Cited by 148Ethics and Social Impacts of AIBig Data Technologies and ApplicationsSocial Media and Politics

Known or knowing publics? Social media data mining and the question of public agency

Open access
Kennedy, Helen, Moss, Giles·2015·Big Data & Society

Abstract

New methods to analyse social media data provide a powerful way to know publics and capture what they say and do. At the same time, access to these methods is uneven, with corporations and governments tending to have best access to relevant data and analytics tools. Critics raise a number of concerns about the implications dominant uses of data mining and analytics may have for the public: they result in less privacy, more surveillance and social discrimination, and they provide new ways of controlling how publics come to be represented and so understood. In this paper, we consider if a different relationship between the public and data mining might be established, one in which publics might be said to have greater agency and reflexivity vis-à-vis data power. Drawing on growing calls for alternative data regimes and practices, we argue that to enable this different relationship, data mining and analytics need to be democratised in three ways: they should be subject to greater public supervision and regulation, available and accessible to all, and used to create not simply known but reflexive, active and knowing publics. We therefore imagine conditions in which data mining is not just used as a way to know publics, but can become a means for publics to know themselves.

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 · 10.1177/2053951715611145

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Democratizing data mining could enable groups to challenge injustices of misrecognition and misrepresentation, enabling 'knowing publics' based on self-identification and reflexivity rather than 'known publics' based on discrimination and subjectification.

    “Democratizing data mining, as Kennedy and Moss (2015) describe, could enable groups to challenge injustices of misrecognition and misrepresentation, enabling 'knowing publics' based on self-identification and reflexivity rather than 'known publics' based on discrimination and subjectification.”

    From Social Injustice in Surveillance Capitalism (2017) · cites this paper as Kennedy and Moss (2015)

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

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Andrejevic M (2011) The work that affective economics does. Cultural Studies 25(4-5): 604-620.
  2. Andrejevic M and Gates K (2014) Big Data surveillance: Introduction. Surveillance and Society 12(2): 185-196.
  3. Anstead N and O'Loughlin B (2015) Social media analysis and public opinion: The 2010 UK general election. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20(2): 204-220.
  4. Baack S (2015) Datafication and empowerment: How the open data movement re-articulates notions of democracy, participation and journalism. Big Data and Society. DOI: 10.1177/2053951715594634. · DOI
  5. Barnes T (2013) Big Data, little history. Dialogues in Human Geography 3(3): 297-302.
  6. Barnett C (2003) Culture and Democracy: Media, Space and Representation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  7. Barocas S, Hood S and Ziewitz M (2013) Governing algo- rithms: A provocation piece. Paper prepared for the ''Governing Algorithms'' conference, 16-17 May 2013, New York University. Available at: http://governingal- gorithms.org/resources/provocation-piece/ (accessed 4 June 2013).
  8. Barocas S and Selbst A (2014) Big Data's disparate impact. Social Science Research Network, SSRN. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstrac- t_id=2477899 (accessed 2 October 2014).
  9. Bates J (2013) Information policy and the crises of neoliberal- ism: The case of open government data in the UK. In: Proceedings of the IAMCR 2013 conference, Dublin, Ireland, 25-29 June. Available at: http://eprints.whitero- se.ac.uk/77655/7/WRR0_77655.pdf (accessed 29 September 2014).
  10. Beer D and Burrows R (2013) Popular culture, digital arch- ives and the new social life of data. Theory, Culture & Society 30(4): 47-71.
  11. Boyd D (2014) It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  12. Boyd D and Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological and schol- arly phenomenon. Information, Communication and Society 15(5): 662-679.
  13. Couldry N (2014) Inaugural: A necessary disenchantment: Myth, agency and injustice in a digital world. The Sociological Review 62(4): 880-897.
  14. Couldry N and Powell A (2014) Big Data from the bottom up. Big Data & Society. Epub ahead of print 2014. DOI: 10.1177/2053951714539277. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Couldry N and Turow J (2014) Advertising, Big Data and the clearance of the public realm: Marketers' new approaches to the content subsidy. International Journal of Communication 8: 1710-1726.
  16. Feenberg A (2002) Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory Re-visited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Freedman D (2012) Outsourcing internet regulation. In: Curran J, Fenton N and Freedman D (eds) Misunderstanding the Internet. London: Routledge.
  18. Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Oxford: Polity Press.
  19. Gillespie T (2014) The relevance of algorithms. In: Gillespie T, Boczkowski PJ and Foot KA (eds) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Available at: http://www.tar- letongillespie.org/essays/Gillespie%20-%20The%20Relev ance%20of%20Algorithms.pdf (accessed 12 January 2015).
  20. Habermas J (1997) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. London: Polity Press.
  21. Hintz (2014) Policy hacking: hackathons and policy code, Communication for Empowerment: citizens, markets, innovations. In: Proceedings of the ECREA Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 14 November.
  22. Housley W, Procter R, Edwards A, et al. (2014) Big and broad social data and the sociological imagination: A col- laborative response. Big Data and Society. Epub ahead of print 2014. DOI: 10.1177/2053951714545135 · DOI
  23. Kant T (2014) Giving the 'viewser' a voice? Situating the indi- vidual in relation to personalization, narrowcasting, and public service broadcasting. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58(3): 381-399.
  24. Manovich L (2011) Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. Available at: http://www.manovich.net/ DOCS/Manovich_trending_paper.pdf (Also in Gold MK (ed.) Debates in the Digital Humanities) (accessed 9 October 2013).
  25. Marres N (2012) The redistribution of methods: On interven- tion in digital social research, broadly conceived. The Sociological Review 60: 139-165.
  26. McQuail D (2003) Media Accountability and Freedom of Publication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  27. Osborne T and Rose N (1999) Do the social sciences create phenomena? The example of public opinion research. British Journal of Sociology 50: 367-396.
  28. Pariser E (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. London: Penguin Press.
  29. Pasquale F (2015) The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  30. Peters JD (1995) Historical tensions in the concept of public opinion. In: Glasser TL and Salmon CT (eds) Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent. Guilford Press.
  31. Silverstone R (2007) Media and Morality: On the Rise of the Mediapolis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  32. Trottier D (2012) Social Media as Surveillance: Rethinking Visibility in a Converging World. Farnham: Ashgate Press.
  33. Turow J (2012) The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  34. Van Dijck J and Poell T (2013) Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication 1(1): 2-14.
  35. Van Zoonen L (2014) Data delirium. Sociologie Magazine 22(3): 10.
  36. Young A and Quan-Haase A (2013) Privacy protection stra- tegies on Facebook. Information, Communication and Society 16(4): 479-500.
  37. Young IM (2002) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  38. Zarsky TZ (2004) Desperately seeking solutions: Using imple- mentation-based solutions for the troubles of information privacy in the age of data mining and the internet society. Maine Law Review 56: 13.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kennedy, H., & Moss, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Kennedy, Helen
Venue
Big Data & Society
Published
2015-10-20
Volume
2
Issue
2
ISSN
2053-9517 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125838851
Cited by
148
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
34.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Big Data & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K003585/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Big Data Technologies and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
social media mining, public agencies, reflexivity, data power, data regulation, surveillance, privacy, social discrimination

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