CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Cultural Studies and PostmodernismMedia and Digital CommunicationDigital Media and Philosophy

Tweeting ourselves to death: the cultural logic of digital capitalism

Open access
Törnberg, Petter, Uitermark, Justus·2022·Media, Culture & Society
DOI 10.1177/01634437211053766
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Media scholarship has long argued that public discourse is a function of the architecture of the media by which it is carried. Media architecture is, as political economists have argued, in turn shaped by the capitalist regime of accumulation within which the media operate. This paper draws together these two strands of literature to ask: as the accumulation of data is coming to define contemporary capitalism, what cultural logic does this produce? The paper argues that, as media are shaped around the extracting user data, they become organized around personhood and the extension of commodification deeper into our sense of self. The lifestyle fragmentation and segmentation engendered by new media technologies carry over into public discourse, shaping a public, and political life defined by identity and difference. If, as Neil Postman suggested, a society’s way of knowing reflects its media technology, the emerging epistemology of the social media society is truth as identity, as our very ways of knowing are reduced to expressions of who we are.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/01634437211053766

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Digital media do not isolate individuals from opposing ideas; they bring them to interact with individuals outside their local bubble and force them to take sides.

    “This literature suggests that digital media do not isolate us from opposing ideas; au contraire, they bring us to interact with individuals outside our local bubble, and they throw us into a political war, in which we are forced to take sides (25–27).”

    From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

    In “Political discourse as self-presentation” (page unavailable), the paper says messages from opposing groups are common on social media and can fuel outrage and strengthen group identity; it also describes a broader political culture war. But it says social media cluster users into echo chambers or filter bubbles, and it does not establish that users interact with people outside those groups or are forced to take sides. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Digital media brings individuals into interaction with others outside their local network.

    “The parameter γ thus represents a simple way of capturing the empirically observed effect of digital media: digital media means that individuals are brought into interaction with others outside their local network.”

    From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

  • Digital media are spaces for social identity formation and for symbolic displays of solidarity with allies and difference from outgroups.

    “The model thus suggests rethinking digital media as not merely arenas for rational deliberation and political debate but as spaces for social identity formation and for symbolic displays of solidarity with allies and difference from outgroups (27).”

    From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 65 · Cited by 33

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Abidin C (2018) Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
  2. Achen CH and Bartels LM (2017) Democracy for Realists. New York: Princeton University Press.
  3. Alford JR, Hatemi PK, Hibbing JR, et al. (2011) The politics of mate choice. The Journal of Politics 73(2): 362-379.
  4. Altheide DL and Snow PR (1979) Media Logic. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
  5. Amin A (1994) Post-Fordism: A reader. London: John Wiley & Sons.
  6. Bafumi J and Shapiro RY (2009) A new partisan voter. The Journal of Politics 71(1): 1-24.
  7. Baudrillard J (1994) Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  8. Baudrillard J (2016) The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. London: SAGE.
  9. Bennett T, Savage M, Silva EB, et al. (2009) Culture, Class, Distinction. London: Routledge.
  10. Berry JM and Sobieraj S (2013) The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Boltanski L and Chiapello E (2005) The new spirit of capitalism. International Journal of Politics Culture and Society 18(3-4): 161-188.
  12. Bourdieu P (1979) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
  13. Castells M (2010) Communication power: Mass communication, mass self-communication, and power relationships in the network society. Medicine and Society 25(5): 3-17.
  14. Castells M (2013) Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Collins R (2012) C-escalation and d-escalation: A theory of the time-dynamics of conflict. American Sociological Review 77(1): 1-20.
  16. Couldry N and Mejias UA (2020) The Costs of Connection: How Data Are Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Cramer KJ (2016) The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  18. Currid-Halkett E (2017) The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  19. Dean J (2005) Communicative capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics. Culture and Politics 1(1): 51-74.
  20. DellaPosta D, Shi Y and Macy M (2015) Why do liberals drink lattes? American Journal of Sociology 120(5): 1473-1511.
  21. Featherstone M (1987) Lifestyle and consumer culture. Theory Culture & Society 4(1): 55-70.
  22. Foster JB and McChesney RW (2014) Surveillance capitalism: Monopoly-finance capital, the military-industrial complex, and the digital age. Monthly Review 66(3): 1.
  23. Gartman D (1998) Postmodernism; or, the cultural logic of post-fordism? Sociological Quarterly 39(1): 119-137.
  24. Gartman D (2004) Three ages of the automobile: The cultural logics of the car. Theory Culture & Society 21(4-5): 169-195.
  25. Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  26. Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
  27. Hall S and Jacques M (1989) New Times: The Changing Face of Politics in the 1990s. New York: New York University Press.
  28. Harvey D (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
  29. Harvey D (1991) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
  30. Hearn A (2008) Meat, mask, burden: Probing the contours of the brandedself. Journal of Consumer Culture 8(2): 197-217.
  31. Hebdige D (1994) After the masses. In: Dirks NB, Eley G and Ortner SA (eds) A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory. Princeton; NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.222-235.
  32. Huddy L, Mason L and Aarøe L (2015) Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review 109(1): 1-17.
  33. Innis H (1950) Empire and Communications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  34. Innis H (1951) The Bias of Communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  35. Jacoby WG (2014) Is there a culture war? Conflicting value structures in American public opinion. American Political Science Review 108(4): 754-771.
  36. Jameson F (1991) Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Duke University Press.
  37. Klofstad CA, McDermott R and Hatemi PK (2013) The dating preferences of liberals and con- servatives. Political Behavior 35(3): 519-538.
  38. Mc Combs M, Shaw DL and Weaver DH (1997) Communication and Democracy: Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory. New York: Psychology Press.
  39. McLuhan M (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  40. Marwick AE (2013) Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  41. Marwick AE (2015) Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public Culture 27(1): 137-160.
  42. Mason L (2016) A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1): 351-377.
  43. Mort F (1989) The politics of consumption. In: Hall S and Jacques M (eds) New Times: The Changing Face of Politics in the 1990s. London: Lawrence and Wishart, pp.160-172.
  44. Murray R (1989) Fordism and post-Fordism. In: Stuart H and Martin J (eds) New Times: The Shape of Politics in the 1990's. London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp.38-54.
  45. Papacharissi Z (2011) A Networked Self. New York: Routledge, p.304.
  46. Pariser E (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You. New York: Penguin UK.
  47. Postman N (1985) Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin.
  48. Quattrociocchi W, Scala A and Sunstein CR (2016) Echo chambers on facebook. arXiv:1411.2893 51(2015): 1-12. · arXiv
  49. Sadowski J (2019) When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society 6(1): 2053951718820549.
  50. Sadowski J (2020) Too Smart: How Digital Capitalism is Extracting Data, Controlling Our Lives, and Taking Over the World. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  51. Srnicek N (2017) Platform Capitalism. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  52. Tajfel H (1974) Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information 13(2): 65-93.
  53. Tajfel H and Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations 33(47): 74.
  54. Uski S and Lampinen A (2016) Social norms and self-presentation on social network sites: Profile work in action. New Media & Society 18(3): 447-464.
  55. Van Dijck J (2013) 'You have one identity': Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media Culture & Society 35(2): 199-215.
  56. Van Dijck J (2014) Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society 12(2): 197-208.
  57. Van Dijck J and Poell T (2013) Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication 1(1): 2-14.
  58. Veszelszki Á (2018) Like economy: What is the economic value of likes? Society and Economy 40(3): 417-429.

Authors
Törnberg, P., & Uitermark, J.
Affiliations
  • Netherlands Institute for Social Research (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Törnberg, Petter
ORCID
Venue
Media, Culture & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-10-22
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
574-590
ISSN
  • 0163-4437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3675
DOI
10.1177/01634437211053766
OpenAlex
W3211199043
Cited by
33
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4
FWCI
7.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Media Culture & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (ODYCCEUS, grant agreement No. 732942)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
Keywords
digital capitalism, data accumulation, commodification of the self, personhood, media architecture, accumulation regime, segmentation, public discourse, identity and difference, Neil Postman

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review