[Networked] Memory Institutions: Social Remembering, Privatization and its Discontents
Open accessAbstract
Memory institutions are social entities that select, document, contextualize, preserve, index and thus canonize elements of humanity's culture, historical narratives, individual and collective memories. Archives, museums and libraries are paradigmatic examples for traditional memory institutions. Content-sharing platforms, social networks, peer-to-peer file-sharing infrastructures, digital images agencies, online music stores and search engines' utilities represent emerging novel entities with a de-facto derivative function as networked memory institutions. This article includes an in-depth inquiry regarding the manners in which digitization and networked communication technologies implicate on the identity, structure and attributes of society's memory institutions. More specifically, I focus on privatization processes that networked memory institutions are increasingly undergoing. My basic hypothesis is that the transformation from tangible/analogue preservation to digitized cultural retrieval tends to result in intense privatization of society's memory institutions - both traditional and novel ones. Among other aspects, I examine the fundamental role of copyright law in facilitating and supporting these dynamics of privatization. The article then analyzes the consequences of privatizing memory institutions in the light of their unique social functions in a democratic culture. Commercialization and unequal participation are two elements that characterize privatized memory institutions and that may conflict with a democratic vision of social remembering. Privatized memory institutions also avoid institutional separation between the social function of cultural production and the social function of cultural preservation. The resulted outcome is that groups and sectors with dominant positions in contemporary media are able to reproduce, leverage and manipulate their social dominance from one generation to another. The power to remember, as well as the power to forget, is thus gradually being concentrated in clusters of commercial enterprises with very particular interests, beliefs, ideologies and preferences. I conclude with several reform proposals for deprivatizing networked memory institutions. As general matter of policy, reduced copyright protection is also likely to result in an equilibrium that strengthens the capacities of public-oriented memory institutions while reducing the incentives - and therefore the dominance - of commercial intermediaries entering this field. More specifically, I focus on two distinct types of reforms. One type of reform proposals focuses on ex-ante copyright privileges for networked memory institutions. The second type of reforms introduces my novel proposal to impose ex-post obligations on networked memory institutions. I argue that deprivatization of memory institutions requires also regulation that takes into account and moderates imbalanced proprietary regimes of networked memory institutions. Based on this argument, I offer a complementary set of reciprocal share-alike obligations that come on top of the general ex-ante privileges that memory institutions should benefit from.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
As private technology companies became increasingly involved in collective social remembering, the power to remember and to forget were gradually being concentrated in clusters of commercial enterprises with very particular interests, beliefs, ideologies, and preferences.
“As private technology companies became increasingly involved in collective social remembering, Pessach (2008: 74) argued that the power to remember and to forget were ' gradually being concentrated in clusters of commercial enterprises with very particular interests, beliefs, ideologies, and preferences ' .”
From Google Arts & Culture and the platformization of cultural heritage: Convergence, gamification, and shifting positions of institutional partners (2026) · cites this paper as Pessach, 2008
Commercial repositories emerging in the 2000s for the production and distribution of cultural works took on a derivative function in shaping cultural representations and preserving social memory, effectively functioning as networked memory institutions.
“Responding in part to the growing privatization of public cultural memory, Pessach (2008: 73) observed that commercial repositories emerging in the 2000s for the production and distribution of cultural works -such as Getty Images, iTunes Music Store, and Google Books -took on a derivative function in shaping cultural representations and preserving social memory, effectively functioning as network”
From Google Arts & Culture and the platformization of cultural heritage: Convergence, gamification, and shifting positions of institutional partners (2026) · cites this paper as Pessach, 2008
These trends of convergence, both within and beyond cultural heritage institutions, are increasingly enabled, and controlled, by private technology companies.
“Importantly, these trends of convergence, both within and beyond cultural heritage institutions, are increasingly enabled, and controlled, by private technology companies.”
From Google Arts & Culture and the platformization of cultural heritage: Convergence, gamification, and shifting positions of institutional partners (2026) · cites this paper as Pessach, 2008
This consolidation marked a broader process of convergence: not only of art, heritage, and historical content, but also of web traffic and user attention, which were progressively redirected away from partner institutions' own online environments toward a networked memory institution deeply embedded within Google's wider ecosystem.
“This consolidation marked a broader process of convergence (Jenkins, 2006): not only of art, heritage, and historical content, but also of web traffic and user attention, which were progressively redirected away from partner institutions ' own online environments toward a networked memory institution (Pessach, 2008) deeply embedded within Google ' s wider ecosystem.”
From Google Arts & Culture and the platformization of cultural heritage: Convergence, gamification, and shifting positions of institutional partners (2026) · cites this paper as Pessach, 2008
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cao, T. L. (2025) · Platforms & Society · doi:10.1177/29768624251349092 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Cao, T. L. (2026) · Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565261431167
- Authors
- Pessach, G.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Pessach, Guy
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2256273968
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Digital and Traditional Archives Management
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Memory, Trauma, and Commemoration
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Intellectual Property Rights and Media
- Keywords
- cultural heritage institutions, privatization, copyright law, digitization, social remembering, archives, museums, libraries, content sharing platforms, social networks, peer-to-peer file sharing, commercialization, deprivatization, cultural preservation, democratic culture, cultural policy reform
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