CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Commodification of the Couch: A Dialectical Analysis of Hospitality Exchange Platforms

Schöpf, Simon·2015·tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society
DOI 10.31269/triplec.v13i1.480
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Online hospitality exchange (HospEx) platforms—essentially facilitating the connection between a traveller and a local resident—embody many of the cyber-utopian promises intrinsic to the Web as it started out 25 years ago. This paper investigates upon the antagonistic struggle between the commons and processes of commodification in the light of critical theory of social media for this niche social networking space and introduces two relevant examples. The biggest of those platforms, Couchsurfing.org, changed its organizational orientation from a non-profit, commons-based project towards a for-profit company in 2011—an instance of commodification. An analysis of both quantitative and qualitative community data shows that the transformation consequently concerns members on multiple levels. The structural change of ownership results in a loss of transparency and privacy, an alteration of the platform’s integrity, a sacrifice of the “uniqueness” of the community, and a differing relationship between the user and the platform. To discuss an alternative, community-based governance approach, the paper further explores the specifics of a platform guided by the logic of the commons, the non-commercial and non-profit HospEx platform BeWelcome.org.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31269/triplec.v13i1.480

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Bollier, David. 2007. The Growth of the Commons Paradigm. In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, ed. Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  2. Boyle, James. 2008. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. New Haven: Yale Uni- versity Press.
  3. Bruns, A, T Highfield, and R A Lind. 2012. Blogs, Twitter, and Breaking News: the Produsage of Citi- zen Journalism. Produsing Theory in a Digital World: The Intersection of Audiences and Production in Contemporary Theory 80 (2012): 15-32.
  4. Castells, Manuel. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Curran, James. 2012. Rethinking Internet History. In Misunderstanding the Internet, ed. James Cur- ran, Natalie Fenton, and Des Freedman, 34-65. London: Routledge.
  6. Dean, Jodi. 2009. Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies. Durham: Duke University Press.
  7. Deuze, Mark. 2006. Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Principal Components of a Digital Culture. Information Society 22 (2): 63-75.
  8. Feldman, Zeena. 2012. Beyond Freedom and Oppression-Social Media, Refusal, and the Politics of Participation. In Selected Papers in Internet Research. Vol. 2. Association of Internet Researchers.
  9. Fuchs, Christian. 2009. Information and Communication Technologies and Society: a Contribution to the Critique of the Political Economy of the Internet. European Journal of Communication 24 (1): 69-87.
  10. Fuchs, Christian. 2011. Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies. New York: Routledge.
  11. Fuchs, Christian. 2014b. Digital Labour and Karl Marx. New York: Routledge.
  12. Gillespie, Tarleton. 2010. "The Politics of 'Platforms'." New Media & Society 12 (3): 347-364.
  13. Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  14. Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2009. Commonwealth. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  15. Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom, eds. 2007. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. Boston: MIT Press.
  16. Kreps, David, and Erika Pearson. 2009. Community as Commodity: Social Networking and Transna- tional Capitalism. In Virtual Social Networks: Mediated, Massive and Multiplayer Sites, 155-174. London: Palgrave.
  17. Leon, Pedro, Blase Ur, Richard Shay, Yang Wang, Rebecca Balebako, and Lorrie Cranor. 2012. Why Johnny Can't Opt Out: a Usability Evaluation of Tools to Limit Online Behavioral Advertising.. Aus- tin, Texas: ACM Press.
  18. Mansell, Robin. 2012. Imagining the Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. McChesney, Robert W. 2013. Digital Disconnect. New York: The New Press.
  20. Molz, Jennie Germann. 2012b. Travel Connections: Tourism, Technology and Togetherness in a Mo- bile World. International Library of Sociology. New York: Routledge.
  21. Mosco, Vincent. 2005. The Digital Sublime. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  22. Mosco, Vincent. 2009. The Political Economy of Communication. Second Edition. London: Sage.
  23. Murdock, Graham. 2013. "Communication in Common." International Journal of Communication 7 (0) (January 15): 19.
  24. Olsson, Tobias. 2014. "'The Architecture of Participation': for Citizens or Consumers?." In Critique, Social Media and the Information Society, edited by Christian Fuchs and Marisol Sandoval. Lon- don: Routledge.
  25. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Polit- ical Economy of Institutions and Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Rheingold, Howard. 2000. The Virtual Community. 2nd ed. Boston: MIT Press. http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/intro.html.
  27. Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  28. Sandoval, Marisol. 2014. Social Media? the Unsocial Character of Capitalist Media. In Critique, Social Media and the Information Society, edited by Christian Fuchs and Marisol Sandoval. New York: Routledge.
  29. Edited by David Hutchison, Takeo Kanade, Josef Kittler, Jon M Kleinberg, Friedemann Mattern, John C Mitchell, Moni Naor, et al. Trust and Trustworthy Computing 6101 (Chapter 27): 367-380.
  30. Terranova, Tiziana. 2013. Free Labor. In Digital Labour. the Internet as Playground and Factory., 33- 57. New York: Routledge.
  31. Van Dijck, José. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schöpf, S.
Affiliations
University of Innsbruck
Venue
tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society
Publisher
Information Society Research
Published
2015-01-25
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
11-34
ISSN
1726-670X
DOI
10.31269/triplec.v13i1.480
Cited by
6
References
2

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