The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Future imaginaries in the making and governing of digital technology: Multiple, contested, commodified
Open accessAbstract
Visions of the future are omnipresent in current debates about the digital transformation. This introductory article and the full special issue are concerned with the function, power, and performativity of future visions and how they relate to the making and governing of digital technology. Revisiting existing concepts, we particularly discuss and advance the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries. In difference to ephemeral visions and partisan ideas, imaginaries are collectively held and institutionally stabilized. Nonetheless, we hold that they are multiple, contested, and commodified rather than monolithic, linear visions of future trajectories enacted by state actors. Introducing and summarizing the articles of the special issue, we conclude that imaginaries are increasingly dominated by technology companies that not only take over the imaginative power of shaping future society, but also partly absorb public institutions’ ability to govern these very futures with their rhetoric, technologies, and business models.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 2×
“While tech companies’ strong discursive and technological clutch to shape and govern future developments is evident in the case of platforms (Gillespie, 2010; Poell et al., 2019), it is becoming increasingly relevant in the intense debate about AI.”
Background
Cited by
Depounti, I., Saukko, P., & Natale, S. (2023) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/01634437221119021 · Cited by 128
Kaun, A. (2022) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1924827 · Cited by 97
Lifting the curtain: Strategic visibility of human labour in AI-as-a-Service
Newlands, G. (2021) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517211016026 · Cited by 66
Sigfrids, A., Nieminen, M., Leikas, J., & Pikkuaho, P. (2022) · Frontiers in Human Dynamics · doi:10.3389/fhumd.2022.858108 · Cited by 50
“However, as a basis for AI governance, ethical principles face problems of weak operationalization and implementation through governmental policies and organizational practices (Mittelstadt, 2019; Hagendorff, 2020; Larsson, 2020; Morley et al., 2020; Stix, 2021).”
BackgroundEsko, T., & Koulu, R. (2023) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517231164113 · Cited by 21
(2024) · doi:10.1145/3666094.3666110 · Cited by 20
Hesselmann, F. (2023) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-022-09484-7 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Mager, A., & Katzenbach, C.
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-02
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 223-236
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W3135573933
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 44.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
