#platformization

Digital citizenship can be used to describe the complex and intricate ways in which people participate in society through digital technologies, such as social media platforms. According to the Australian eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant (2020), a model example of a digital citizen is someone with “the skills and knowledge to effectively use digital technologies in a positive way to participate in society, communicate with others, and create and consume digital content”. Therefore, digital citizenship can be described as the process through which digital communities are formed, which is discussed in further detail in the previous blog post. Platform studies is the study of how platforms dictate user’s online presence and activity, through constraining and enabling particular kinds of behaviours and interactions on their platforms. For instance, some social media platforms afford users the opportunity to remain anonymous, whilst others require formal identification when joining.

This leads onto the concept of platformisation, and the deconstruction of the term ‘platform’ itself, which Principle Research at Microsoft Research, Tarleton Gillespie defines as something “computational” (Gillespie 2010, p. 349). Gillespie contends that platforms are “something to build upon and innovate from”, in both a political and architectural sense (Gillespie 2010, p. 352). This means that platforms are a place where people can freely voice their opinions and be heard, and in a design sense, these social media platforms are ultimately, an “open-armed, egalitarian facilitation of expression” (Gillespie 2010, p. 352). At its core, platformisation is the connectivity between platforms, which is facilitated through their shared language, including coding and other technical features. Furthermore, Professor of New Media and Digital Culture, Anne Helmond defines platformisation as the “transformation of social network sites into social media publics” (Helmond 2015, p. 1).

The idea of social media platforms operating as digital spaces for public discussion and debate, is highlighted through the strategic ways Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump controlled their messages during the 2016 US Presidential Election, carefully constructing digital personal brands to emphasise their character and personality, with the intent of creating “trustworthiness as political leaders” (Enli 2017, p. 59). Both candidates placed significant emphasis on their social media presence and image during the election period, because they were aware that social media platforms are “increasingly used as direct sources of news, bypassing the editorial media” (Enli 2017, p. 50). Another prime example of social media platforms facilitating political discourse is #auspol, short for Australian politics, one of Australia’s most popular Twitter hashtags. Anyone with a Twitter account can use this hashtag to initiate political discussion, although the hashtag is primarily used for “commentary and rumour spreading about the machinations of the federal government” (Bogle 2016).

Another key component of digital citizenship and online communities is hashtag publics, which enable further connectivity through a range of stylistic features, including themes, keyword markers and trending online movements. Hashtag publics are enabled through the search bar function on the explore page on social media platforms, where users can narrow their search for particular online movements, specific topics, celebrities, politics and everything in between, through hashtags. Some famous examples include #AusPol, #MeToo, #athomeworkouts and #COVID_19. Therefore, hashtag publics provide a virtual space for people with similar (or opposing) opinions and interests to congregate and partake in discussion and debate. This can lead to hashtag activism, briefly outlined above, and cancel culture, the complete opposite, also known as shaming culture.

Cancel culture, also commonly referred to as online shaming, and call-out culture, is a form of online public shaming, typically involving ‘leaked’ or private information on the Internet. The ethics and regulation surrounding this virtual form of public humiliation are blurred and are a constant source of debate amongst media scholars. Cultural commentator, writer and fashion stylist, Ayishat Akanbi, has also raised some interesting points about the issues with cancel culture, particularly the speed at which people can change their ideas and opinions (Double Down News 2020). Therefore, Akanbi encourages people to consider this perspective when controversial tweets and comments resurface from famous celebrities and actors that they posted many years ago. This is reflection of their past self, and perhaps they have a more nuanced understanding and standpoint of these topics now. Furthermore, former President of the United States, Barack Obama made an interesting point about cancel culture, stating that many young people have adopted the mindset that we way they can “make change, is to be as judgmental as possible as other people”, which he believes is accelerated by social media platforms (Guardian News 2019). Therefore, it is clear that you can’t bring about change by simply casting stones.

References 

Bogle, A 2016, ‘#auspol: the Twitter hashtag Australia can’t live without’, Mashable Australia, 21 March, viewed 25 April 2020, <https://mashable.com/ 2016/03/21/twitter-australia-auspol/>. 

Double Down News 2020, The problem with cancel culture, 21 January, viewed 25 April 2020, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3ZjTg1OpIE>. 

Enli, G 2017, ‘Twitter as an arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 presidential election’, European Journal of Communication, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 50-61. 

eSaftey Commissioner 2020, eSaftey Commissioner, Australian Government, viewed 25 April 2020, <https://www.esafety.gov.au/>. 

Gillespie, T 2010, ‘The politics of ‘platforms’’, New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 347-364. 

Guardian News 2019, Barack Obama takes on ‘woke’ call-out culture: ‘That’s not activism’, 30 October, viewed 25 April 2020, <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM>. 

استكملت بالو ألتو نتوركس، الشركة الرائدة عالمياً في مجال الأمن الإلكتروني، استعداداتها للمشاركة في فعاليات “جيتكس جلوبال 2025″، وعرض حلولها الرامية إلى مساعدة المؤسسات على مواجهة التهديدات المتطورة والمتنامية القائمة على الذكاء الاصطناعي من خلال اعتماد توجه التحول إلى منصات الأمن الإلكتروني المتكاملة (Platformization)، وذلك بهدف خفض مستويات التعقيد وضمان أمن سيبراني أفضل. وسيتواجد…

Imagine a world where hashtags hold more power than voting booths. From #BlackLivesMatter to #ClimateStrike, digital citizenship isn’t just about being online - it’s about rewiring democracy.  But as platforms like TikTok and Instagram monetize our outrage, are we citizens or data points?

Hashtag Publics: The New Town Square

#StopAsianHate didn’t just trend - it mobilized offline protests, fundraisers, and policy shifts. As Zappavigna notes, hashtags create “ambient affiliation,” binding strangers through shared rage or hope (Zappavigna 2011), but platformisation turns these publics into commodities.

For instance, concerns about Instagram's content moderation practices and their impact on activism and marginalized communities by algorithm promoting #Wellness content, which often reinforces neoliberal ideals of health and beauty (Jiang et al., 2024). Simultaneously, activists report increased automated content moderation during political events like #Palestine, leading to perceived censorship of pro-Palestinian content (Abokhodair et al., 2024).

Digital Citizenship: Rights vs. Algorithms

The growing use of algorithms in daily life presents opportunities and challenges for digital citizenship and fundamental rights, raising concerns about privacy, transparency, and fairness (Gerards, 2019). 

The adoption of algorithmic decision-making impacts constitutional rights, with IT companies holding significant power over human rights through data processing. Researchers advocate for a "right to explanation" for automated decisions and highlight the need for ethical standards in AI development (Pibaev & Simonova, 2020). Balancing algorithmic benefits with the protection of digital rights remains a key challenge in the digital age.

Gen Z’s Double-Edged Sword

Recent research highlights the complex relationship between youth activism, digital platforms, and data exploitation. Young activists employ hybrid tactics and "digital infra politics" to resist surveillance while engaging in political activities online (Lee, 2022). 

Take #BookTok: Teens rallied to connect over literature and promote reading, blending digital and analog media (Martens et al. 2022), but these digital environments also pose challenges, as youth's political participation and self-expression online generate data traces that can be mined and exploited (Barassi, 2020). As Stegeman (2024) warns, while online visibility can provide benefits, it also carries risks, especially for marginalised creators who must navigate the threat of both invisibility and harmful hypervisibility.

Then, hack the System?

While #SaveTwitter critiques Musk’s “free speech” farce, decentralized platforms like Mastodon gain traction. But is fleeing enough? The EU’s Digital Services Act forces transparency—a glimmer of hope. Yet, as … reminds us, platforms are architectures of control, not neutral stages.

Reference

Abokhodair, N, Skop, Y, Rüller, S, Konstantin Aal & Houda Elmimouni 2024, ‘Opaque algorithms, transparent biases: Automated content moderation during the Sheikh Jarrah Crisis’, First Monday, University of Illinois at Chicago.

‌Barassi, V 2020, ‘Youth, algorithms, and the problem of political data’, Routledge eBooks, Informa, pp. 166–176.

‌Gerards, J 2019, ‘The fundamental rights challenges of algorithms’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 205–209.

Igor Pibaev & Snezhana Simonova 2020, ‘Algorithms in the mechanism of implementation of constitutional rights and freedoms: challenges in the digital age’, Sravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 31–50.

Jiang, K, Bailey, KA & Lamarche, L 2024, ‘An infinite project to nowhere: #wellness on Instagram’, Feminist Media Studies, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1–17.

Lee, A 2022, ‘Hybrid activism under the radar: Surveillance and resistance among marginalized youth activists in the United States and Canada’, New Media & Society, vol. 26, SAGE Publishing, no. 7, pp. 3833–3853.

Martens, M, Balling, G & Higgason, KA 2022, ‘#BookTokMadeMeReadIt: young adult reading communities across an international, sociotechnical landscape’, Information and Learning Sciences, vol. 123, Emerald Publishing Limited, no. 11/12, pp. 705–722.

‌Stegeman, HM, Are, C & Poell, T 2023, ‘STRATEGIC (IN)VISIBILITY: HOW MARGINALISED CREATORS NAVIGATE THE RISKS AND CONSTRAINTS OF ONLINE VISIBILITY’, AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research.

US Institute of Diplomacy and Human Rights 2022, What is Digital Citizenship and Why is it Important?, Usidhr.org.

Digital citizenship isn’t just about using the internet safely—it’s about how we participate in online spaces, connect with others, and engage with important issues in the digital world. In today’s society, where much of our communication and activism happens online, being a digital citizen means more than just knowing how to use technology. It’s about understanding our rights, responsibilities, and the impact we have in digital spaces (Council of Europe, 2022, p. 4).

One of the biggest shifts in digital citizenship is its connection to democracy and activism. Choi and Cristol (2021) point out that digital citizenship shouldn’t just focus on rules for being safe online—it should also consider issues like representation, equality, and access. Marginalized communities often face barriers in digital spaces, whether it’s through algorithm bias, online harassment, or being excluded from important conversations (Choi & Cristol, 2021, p. 365). This is why digital citizenship education needs to do more than just teach technical skills—it should also help people challenge these inequalities and have their voices heard.

Social media has made activism more accessible, but it has also changed the way people engage with political and social issues. Movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM) have used digital platforms to raise awareness and organize protests, showing how powerful online activism can be (Choi & Cristol, 2021, p. 368). Hashtags, for example, bring people together around common causes, making it easier to spread messages and mobilize support. However, there’s also the downside—misinformation spreads quickly, online hate can silence voices, and corporations sometimes profit from social movements without making real change.

Another major challenge is platformization, which refers to how digital platforms control and shape online interactions. Social media algorithms decide what content people see, influencing public opinion and sometimes creating echo chambers where users only hear viewpoints similar to their own (Council of Europe, 2022, p. 4). This raises questions about who really controls digital spaces and how platforms affect democracy.

At the end of the day, being a good digital citizen means being aware of these issues and using digital spaces responsibly. It’s not just about following rules—it’s about making sure online spaces are fair, inclusive, and democratic for everyone. If we want a better digital future, we need to think critically about how we engage online and push for more ethical and equitable digital environments.

References:

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education. Theory into Practice, 60(4), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094

Council of Europe. (2022). Digital Citizenship: A Framework for Policy and Practice. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, p. 4.

To give a short context. platformisation can be described the transformation of social network sites into social media platforms, which came into the rise of the platform as the dominant infrastructural and economic model of the social web and its consequences (Nieborg et al., 2020). People also considered platformisation as a method to describe many aspects of several digital platforms, which could be either business models, infrastructures or even algorithms,... In short, it is basically a change from Web 1.0 (which were one-way communication only) to Web 2.0 (the interactive interface). 

In terms of people benefited from the platformisation, there were two main types of people affected. Normal media consumers can now have an easier time accessing the article online, and they had the ability to interact with the articles by expressing their opinion and have conversation with others about the content that are on the site at that time.

Consumers are not the only one benefited, as publishers and developers can also benefit from the platformization process. And the method of making any progress of that is to make their product able to reach out to new audiences and had a strong relationship with the customers (Spjeldnæs, 2022).

Of the example of platformisation, the most significant one may have been online news outlets, in which they intergrated some of the social network features into their outlets. By doing so, they let themselves open for everyone to interact and share the information in the web page on to their favourite social network site. Not only that, people can also discuss and communicate with others about the article, and thus can help people behind the article know the reaction of the consumer to the said article. This reaction would help publishers and writers to understand more about the audience that they are trying to reach out to.

REFERENCES USED:

Nieborg, D.B., Poell, T. and van Dijck, J., 2022. Platforms and platformization. The Sage handbook of the digital media economy, pp.29-49.

Platformization: Shaping Our Lives, One Click at a Time

Imagine a world where everything you need, from food and transportation to entertainment and work, can be accessed through a single app. This interconnected ecosystem is where platforms mediate our access to goods, services, and even social interactions. We navigate a world dominated by powerful platforms: Facebook connects us with friends, Shopee delivers our shopping needs, and Grab transports us across town. This phenomenon is known as platformization. It's unprecedentedly transforming our lives (Chia et al. 2020), presenting exciting opportunities and complex challenges.

At its core, platformization refers to the rise of digital platforms as dominant forces in various aspects of our lives (Vincent 2023). This phenomenon has fundamentally changed how we live, work, and interact, leaving its mark on everything from communication to commerce.

What is Platformisation?

The phrase "platform" has emerged as the prevailing notion for social media firms to establish their market position and engage with users. This term has been extensively adopted by consumers and the media (Gillespie, 2010).

Tarleton Gillespie presents a comprehensive analysis of platforms, emphasizing the many implications associated with this word, in a pivotal debate. Gillespie describes a platform, in the context of computing, as an infrastructure that serves as a foundation for developing applications. Nevertheless, according to Gillespie (2010), Web 2.0 organizations have expanded the definition of the word "platform" to include more than only its computational significance:

"This use of the word "platform" encompasses its several connotations: computational, referring to anything that may be used as a foundation for building and innovating; political, representing a space for expressing oneself and being heard; metaphorical, suggesting that the possibility is both abstract and practical; and architectural." To summarize, platformisation is the integration of different services, goods, or activities onto a digital platform. Digital platforms refer to internet-based or cloud-based technologies that enable users and providers to engage in conversations and conduct transactions. Platformisation refers to the process of expanding the capabilities of platforms to provide a diverse array of services that typically extend beyond their initial or primary functions.

What are the benefits of using a platform-based approach?

The platform economy, often referred to as such, is an integral component of the ongoing digital transition and hence represents a significant future challenge.

A platform's role is to facilitate transactions between consumers and suppliers. In essence, they function as markets and hubs for exchanging goods and services. As the number of users increases, the term "platform" becomes increasingly often used. Furthermore, a platform might prioritize either individual customers or corporate entities.

Considering the significant and fast-growing economic significance of digital platforms, the world's five biggest platform businesses (GAFAM) demonstrate their dominance with a market value over 4.5 trillion euros. Germany's gross domestic output in 2019 amounted to around 3.44 trillion euros, as compared to other countries.

In order to effectively demonstrate the significance of digital platforms, a research conducted by Bitkom in 2020 presents intriguing findings: Retailers, specifically, acknowledge the significance of digital channels. Over 50% of the surveyed organizations have already implemented a platform approach. A majority of respondents in the retail business, namely 60%, saw the influence on their organization as either an opportunity or only as an opportunity. The survey highlights that in over 80% of situations, digital platforms are under the responsibility of the boss and are thus given a high level of importance.

In the future, over 70% of participants agree that digital platforms will not only be significant to the global economy in a decade, but will also have influence on specific sectors and enterprises.

Reference:

(1) https://www.bitkom.org/Bitkom/Publikationen/Chartbericht-Digitale-Plattformen-2020