: Toward a theoretical framework for automated media production and consumption. Fordham University Schools of Business Research Paper. Retrieved from
  36. Ofcom. (2016). Communications market report 2016. Retrieved from
  37. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pavlíčková, T., & Kleut, J. (2016). Produsage as experience and interpretation. Participations. Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 13(1), 349–359.Google Scholar
  39. Plantin, J. C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P., & Sandvig, C. (2016). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media and Society. Pre-publication version. Retrieved from
  40. Schrock, A. (2017). When communication can contribute to data studies: Three lenses on communication and data. International Journal of Communication, 11(9), 701–709.Google Scholar
  41. Selbst, A., & Powles, J. (2017). Meaningful information and the right to explanation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(4). Retrieved from
  42. Sterling, B. (2014). The epic struggle of the Internet of Things. Moscow: Strelka Press.Google Scholar
  43. US subcommittees on digital commerce and consumer protection and communications and technology, digital commerce and consumer protection hearing on ‘algorithms: How companies’ decisions about data and content impact consumers’. November 29, 2017. Retrieved from
  44. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  45. Vesnić-Alujević, L., & Murru, M. F. (2016). Digital audiences disempowerment: Participation or free labour. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 13(1), 422–430.Google Scholar
  46. Vesnić-Alujević, L., Breitegger, M., & Guimãraes Pereira, A. (2016). What smart grids tell about innovation narratives in the European Union: Hopes, imaginaries and policy. Energy Research and Social Science, 12, 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woolley, S., & Howard, P. N. (2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics. Political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents. Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10(9). Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucia Vesnić-Alujević
    • 1
  • Miriam Stehling
    • 2
  • Ana Jorge
    • 3
  • Lidia Marôpo
    • 4
  1. 1.Zagreb UniversityZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Institut für MedienwissenschaftUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.FCH—Palma de CimaUniversidade Católica PortuguesaLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Instituto Poltécnico de SetúbalSetúbalPortugal

Personalised recommendations