# Chapter 1: What are socio-digital platforms?

## Abstract

*NB*: Chapter 2 is 6500 words right now.

# Abstract

In this chapter, we describes platforms and provide some illustrative and illustrous examples. Our distinctive approach to platforms is informed by a Science and Technology Studies perspective, so that we refer to socio-digital platforms. Nonetheless, we take stock of a range of disciplinary perspectives on platforms in the course of putting forth our own undersanding. The next chapters address the history, critique and alternatives of platforms, respectively. Therefore, we can concentrate on the discussion of platforms as a stable contemporary social formation in this chapter.

## Outline

In the introduction, we use Poell et al's paper as a starting point, before introducing our three-level scale-oriented model. We approach socio-digital platforms on three levels:

1. As *devices* (apparatus) where the digital manifest is code in use (also interfaces).
* This is important because materiality is often overlooked in more high-level discussions of platforms.
2. As *socio-technical systems* (large technological infrastructures à la Hughes) or ecosystems involving standards, infrastructures from running code to development pipelines to office buildings, legal entitites from licences to companies, etc.
3. As specific *political-economical formations* [socio-economical], since GAFAM type companies achieved a particular (and particularly problematic) role in contemporary society. Note: in this third sense at least, our main example, IRC, is not a platform!
4. Platforms vs. the concept of unfinished artifact (cf. Andreesen's def. of platforms cited in @Helmond2015a) and recuperation.

# Notes

This is a good summary of the Srnicek book on Platform capitalism:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2017/06/05/book-review-platform-capitalism-by-nick-srnicek/

There was an idea that platforms create new markets, instead of getting into a particular position in a particular market segment. The blog post above mentions something similar:

> According to Srnicek, platforms embody four characteristics. Firstly, they are intermediary digital infrastructures that enable different user groups – ‘customers, advertisers, service providers, producers, suppliers, and even physical objects’ – to interact (43). Some platforms further empower users ‘with a series of tools that enable [them] to build their own products, services, and marketplaces’ (43).

The last sentence ends with mentioning marketplaces. He claims that platforms empower users to build their own marketplaces. I would not go as far as that, and I am not sure he would do either. However, it is an interesting hypothesis that to some extent platforms invent new markets, even if these partly eclipse, surpass or overcome some other, already existing markets. Of course, if we are gona use this idea to define platforms, then what the answer depends on is how we first define markets.

***

Later in the blog post there is a more particular reference to this news item:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/magazine/platform-companies-are-becoming-more-powerful-but-what-exactly-do-they-want.html

> if successful, a platform creates its own marketplace; if extremely successful, it ends up controlling something closer to an entire economy.

From my reading of the platform studies literature, this has not been argued with that plain and simple clarity so far in the platform literature, so we might capitalise on the notion, and quote research that goes in a similar direction. However, we should keep it consistent with the overall argument and contribution of our book. This needs some more thinking through, I guess.

## References