We are swimming in a sea of information but do we really understand what is information. A project that I engaged in with a number of systems biologists provided an interesting perspective on this question. In a paper entitled Propagating Organization: An Enquiry by Stuart Kauffman, Robert K. Logan, Robert Este, Randy Goebel, David Hobill and Ilya Shmulevich that appeared in Biology & Philosophy 23: 27-45 we wrote,

“Our broad aim was to understand propagating organization as exemplified by the vast organization of the coevolving biosphere.”

The cell operates as an information processing unit, receiving information from its environment, propagating that information through complex molecular networks, and using the information stored in its DNA and cell-molecular systems to mount appropriate responses. We argue that Shannon information does not apply to the evolution of the biosphere because one cannot prestate all possible Darwinian preadaptations or the ensemble of possibilities and hence their entropy cannot be calculated.

According to the Shannon definition of information a structured set of numbers like the set of even numbers has less information than a set of random numbers because one can predict the sequence of even numbers. By this argument a random soup of organic chemicals would have more information that a structured biotic autonomous agent.

The biotic agent has more meaning than the soup, however. The living organism with more structure and more organization has less Shannon information. This is counterintuitive to a biologist’s understanding of a living organism. We therefore conclude that the use of Shannon information to describe a biotic system would not be valid. Shannon information for a biotic system is simply a category error.

A living organism has meaning because it is an autonomous agent acting on its own behalf. A random soup of organic chemicals has no meaning and no organization. We may therefore conclude the meaning of life is organization—organization that propagates.

The Relativity of Information

You may legitimately ask the question “isn’t information just information?”, i.e., an invariant like the speed of light. Our response to this question is no, it is relative.

Instructional or biotic information is a useful definition for biotic systems just as Shannon information was useful for telecommunication channel engineering.

Thus we identify the information in living organisms with the organization of constraints that allow an organism to capture energy from the environment for their growth and replication. A living organism propagates its organization, which constitutes its information.

We therefore conclude that constraints are information and information is constraints, which we term as instructional information because this is its function and we want to distinguish it from Shannon information. The constraints are the organization of the living organism and therefore the organization is the information and vice versa.

We next note that biotic information is not symbolic but is embedded in the biomoleules of which the living organism is composed. Biotic information cannot be separated from the medium in which it is instantiated. DNA does not symbolize RNA but rather catalyzes its creation.

And likewise RNA does not symbolize proteins but rather catalyzes its creation.

And the same with proteins they are not symbols but enzymes.

One of the characteristics of biotic information is that it is instantiated materially whereas symbolic information and Shannon info can move from one medium to another. For biotic information the medium is the message in the McLuhan sense and it is also the content. The medium is the content and the content is the medium. Whereas for symbolic info the medium and its content are separate.

We humans deal with 3 kinds of information: genetic, percepts , and concepts (symbolic).

The digital technology has changed the efficiency of communication and affected people’s communication pattern as well. In the early days of internet usage, the concerns of academic research of interpersonal communication from the past face to face communication, change to the evolution of the computer-mediated communication (CMC). Nowadays, the popularity of smart phones generates a new interpersonal communication pattern - mobil-mediated communication (MMC). This change involves not only different communication device, but also function expansion, contact efficiency and economy. The communication relationship and social interaction, along with the technology transition result new models.

Mobil-mediated communication in the academic field is still a new topic, relevant researches mainly focus on the technic innovation of communication technology or message properties. However, there are more and more studies direct to the social relations of communication. Yuan (2012) studied mobile phones for social relations in Chinese society which provide many practical observations of communication behavior. On indirect and high-context patterns of Chinese social interaction, mobile phones play an important role and develop relation-oriented cultural norms. Communication through mobile phones are used to define and mediate group members, maintain social cohesion and harmony.

Chinese society highly values social relationship. In this study, mobile phone is regarded as intermediary vehicle which links people’s social relationship netwok. On one hand, people interaction through moble phone, the social media, can establish contact and strengthen each others’ affection connection. On the other hand, instead of face to face communication, smart phone’s mediated effect omit the social context clues so that interpersonal relationship possess the flexibility of avoidance. Therefore, this study analyze the characteristics of social reaction in the mobile-mediated situation. There are two research questions developed . First, how people use mobile phone to proceed interpersonal communication and establish positive effect of warm feeling? Second, , how people use mobile phone to take the avoid effect for buffering emotional conflict? The research adopts quality method of focus group interview to examine communication exerperience of smart phone usage. There are six business professionals as focus group interviewers. The discussion focuses on the phenomenas of positive and advoid effect in mobile-mediated situation.

The research found that smart phone offers many communication convenience, allowing users able to have a positive emotional warming effect, then bring a better interactive experience. Common experiences of respondents believe that smart phones not only provide basic voice calls, but also have important advantages to facilitate communication. For example, all users installed Line or FB community communication APP, which can replace the voice dialoge so that the contact become more economical and convenient. Some APP stickers even improve the texts communication to a more lively type and increase the pleasure of communication behavior. Respondents also reveal mobile-mediated communication can lower the interpersonal relation stress and avoid psychological burden. Precisely the avoid effects come from smartphone’s powerful functions. For example, response time has considerable flexibility when phone call. Receiver does not have to bear the direct communication of pressure, and take easy to read message.

In conclusion, mobile-mediated communication provides a convenient channel for interpersonal contact. It towards a very positive impact on the development of social relationship. Especially mobile phones with a variety of affiliated functions, users can adopt it for different situations and communication purposes. It contributes to human interaction with a positive and conflict avoidance effect. Without physical contact like face to face interaction, mobile-mediated communication create a new social relation pattern and helps to strengthen the development of the collective consciousness and social cohesion.

Introduction

The statement that every tool shapes its users’ habits and mentality would apply to any technology in any era of the human history. But today’s advanced ICT devices, which accompany almost all human activities from very early ages onwards, seem to have a qualitatively different impact. Here, I will try to show how these devices –by virtue of a special feature of theirs- have become dangerously entangled with the self-ordained dynamics of market economy and outcome-measurement-based educational policies, eventually jeopardising the raising of next generations of technology developers.

In an earlier article I have searched for the reasons behind a behavioural change that almost suddenly emerged among my students around 2007-08, and tried to show the possible correlation with the penetration of performance-based evaluation into various domains of social life. The problematic change mentioned there was related to the students’ seeking for “a safe haven in imitating machine intelligence, which brought with it submission to externally set targets, strong dependence on external appreciation, insufficient self-confidence, and rapid loss of motivation under failure” [1]. During the many years that followed these symptoms persisted and within the last academic year some unprecedented types of error started to appear in the exam papers and home works, which indicate that some mechanisms that used to compensate the adverse effects of these evaluation policies must have been deactivated or some new mechanisms must have stepped in that aggravate their adverse effects. I suspect that ICT devices are partially responsible for these mechanisms.

Education and Raising the Edifice of Comprehension

In order to analyse the impact of the entanglement of advanced ICT devices, outcome-measurement-based educational policies and the dynamics of market economy on students, let us envisage comprehension as a complex dynamic edifice that rises on the fundament of cognitive abilities, which are extensions of the embodied tacit knowledge. In the course of development (which is strictly speaking a life-long process) each level is supposed to emerge as an abstraction out of the former. Alexandre Borovik [2] describes this process very vividly in the context of mathematics:

“The crystallisation of a mathematical concept (say, of a fraction), in a child’s mind could be like a phase transition in a crystal growing in a rich, saturated—and undisturbed—solution of salt. An “aha!” moment is a sudden jump to another level of abstraction. Such changes in one’s mode of thinking are like a metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly.”

However, this creative and spontaneous process is highly sensitive to external impacts (particularly systematic ones). Sustainable development of the edifice of comprehension asks for meticulously tuned “boundary conditions”, i.e. external supports and stimuli that have to step in and out with correct timing, catalysing the actualisation of potentials in a way coherent with the lower levels of the edifice as well as with the necessities of the environment. The person-dependent and highly unpredictable developmental process must evolve according to its own pace and cannot be evaluated on basis of standardised criteria. Particularly, outcome-measurement-based evaluation creates a harmful interference with the developmental dynamics, providing a positive bias in favour of the selected measurable criteria, while leaving immeasurable (or at least not immediately assessable, yet for the progress crucial) assets like true comprehension, intuition and motivation unnoticed, unappreciated and eventually letting them fade away.

Nevertheless, this pessimistic picture need not materialise as long as the child and later the student has other opportunities -other than the official education system- to get into touch with life, to receive stimuli and appreciation for the unnoticed assets, as well as pressure to improve his/her unnoticed weaknesses. It is exactly at this point, where the advanced (especially IC) technologies that penetrate children’s lives intensively and at very early ages make a qualitative difference as compared to more traditional ones by blocking the channel of interaction with real life. I suggest that the characteristic feature of contemporary IC technologies responsible for this blockage is the highly-developed and excessively user-friendly interfaces.

Facing the Interface

If we try to apply the concept of “user interface” to a traditional tool, e.g. hammer, the user interface would probably be its handle: the interface between the user and the part of the tool that actually performs the job. Such an interface protects the user from the physical inconveniences of the job, but does not prevent him/her from witnessing the operation. The same could be said about the keyboard of an old-fashioned typewriter where you have a free glance at the operation of the internal mechanism. But contemporary ICT devices are characterised by the “opacity” of their user interfaces. These user-friendly interfaces translate even sophisticated operations into basic sensorimotor tasks like clicking, shifting, dragging and dropping, and into basic cognitive tasks like pattern matching. Never before have technology users been so perfectly “protected” from the complexity of the underlying phenomena and absolved from the exigency of having some comprehension about them. Plotted against the background of market economy, this low intellectual demand on behalf of the users and the low prices of mass-produced consumer devices create a self-amplifying positive feedback loop, creating masses of cheap devices and huge masses of –increasingly younger- customers.

From here onwards, I will refer to user interfaces, which isolate the user from the actual operational level while presenting him/her a virtual face, as isolating interfaces. The notion of interface can even be extended metaphorically, and all devices and supporting technological systems themselves can be considered as interfaces between the user and the real problem.

The complicity of isolating interfaces (both real and metaphorical), outcome-measurement-based education system and market economy is multi-directional:

Market dynamics unleashes masses of cheap ICT gadgets with isolating interfaces upon the plastic brains of young children. While these toys become parents’ favourite means of keeping the children occupied, whole generations are isolated from very early ages onwards from the challenging stimuli of the real world that would have compelled the emergence of new cognitive abilities. On the other hand, these gadgets give children false sense of self-confidence, eventually attract many of them to professions of prospective technology developers and assist their progress even during the first years of their higher education by translating relatively sophisticated tasks into the language of a lower cognitive level, creating in the students the illusion of mastery and autonomy in the respective domains. Meanwhile, the outcome-measurement-based system conceals from the educators students’ lack of true comprehension for a long while. Nevertheless, the illusion of mastery and autonomy can be sustained only until students reach a stage that demands creativity, where most of them start to discern the huge gap of incompetence underneath the seemingly safe ground. This –combined with the high performance pressure and competition- leads not only to the loss of the false self-confidence but also loss of motivation among those who were prematurely attracted to these professions (this typically happens during the third year among my electrical and electronics engineering students). On the other hand, students with high capacity and passion for comprehension are also adversely affected by the outcome-measurement-based evaluation system, which is tailored for isolating interfaces, i.e. does not encourage or appreciate the derivation and deduction of new levels of abstraction from previous ones, but compels learners to take ready-made and level-specific rules for granted. This deprives the students of their developmental autonomy and their natural motivation for learning: the sheer pleasure of “jumping to a higher level of abstraction” and the associated cognitive pride.

Conclusion

Ergonomics demands that devices match the needs of their users and support -rather than impede- their development. But the present combination of pragmatic educational policies, which treats human as automaton, and the market economy, which repudiates the value of human potential, trusts children to cognitively non-ergonomic devices, which turn them into automata and waste their potential long before they have a chance to become developers of future technologies. Nevertheless, this can be considered as nature’s negative feedback that can in the long-run terminate wrong policies.

References

1. Yagmur Denizhan, Performance-based control of learning agents and self-fulfilling reductionism. Systema 2 no. 2 (2014)
2. Borovik A. V. Calling a spade a spade: Mathematics in the new pattern of division of labour. arXiv:1407.1954 [math.HO]

Introduction

CATO, the Computer Algebra Taschenrechner (calculator) Oberfläche (surface), is a software intended to facilitate the use of computer algebra systems. In its availability and accessibility of information it is not limited to specialists, but the use of this scientific software should also be possible for users without a specialist’s background. Barriers to usage are overcome through user-guides.

Over the past 30 years, a special kind of mathematical software, the computer algebra (CA) system, has widely been used for calculation and solution of mathematical problems. In many sectors in mathematics, strict laws, rules and algorithms apply, and these can be converted into appropriate programs. As a result, computer algebra systems ease the performance of otherwise demanding and time-consuming calculations. So-called numerical analysis packages have existed since the 1950s. However, while they were suitable to perform calculations, their accuracy was limited and they could also not be used in those instances where mathematical methods or algorithms could not be transformed into a numerical algorithm.

The demand for better designs of user interfaces for CA systems is almost as old as the systems themselves. Kajler has described and developed his ideas for a perfect user interface in various works [1, 2, 3] and elaborated these in further works [4, 5]. Kajler has postulated that well-designed CA interfaces should afford intuitive access. As such, they should enable the entry of commands with more than one parameter in a two-dimensional fashion. This prevents syntactic and structural errors. In addition, all templates and masks should follow the convention of operating from left to right.

Intuitive interfaces should also apply conventional mathematical notations, and decouple the surface from the computer algebra system. The interface should be serviced independently, and regularly developed and updated. Ideally, it should understand a range of computer algebra systems.

Kaljer has responded to his own demand for such a surface for different systems with his development of CAS/Pi [3]. He wrote [5, pg. 151]: “…, it is desirable to produce a portable interface that handles lexical, syntactical, and functional differences between different CAS.”

The software CATO, which is a user interface for various computer algebra systems, enables the use of scientific software by any parties equipped with rudimentary knowledge; it can easily be learned by laypeople.

Methods

The author has taught mathematics for engineers for over twenty years at the University of Applied Sciences (HTWG) in Konstanz, Germany. CA systems have always belonged to the tools used in his teaching, and he has also always intended that these systems be used by students.

However, easy-to-use computer algebra systems have proven to be the exception, rather than the rule. The majority of CA systems are not really accessible to non-mathematicians, who have only occassional call upon them (for example, a non-mathematician wishing to use them once a week to solve set problems). CA systems are at the user-interface a mixture of a programming language and the corresponding mathematical terminology. That the necessary commands for use are often abbreviations, further compounds the hindrance current systems pose to their spontaneous use.

The question therefore is, what can be done to improve access to such scientific programs: Among other things, modification of the selection of commands and the configuration of the input parameters are necessary steps.

The use of a computer algebra system should not detract from the mathematics, or the problem to be solved. The use of such a system should also not be the goal in itself, or pose additional difficulty for teaching. It raises, in the author’s view, a more general question: What are, in this context, the distinguishing features of user-friendliness?

In programming CATO the author noticed that if an interface is to be developed in order to facilitate access to programs, ease-of-use cannot be limited to the input of the commands and their parameters. The following aspects should be observed:

First, the help itself should be prepared according to the users’ needs to use the computer algebra system. Therefore, it must have an extensive index that contains more than just the respective command name. Furthermore, in addition to being intelligible and providing comprehensible examples, the help text should always be designed in the same way and always be structured identically. Every help text for CATO is structured in the following way: The name of the command appears first (black), followed by the packages containing this command (green), and finally by a list of the computer algebra systems in which the command is available (red). The free text that follows contains first an abstract description, and then several comprehensible examples. Of course, the CATO help is written in HTML, and can therefore be read independently of the system itself [6].

Second, the choosing of a command must be simple. Selecting commands in CATO follows a hierarchical paradigm via 27 packages (4 of these consist of sub-packages). Packages group related commands together, but the same command may be included in more than one package. For instance, the command “Definition eines Vektors” (definition of a vector) is contained in the packages “Lineare Algebra” (linear algebra) and “Definitionen” (definitions). The help text will refer to both locations. This means that the user is not obliged to learn the command or its package.

The selection of a package is made using the combo box on the lower left of the surface of CATO; all the commands from this package are downloaded into the combo box directly to the right of the first one. The selection of a command is therefore performed from left to right.

Multi-parameter commands will always invoke a two-dimensional input graphical user interface. Each parameter has its own documented input row. The user does not need to know the right input order of parameters or the right kind of separators or brackets.

Finally, the transportation of the results should be simple. Each computer algebra system has a protocol, in which all inputs and outputs are written sequentially. The user can save the protocol at any time, and read the results later. In many computer algebra systems, the respective protocol can only be read after calling-up the program; in addition, some have a free log-reader. The CATO protocol in contrast can be read independently of CATO, using any editor.

Results and Discussion

The author [7, 8, 9, 10] has over the last ten years developed a German-language interface for computer algebra systems. In writing CATO, he has developed, adopted and implemented many ideas and concepts for ease-of-use. His primary aim was to allow casual use of computer algebra in his lectures. He further wished that the use of software would support teaching and also motivate the students to use CA systems at home.

Now the students can learn the usage of CATO in less than 15 minutes. During term-time, CATO is used occasionally, when and as appropriate; sometimes just for exercises, sometimes more extensively. With every semester, the author has observed a desired effect of CATO: widespread independent exploration of the possibilities and potential of CA systems. CATO has facilitated access to this kind of mathematical software, which in turn, has encouraged many students to further explore it on their own.

Conclusions

There are, approximately, 500 commands for Mathematica (version 4.0 or higher), 400 commands for the mathematical toolbox of MATLAB, 300 commands for Maple (version 9.5 or higher), 300 commands for MuPAD 3.0, 200 commands for Yacas and 100 commands for MATLAB. In addition, there are approximately 50 CATO internal commands.

(Maple, Mathematica, the mathematical toolbox of MATLAB (an additional package), MuPAD and Yacas are computer algebra systems, the mathematical part of MATLAB itself is a numerical software.)

The author successfully established CA as a learning aid during lectures. If scientific software is made intelligible and accessible, the author’s experience has shown that also non-specialists readily integrate such programs into their work.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the IT Service Centre of the HTWG Konstanz for implementing CATO from the beginning as a program and for making it available in the IT-room every semester.

References and Notes

1. Kajler, N. CAS/PI: a portable and extensible interface for computer algebra systems. International Conference on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, 1992, pp. 376-386,. ACM New York, NY, USA.
2. Kajler, N. Building a computer algebra environment by composition of collaborative tools. Lecture notes in computer science, 1993, pp. 85-85.
3. Kajler, N. User interfaces for symbolic computation: a case study. Proceedings of the 6th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 1993, pp 1-10. ACM New York, NY, USA.
4. Kajler, N. Computer-human interaction in symbolic computation, 1998, Springer.
5. Kajler, N. and Soiffer, N. A survey of user interfaces for computer algebra systems. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 1998. Vol. 25, p. 127-159.
6. Janetzko, H.-D. Die Hilfe zu CATO, (revised regularly), available: http://www.computeralgebra.biz
7. Janetzko, H.-D. CATO - die universelle Computeralgebraoberfläche, Beiträge zum 7. Tag der Lehre, Hochschule Biberach, 2007; pp. 118-121, Publisher.: Studien-kommission für Hochschuldidaktik an Fachhochschulen in Baden-Württemberg.
8. Janetzko, H.-D. CATO - Eine deutschsprachige CA-Oberfläche. ÖMG - DMV Congress 2013, Innsbruck, 23.-27.09.2013, p. 166.
9. Janetzko, H.-D. CATO - beiläufiger, selbsterklärender Einsatz von Computeralgebra in Mathematikvorlesungen für Ingenieure. 48. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Mathematik, Koblenz Landau, 10.-14.03.2014, Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht 2014, pp 567-570.
10. Janetzko, H.-D. CATO - ein einfacher Zugriff auf CA-Systeme, unter anderem die math. Toolbox von MATLAB. MNU-Bundeskongress 2014, Kassel, 10.-14.04.2014, pp 55

Introduction

Citizen empowerment is one of the great promises of the ‘digital age’, often framed as a tale of emancipation and liberation in a digitally enabled democracy. The vigorously emerging field of critical internet studies has begun to interrogate the celebratory and unreflected assumptions about the unequivocally emancipatory essence of the ‘participatory’ web and expose the ideological nature of these discourses that conceals the various forms of domination and exploitation online e.g. [1-10]. However, what has unevenly progressed is the theorization of the structure-agency dialectics in ways that would enable a critical understanding and empirical study of user agency in the contemporary online ecology. Attempting to respond to the need for a renewal of critical cultural studies to understand web 2.0, this paper addresses the following questions: how can we understand user agency and where do we have to look for forms of resistance in web 2.0 spaces, taking into account the multiple layers in which these online environments structure, condition and curtail users’ activity? Are the concepts of semiotic power and resistance, inherited by traditional cultural studies, adequate to account for the structure-agency dialectics in today’s complex and multifaceted online media? To begin answering these questions, this paper outlines a conceptual framework that identifies the distinct levels on which network power operates, drawing on recent critical studies of the internet and web 2.0. At the same time, thinking of (network) power and (user) agency as a continuum, it draws on fundamental traditions within social and cultural theory to identify the various modes of resistance that could be meaningful in the contemporary media ecology. The ultimate aim of this paper is to introduce a nuanced conceptualization of user agency and provide a conceptual roadmap for critical empirical analysis.

The organization of online networks’ power

Drawing on recent critical accounts of how corporate online networks and platforms exert power over users, we identify the following six axes:

1) Economic-structural power: Web 2.0 environments are socio-economic structures that encompass certain ownership, governance and business model configurations, which demarcate the forms of usage, content and social relations within these environments (corporate ownership, targeted advertising and interpersonal marketing, unpaid user labour, monetization of user data and social relations [9, 7].

2) Algorithmic power: New media environments function as mediators actively shaping the performance of social act [7]. By the use of algorithms, they come to ‘produce’ everyday life, structuring and sorting people, relations, places and things in often unseen and concealed ways [2]. The operation of software without the users’ awareness of its structuring power has led to the notion of power being ‘post-hegemonic’ in the information era, as domination works ontologically instead of discursively [11, 2]. The decision-making power of algorithms often eludes reflective thinking, being perceived as neutral mediators reflecting instead of organizing and thus producing everyday life (e.g. the perception of search engines as neutral mechanisms rather than as powerful agents operating with opaque and complex rules, making some aspects of the world visible but concealing others altogether). The ‘post-hegemonic’ nature of algorithmic power creates a substantial challenge for human agency, rendering the possibility of resistance at the same level at which power operates all the more difficult.

3) Institutional power: Content management systems consist also of social protocols, which take the form of consolidated and complicated policies that govern and regulate user behavior. Most often, control over these rules is primarily in the hands of owners who can adjust conditions at any time, without the users’ prior consent [7].

4) (Post)discursive/semiotic power: Unlike traditional media industries, in web 2.0 the content is either co-produced by professionals and users or produced entirely by users (e.g. social media). Although the opening up of the sphere of symbolic production to amateurs or ‘ordinary’ voices has transformed the public space formerly dominated by cultural industries, early promises about the ‘liberation’ of content and informational diversity are mitigated by several factors. To take the example of ‘participatory’ journalism, user-generated content does not seem to dismantle traditional hierarchies and open up user engagement in the spheres that matter mostly e.g. news-making and constitution of journalistic values [12, 13]. In social media, similar trends can be observed: (a) the standardization of content so that it becomes manageable and sellable [7]; (b) the commodification of huge amounts of content through data mining technics; (c) the steering of users’ behavior toward consumer activities that legitimizes consumer culture and constitutes citizens as capitalist subjects [14]; (d) the diminishing of information diversity as users are locked in ‘filter bubbles’ [16]; (e) the unequal distribution of online attention and visibility, often directing users toward corporate sources, promoting more “valuable” people and filtering out less popular contributions (8, 14]. Most importantly, because corporate actors translate all content into manageable and sellable data, it can be argued that they acquire a form of post-discursive or post-semiotic power, rendering content as meaning almost irrelevant, in the sense that even user-generated discourses that subvert dominant ideas are subjected to the same treatment and principles, neutralizing their dissident potential.

5) Socio-cultural power: Sociality and collective will formation is at the heart of social media. At this level, the main stakes can be summarized in three points: first, a significant commodity in online ‘social’ media are social relations themselves, as almost all kinds of sociality are coded into proprietary algorithms and are moved from public to corporate space [7]. Second, the notion of sociality itself is transformed to what van Dijck [7] calls the “culture of connectivity”, a form of online sociality resting on coded structures and neoliberal economic principles, such as hierarchy, competition, a winner-takes-all mindset and the resetting of boundaries between private, corporate and public domains (p. 20). This logic affects also the alternative media realm, as traditional grassroots media do not have the resources to ‘play the Facebook game’ in their own terms¹. Third, despite the fact that social media can function as mobilization conduits for collective action, their capacity to sustain networked communities capable of political action is seriously disputed: networked communities in commercial online platforms are seen as mainly being about achieving one’s own individual needs and interests in post-political, post-antagonistic forms of community, offering "pacifying modes" of existence and absorbing potentially resistant energies in fantasies of action [14].

6) Ideological power: All these forms of power cannot be sustained without a sixth axis, that of ideology, namely the consolidation of a hegemonic, common-sense meaning regarding the very nature of web 2.0 and its profound necessity in everyday life. The rise of web 2.0 was accompanied by myths related to collaboration and social interaction, built on the core concepts of ‘sharing’, ‘community’, ‘user participation’, transparency and openness, and online sociality as the prevalent and inescapable form of establishing social relations [15]. These narratives, dissipated through popular and academic discourses, operate to conceal the ideological tenets from which commercial online platforms operate and the multiple aspects of pseudo-participation and exploitation defining the reality of many web 2.0 environments [8].

Dimensions of user agency

The approaches highlighted above substantiate the exploitative nature of web 2.0 but leave little room for understanding emerging forms of user agency. As van Dijck [7] argues, “it is functional to regard user agency not as an actor distinct from technology, but as an analytical category that requires delineation on its own terms” (p. 32). From a critical cultural perspective, we need to identify the axes on which resistance and counter-power can be built, taking into account the forces that structure, condition or curtail user agency. Such an approach requires a combination of culturalism and structuralism in cultural studies [8], similar to the encoding/decoding model advanced by Stuart Hall [17]. However, in web 2.0 environments, production and reception ‘moments’ are no longer distinct processes and the structured tempospatial breaks between production and reception [18] take on different meanings. Furthermore, the multifunctional nature of new media renders a sole emphasis on content inadequate as a critical analytical framework. That said, we draw on fundamental critical theories to outline a nuanced conceptualization of user agency and a theoretical framework for the empirical analysis of web 2.0 users. The proposed conception of user agency consists of six dimensions, analogous to the six axes of network power identified above. Each dimension is placed on a continuum, with two opposing poles: a pole where agency is minimal (or non-existent) and a pole where agency is maximal.

1) Socio-economic agency can be defined as the capacity of users to become aware of, resist, oppose or subvert the dominant economic logic from which the commercial web 2.0 operates. An empirical inquiry at this level involves the study of knowledge, attitudes and practices of users regarding the role and implications of current ownership models in web 2.0 spaces in terms of data privacy and data mining, economic and state surveillance, unpaid user labour, the commodification of relations through user recommendation systems, and the role of targeted advertising as a business model. User agency can thus be operationalized along a continuum between awareness, resistance/appropriation, opposition and subversion. Empirical studies of users’ attitudes and practices can show which positions users occupy along this continuum, e.g. whether users are conscious of how commercial media shape their experiences and exploit economically their labour (awareness), whether and how they are involved in active resistance (e.g. by using applications to block or bypass advertisements), whether they take part in campaigns aiming at limiting companies’ invasive practices or put forth claims to partial ownership of contributed content (opposition), and their readiness to opt-out and embrace alternatives currently being created online (subversion).

2) Informational or algorithmic agency signifies the capacity of users to become aware of, refuse, resist or actively challenge the ways in which power is embedded in technical structures, codes and rules of ‘participatory’ spaces and interfaces. At the level of awareness, a question to explore is the extent to which the ‘technological unconscious’ becomes conscious, that is, if the rule-making power of software becomes evident, perceptible or transparent to users. Implicit participation [15], which is usually unconscious as it is built-in in the system, can turn into active resistance if it becomes conscious. Changing a default setting or filling out false profiling information can be considered mild acts of resistance [7]. Reflexive and skilled users may play with algorithmic power to their own advantage, actively shaping the content they produce so as to direct the way the software reacts to them, anticipating the effects and steering things in the direction they wish ([2], p. 997). Oppositional agency can be manifested in hackactivist practices, such as the modification of software to change or deconstruct existing rules and the design of subversive apps. Maximalist forms of technological agency refer to the development of alternative software and technical infrastructures for creating online spaces outside of corporate or state control.

3) Institutional or communicative agency: To explore user agency at the institutional level (the sphere of rule-making or governance) we draw on participatory and deliberative democracy theories. Participatory democracy theorists (Held, 1996; Macpherson, 1973; Pateman, 1970) stress the ability of individuals to take part in decision-making, have an equal chance to affect outcomes and thus acquire control over the structures in the various systems that concern and affect them (in [8], p. 260). The Habermasian notion of communicative rationality and discourse ethics is also revelant here as a normative yardstick, as it stresses the rational-critical, instead of instrumental, criteria for the process of decision-making which is essentially dialogical in character. That said, institutional or communicative agency can be defined as the capacity of users to equally participate in rule-making processes and act as deliberating agents (namely, being able to introduce any issue, express any attitude or need, question any assertion, and engage in argumentative discussion). In conditions of maximal agency, we would expect to encounter conditions for inclusion of all, discursive mechanisms for decision-making with user control over the rules of discussion, and an orientation toward rational-critical argumentation and public-oriented concerns. Examples of oppositional agency at this level can be found in the various organized protest actions and confrontations between users and powerful industries (the early anti-Microsoft and the current anti-Facebook campaigns), which may lead to political awareness, as users start acting like citizens and claim civil rights for their actions (e.g. Pirate Parties) (see [15] pp. 130-133).

4) Representational and semiotic agency: The fourth axis is related to the duality of users as content producers and recipients. The notion of representational agency is informed by post-Marxist discourse theory, articulated mainly by Laclau and Mouffe, and signifies the capacity of users to engage in discursive political struggles, disrupt dominant discourses, develop counterdiscourses, negotiate and reconstitute identities and subject positions, and develop autonomous self-representations. When researching agency at this level, the main question is whether social actors, especially those classes most vulnerable to exclusion and exploitation, find ways to bypass the steering mechanisms of web 2.0 environments to articulate subversive discourses that can acquire visibility and become influential in the broader public sphere. An interesting example tapping on gender relations, which stands at the intersection between algorithmic and representational agency, is the hacking of the video game ‘Legend of Zelda’ to reverse the roles of male and female characters in order to make Princess Zelda the hero and Link (the male hero character) the imprisoned damsel. Such practices challenge hegemonic gender discourses and thematize the broader issues of male dominance in software development and modification.

Many users, however, continue to be content consumers rather than ‘produsers’. Semiotic agency operates at the level of reception and refers, first, to the power to make meanings, the ability to think differently [19] or produce oppositional readings [17]. Second, an additional layer of semiotic activity should be added in the context of web 2.0, noticeable in the commenting culture of most mainstream media online spaces. Here, users mediate content produced by mainstream media or other authoritative sources, inserting a new layer of meaning between the original messages and the recipients of these messages. A question that needs to be asked in this context is the extent to which the forms of expression allowed to users in ‘participatory’ online spaces render them able to influence other users’ readings of messages through interjecting oppositional readings between media and audiences.

5) Collective agency: The mediation of collective action by communication technologies is of great significance and the relation between new media and protest/movement activity is a complex issue which cannot be discussed here. Looking for collective agency in web 2.0 environments entails an inquiry on the capacity of users to horizontally develop social relations, discover common positions, establish collective identities, form politicized communities and affinity groups, and mobilize collectively for online or offline action. We suggest that such activity would stand in contrast to the kind of individualism (even if it is networked) typically promoted by commercial online platforms, the type of pseudo- or consumer communities brought together by automated processes and interaction with technology without social interaction [15] or phenomena of ‘slacktivism’ considered by critics a form of inconsequential online political action (e.g. [20]).

6) Counter-ideological agency: Last but not least, an empirical inquiry on user agency needs to tap into the capacity of users to deconstruct naturalized meanings and popular myths about the nature and effects of web 2.0, for instance, regarding the unlimited and equal opportunities offered to everyone (especially less privileged actors) to acquire visibility, receive attention and exert political influence [21]. Recent developments (e.g. the Snowden revelations, the European Privacy Class Action against Facebook) have thematized issues of surveillance and privacy resulting in a heightened level of concern among users (see [22]. However, other aspects of exploitation and control remain largely unaddressed among common users (e.g. the issue of user labour, the perceived impossibility of opting-out). The empirical study on attitudes and cultures needs also to extend to counter-cultures of users that have quitted corporate platforms and moved to non-commercial alternatives.

Conclusion

Empirical research is urgently needed in critical internet studies, in order to open the ‘black box’ of user agency. The multilayered nature of web 2.0 calls for an equally multifaceted analytical approach, combining political economy, cultural studies and the critical analysis of technical infrastructures. The conceptualization of user agency laid out above is intended to contribute to the renewal of critical cultural studies regarding web 2.0, in order to identify repertoires of resistance and ultimately strengthen emerging oppositional user attitudes and cultures.

Notes

1 The closing down in 2014 of the alternative weekly Schnews in the UK is attributed, among other factors, to the detrimental effect of corporate social media: In their own words, “playing the Facebook game demands a huge amount of energy […] With complex advertising deals and algorithms determining what you do or don't see, maintaining an impact on social media requires hours and hours per week of social networking. For us, that hasn't been feasible” (http://www.schnews.org.uk/stories/AND-FINALLY/).

References

1. Allmer, T., Fuchs, C., Kreilinger, V., Sevignani, S. Social networking sites in the surveillance society: Critical perspectives and empirical findings. In Media, surveillance and identity: Social perspectives; Jansson, A., Christensen, M., Jansson, A., Eds.; Peter Lang: New York, NY, 2014; pp. 49-70.
2. Beer, D. Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society 2009, 11(6), 985-1002.
3. boyd, d.; Crawford, K. Critical Questions For Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon Information. Communication & Society 2012, 15(5), 662–679.
4. Bucher, T. Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society 2012, 14(7), 1164-1180.
5. Dean, J. Communicative Capitalism and Class Struggle. Spheres 2014, 1, 1-16.
6. van Dijck, J. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society 2009, 31(1), 41–58.
7. van Dijck, J. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013.
8. Fuchs, C. Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies; Routledge: London, UK, 2011.
9. Fuchs, C. Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime of time. Time & Society 2014, 23(1), 97-123.
10. Mager, A. Algorithmic Ideology: How capitalist society shapes search engines. Information, Communication & Society 2012, 15(5), 769–787.
11. Lash, S. Power after Hegemony: Cultural Studies in Mutation. Theory, Culture & Society 2007, 24(3), 55–78.
12. Hermida, A. Mechanisms of participation: how audience options shape the conversation. In Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers; Singer J., Hermida, A., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T. Reich, Z., Vujnovic, M.. Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 13-33.
13. Kperogi, F.A. Cooperation with the corporation? CNN and the hegemonic cooptation of citizen journalism through iReport.com. New Media & Society 2011, 13(2), 314–329.
14. Dahlberg, L. Cyberlibertarianism 2.0: A Discourse Theory/Critical Political Economy Examination. Cultural Politics 2010, 6(3), 331-356.
15. Schäfer, M.T. Bastard Culture! How User Participation Transforms Cultural Production; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011.
16. Pariser, E. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you; Viking: New York, NY, 2011.
17. Hall, S. Encoding/decoding. In Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks; Durham, M.G., Kellner, D., Eds.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2006/1980; pp. 163-173.
18. Thompson, J.B. The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, 1995.
19. Fiske, J. Reading The Popular. Unwin Hyman: Boston, MA, 1989.
20. Morozov, E. The Brave New World of Slacktivism; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104302141, 2009.
21. Dean, J. Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duke University Press: Durham, NC, 2009.
22. Allmer, T. (Dis)like Facebook? Dialectical and Critical Perspectives on Social Media. javnost-the public 2014, 21(2), 39-56.