Participatory trouble: Towards an understanding of algorithmic structures on Facebook

Martin Berg

doi:10.5817/CP2014-3-2

Participatory trouble: Towards an understanding of algorithmic structures on Facebook

Vol.8,No.3(2014)
Special issue: New Media and Democracy

Martin Berg

https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-3-2

How to Cite:

Berg, M. (2014). Participatory trouble: Towards an understanding of algorithmic structures on Facebook. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(3), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-3-2

HTML

Abstract

Several studies have engaged in understanding how the internet and online platforms increase political engagement through various forms of online participation and leverage social collective action. This article advances this line of research by exploring how social network sites in general and Facebook in particular are fuelled by algorithms that affect and become entangled with social practices on these sites. The article is empirically grounded in an analysis of 66 self-reflexive diaries on Facebook use and studies algorithmic structures on Facebook by exploring how personalized social feeds affect the experienced relationship between self and others as well as the readiness to share information to a network of peers. In contrast to studies that position online platforms as strengthening participatory political action, this article argues that it is necessary to take into account how algorithmic structures affect interpersonal relationships and the experienced ability to engage in participatory practices.

Keywords:
Facebook; social network sites; algorithms; participatory practices

Author biography

Martin Berg

Martin Berg is senior lecturer in sociology and head of research at the School of Social and Health Sciences, Halmstad University, Sweden. Berg has undertaken three-year-long industrial post-doctoral research with financial support from the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. His research mainly explores the interrelationship between online forms of power and the social dynamics of everyday life as well as forms of collaboration between industry and academia.

References

Andrejevic, M. (2011). Surveillance and alienation in the online economy. Surveillance & Society, 8, 278-287.

Baym, N. K. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated community and technology (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11, 985-1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809336551

Beer, D., & Burrows, R. (2007). Sociology and, of and in web 2.0: Some initial considerations. Sociological Research Online, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1560

Berg, M. (2011). Checking in at the urban playground: Digital geographies and electronic flâneurs. In F. Comunello (Ed.), Networked sociability and individualism: Technology for personal and professional relationships (pp. 171-196). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Berg, M. (2012). Social intermediaries and the location of agency: A conceptual reconfiguration of social network sites. Contemporary Social Science, 7, 321-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2012.683446

boyd, d. (2012). Participating in the always-on lifestyle. In M. Mandiberg (Ed.), The social media reader (pp. 71-76). New York and London: New York University Press.

boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Bucher, T. (2012a). A technicity of attention: How software 'makes sense'. Culture Machine, 13, 1-23.

Bucher, T. (2012b). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14, 1164-1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812440159

Bucher, T. (2013). The friendship assemblage: Investigating programmed sociality on Facebook. Television & New Media, 14, 479-493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476412452800

Burrows, R. (2009). Afterword: Urban informatics and social ontology. In M. Foth (Ed.), Handbook of research on urban informatics (pp. 450-454). Hershey, PA: Information Science.

Davis, A. (2010). New media and fat democracy: The paradox of online participation. New Media & Society, 12, 745-761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341435

Dodge, M., & Kitchin, R. (2009). Software, objects, and home space. Environment and Planning A, 41, 1344-1365. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4138

Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London and New York: Routledge.

Fuller, M. (2003). Behind the blip: Essays on software and culture. New York: Autonomedia.

Galloway, A. R. (2004). Protocol: How control exists after decentralization. Cambrigde, MA: The MIT Press.

Gehl, R. W. (2011). The archive and the processor: The internal logic of web 2.0. New Media & Society, 13, 1228-1244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811401735

Gil De Zuniga, H., Puig, I. A. E., & Rojas, H. (2009). Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: an assessment of how the internet is changing the political environment. New Media & Society, 11, 553-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809102960

Gustafsson, N. (2013). Leetocracy: Political participation, social network sites and inequality. (Doctoral thesis). Lund University, Lund.

Horvath, K. J., Beadnell, B., & Bowen, A. M. (2013). A daily web diary of the sexual experiences of men who have sex with men: Comparisons with a retrospective recall survey. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual research methods Vol. I, Vol. II (pp. 355-373). London: SAGE.

Larsson, A. O. (2013). Rejected bits of program code": Why notions of "politics 2.0" remain (mostly) unfulfilled. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 10, 72-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.719727

Mackenzie, A. (2006). Cutting code: Software and sociality. New York: Peter Lang.

Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. New York: Bloomsbury.

McStay, A. (2011). Profiling phorm: An autopoietic approach to the audience-as-commodity. Surveillance & Society, 8, 310-322.

Mead, G. H. (Ed.). (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65, 17-37.

Rheingold, H. (1995). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computerized world. London: Minerva.

Sanghvi, R. (2010). Focus on feed. Retrieved from: http://www.livestream.com/f8techniques/video?clipId=pla_5219ce25-53c6-402d-8eff-f3f8f7a5b510

Thrift, N. (2005). Knowing capitalism. London: Sage.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. London: Phoenix.

Zimmer, M. (2008). Preface: Critical perspectives on web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v13i3.2137

Metrics