From Matchmaking to Boundary Making: Thinking Infrastructures and Decentring Digital Platforms in the Sharing Economy

R. Pujadas, Daniel Curto-Millet
{"title":"From Matchmaking to Boundary Making: Thinking Infrastructures and Decentring Digital Platforms in the Sharing Economy","authors":"R. Pujadas, Daniel Curto-Millet","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000062017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While digital platforms tend to be unproblematically presented as the infrastructure of the sharing economy – as matchmakers of supply and demand – the authors argue that constituting the boundaries of infrastructures is political and performative, that is, it is implicated in ontological politics, with consequences for the distribution of responsibilities (Latour, 2003; Mol, 1999, 2013; Woolgar & Lezaun, 2013). Drawing on an empirical case study of Uber, including an analysis of court cases, the authors investigate the material-discursive production of digital platforms and their participation in the reconfiguring of the world (Barad, 2007), and examine how the (in)visibility of the digital infrastructure is mobilized (Larkin, 2013) to this effect. The authors argue that the representation of Uber as a “digital platform,” as “just the technological infrastructure” connecting car drivers with clients, is a political act that attempts to redefine social responsibilities, while obscuring important dimensions of the algorithmic infrastructure that regulates this socioeconomic practice. The authors also show how some of these (in)visibilities become exposed in court, and some of the boundaries reshaped, with implications for the constitution of objects, subjects and their responsibilities. Thus, while thinking infrastructures do play a role in regulating and shaping practice through algorithms, it could be otherwise. Thinking infrastructures relationally decentre digital platforms and encourage us to study them as part of ongoing and contested entanglements in practice.","PeriodicalId":259781,"journal":{"name":"Thinking Infrastructures","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking Infrastructures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000062017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

While digital platforms tend to be unproblematically presented as the infrastructure of the sharing economy – as matchmakers of supply and demand – the authors argue that constituting the boundaries of infrastructures is political and performative, that is, it is implicated in ontological politics, with consequences for the distribution of responsibilities (Latour, 2003; Mol, 1999, 2013; Woolgar & Lezaun, 2013). Drawing on an empirical case study of Uber, including an analysis of court cases, the authors investigate the material-discursive production of digital platforms and their participation in the reconfiguring of the world (Barad, 2007), and examine how the (in)visibility of the digital infrastructure is mobilized (Larkin, 2013) to this effect. The authors argue that the representation of Uber as a “digital platform,” as “just the technological infrastructure” connecting car drivers with clients, is a political act that attempts to redefine social responsibilities, while obscuring important dimensions of the algorithmic infrastructure that regulates this socioeconomic practice. The authors also show how some of these (in)visibilities become exposed in court, and some of the boundaries reshaped, with implications for the constitution of objects, subjects and their responsibilities. Thus, while thinking infrastructures do play a role in regulating and shaping practice through algorithms, it could be otherwise. Thinking infrastructures relationally decentre digital platforms and encourage us to study them as part of ongoing and contested entanglements in practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从配对到边界:共享经济中思考基础设施与去中心化数字平台
虽然数字平台往往毫无疑问地被呈现为共享经济的基础设施——作为供需的媒人——但作者认为,构成基础设施的边界是政治性和表演性的,也就是说,它涉及到本体论政治,并对责任分配产生影响(Latour, 2003;Mol, 1999,2013;Woolgar & Lezaun, 2013)。通过对Uber的实证案例研究,包括对法庭案件的分析,作者调查了数字平台的物质话语生产及其对世界重新配置的参与(Barad, 2007),并研究了如何动员数字基础设施的可见性(Larkin, 2013)来达到这一效果。作者认为,将优步描述为一个“数字平台”,作为连接汽车司机和客户的“技术基础设施”,是一种试图重新定义社会责任的政治行为,同时模糊了规范这种社会经济实践的算法基础设施的重要维度。作者还展示了其中一些可见性是如何在法庭上暴露出来的,以及一些边界是如何被重塑的,这对客体、主体及其责任的构成产生了影响。因此,虽然思维基础设施确实在通过算法调节和塑造实践方面发挥了作用,但情况可能并非如此。思维基础设施相对分散了数字平台,并鼓励我们将其作为实践中持续和有争议的纠缠的一部分进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Thinking Infrastructure and the Organization of Markets: The Creation of a Legal Market for Cannabis in Colorado Introduction to Thinking Infrastructures Performing Apparatus: Infrastructures of Valuation in Hospitality Indexal Thinking – Reconfiguring Global Topologies for Market-Based Intervention Thinking Transparency in European Securitization: Repurposing the Market’s Information Infrastructures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1