CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationCultural Studies and Postmodernism

Deconstructing datafication’s brave new world

Open access
Couldry, Nick, Yu, Jun·2018·New Media & Society
DOI 10.1177/1461444818775968
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As World Economic Forum’s definition of personal data as ‘the new “oil” – a valuable resource of the 21st century’ shows, large-scale data processing is increasingly considered the defining feature of contemporary economy and society. Commercial and governmental discourse on data frequently argues its benefits, and so legitimates its continuous and large-scale extraction and processing as the starting point for developments in specific industries, and potentially as the basis for societies as a whole. Against the background of the General Data Protection Regulation, this article unravels how general discourse on data covers over the social practices enabling collection of data, through the analysis of high-profile business reports and case studies of health and education sectors. We show how conceptualisation of data as having a natural basis in the everyday world protects data collection from ethical questioning while endorsing the use and free flow of data within corporate control, at the expense of its potentially negative impacts on personal autonomy and human freedom.

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 · 10.1177/1461444818775968

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • AI-powered tools embedded in social platforms may influence civic discourse by prioritizing algorithmic popularity over democratic deliberation.

    “Yet, outreach strategies must also remain vigilant: AI-powered tools embedded in social platforms (e.g., chatbots like Meta AI) may influence civic discourse by prioritizing algorithmic popularity over democratic deliberation (Couldry and Yu 2018; Gal 2025).”

    From Digital civics in action: the promise and emerging practices of generative AI in grassroots community advocacy (2026) · cites this paper as Couldry and Yu 2018

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) argues that continuous data surveillance is not readily compatible with democratic practices, supporting a general concern about digital systems and democracy. It does not address AI chatbots on social platforms, civic discourse, or a preference for algorithmic popularity over democratic deliberation. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [2]2. Alaimo C and Kallinikos J (2017) Computing the Everyday. The Information Society 33(4): 175-191.
  2. [4]4. Andrejevic M (2013) Infoglut. New York: Routledge.
  3. [7]7. boyd d and Crawford K (2012) Critical Questions for Big Data. Information, Communication and Society 15(5): 662-679.
  4. [8]8. Bowker GC and Star SL (1999) Sorting Things Out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  5. [14]14. Gandy OH (1993) The Panoptic Sort. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. (The) German Constitution. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html (accessed 10 September 2017)
  6. [15]15. Giroux H (1998) Education Incorporated? Corporate Culture and the Challenge of Public Schooling. Educational Leadership 56(2): 12-17.
  7. [20]20. Honneth A (2008) Reification. Jay M (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. [21]21. Hornung G and Schnabel C (2009) Data protection in Germany I. Computer Law and Security Review 25(1): 84-88.
  9. [22]22. Ibarra IA, Goff L, Hernandez DJ, Lanier J and Wely G (2017) Should We Treat Data as Labor? Moving Beyond 'Free'. American Economic Association Papers & Proceedings 1(1): forthcoming. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3093683 (accessed 3 January 2018)
  10. [23]23. IBM (2016) First IBM Watson Education App for iPad Delivers Personalized Learning for K-12 Teachers and Students. Available at: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/50815.wss (accessed 10 September 2017)
  11. [26]26. Kaplan B (2015) Selling Health Data. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24(3): 256-271.
  12. [31]31. Lupton D (2016a) The diverse domains of quantified selves. Economy and Society 45(1): 101-122.
  13. [32]32. Lupton D (2016b) The Quantified Self. Cambridge: Polity.
  14. [37]37. Pearson (2014a) Impacts of the Digital Ocean on Education. Report, February 2014. Available at: https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot- com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/DigitalOcean.pdf (accessed 15 September 2017)
  15. [38]38. Pearson (2014b) Preparing for a Renaissance in Assessment. Report, December 2014. Available at: https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot- com/uk/documents/educator/primary/preparing_for_a_renaissance_in_assessment_and_ summary_text_december_2014.pdf
  16. [40]40. Porter TM (1996) Trust in Numbers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  17. [41]41. Quan-Haase A and Wellman B (2005) Hyperconnected Net Work. Working Paper Series, KMDI-WP-2005-2, 9 June 2005. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/41ec/9ad4f369d6ff7610554739b7c9ee0752d7cd.pdf (accessed 05 September 2017)
  18. [42]42. Richards N (2015) Intellectual Privacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  19. [43]43. Rifkin J (2013) The Zero Marginal Cost Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  20. [44]44. Rouvroy A and Poullet Y (2009) The right to informational self-determination and the value of self-development. In: Gutwirth S, Poullet Y, De Hert P, De Terwangne C and Nouwt S (eds) Reinventing Data Protection? New York: Springer, pp.45-76.
  21. [52]52. Van Dijck J (2014) Datafication, dataism and dataveillance. Surveillance and Society 12(2): 197-208.
  22. [53]53. Van Dijck J and Nieborg D (2009) Wikinomics and its discontents. New Media and Society 11(5): 855-874. The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy] (2017) Big Data and Security Policies. WRR-Policy Brief 6, January 2017. Available at: https://english.wrr.nl/binaries/wrr-eng/documents/policy-briefs/2017/01/31/big-data- and-security-policies-serving-security-protecting- freedom/WRR_PB6_BigDataAndSecurityPolicies.pdf (accessed 10 September 2017)
  23. [57]57. Williamson B (2016) Calculating Children in the Dataveillance School. In: Taylor E and Rooney T (eds) Surveillance Futures. London: Routledge, pp.50-66.
  24. [66]66. Zuboff S (2015) Big Other. Journal of Information Technology 30(1): 75-89.
  25. [71]71. Hegel, Encyclopedia in Collected Works, vol. 8, page 84, quoted by Pippin (2008: 186).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Couldry, N., & Yu, J.
Affiliations
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
ORCID
Venue
New Media & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-05-19
Volume
20
Issue
12
Pages
4473-4491
ISSN
  • 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7315
DOI
10.1177/1461444818775968
OpenAlex
W2799457552
Cited by
116
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3
FWCI
31.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • New Media & Society (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation
  • University of Chicago
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
Keywords
datafication, personal data, General Data Protection Regulation, data ethics, data collection, individual autonomy, health data, educational data, business reports

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