Bitcoin is a decentralised currency and payment system that seeks to eliminate the need for trusted authorities. It relies on a peer-to-peer network and cryptographic protocols to perform the functions of traditional financial intermediaries, such as verifying transactions and preserving the integrity of the system. This article examines the political economy of Bitcoin, in light of a recent dispute that divided the Bitcoin community with regard to a seemingly simple technical issue: whether or not to increase the block size of the Bitcoin blockchain. By looking at the socio-technical constructs of Bitcoin, the article distinguishes between two distinct coordination mechanisms: governance by the infrastructure (achieved via the Bitcoin protocol) and governance of the infrastructure (managed by the community of developers and other stakeholders). It then analyses the invisible politics inherent in these two mechanisms, which together display a highly technocratic power structure. On the one hand, as an attempt to be self-governing and self-sustaining, the Bitcoin network exhibits a strong market-driven approach to social trust and coordination, which has been embedded directly into the technical protocol. On the other hand, despite being an open source project, the development and maintenance of the Bitcoin code ultimately relies on a small core of highly skilled developers who play a key role in the design of the platform.

The many shades of digital vigilantism.

Drawing mainly on the e-Diasporas Atlas project (www.e-diasporas.fr), this article seeks to understand how the Web has affected diasporic self-representations. More specifically, by engaging with both media theory and migration studies, it addresses the new modes of boundary formations that arise in the context of migration flows, and how these are mediated by the Web. It sheds light on two main levels of online diasporic identity-building. The first can be situated firmly within a paradigm of 'graphic reason', and relates to the sociosemiotic traces documented on diasporic websites. The second examines traces of another kind, which are formed by the hyperlinked networks of e-Diasporas on the Web, and which can be situated within a paradigm of 'digital reason'. Some of the consequences for diasporic identity-formation are drawn out, particularly issues relating to strategies of visibility on the Web.

In Russia, since 2011, the Yandex.News aggregator (Yandex.Novosti) — the Russian equivalent to Google News — has been suspected of political bias in the context of protests against electoral fraud followed by the Ukrainian crisis. This article first outlines the issues associated with automated news recommendation systems, their role as “algorithmic gatekeepers” and the questions they raise in terms of news diversity and possible manipulation. It then analyses the controversies which have developed around Yandex.News, particularly since the authorities have decided to regulate the way it operates through a law adopted in 2016. Finally, it provides an audit of Yandex.News aggregation in 2020, through a quantitative analysis of its database of sources and of the Top 5 results presented on the Yandex homepage. It shows the discrepancy between the diversity of the Russian online mediasphere and the narrowness of the Yandex.News media sample. This research contributes to the sociology of digital platforms and the study of “governance by algorithms”, showing how the Yandex news aggregator is a key asset in the Russian government’s overall disciplining of the country’s media and digital public sphere, in an ongoing effort to assert “digital sovereignty”.

State control over the Russian internet (Runet) has been enforced by dedicated administrations and private digital entrepreneurs since the early 2010s. Along with them, groups of digital vigilantes report on "negative" online content and claim to be fighting against activities considered to be criminal or contrary to social norms. However, their ideological convictions and moral supports are diverse and changing. This article analyses two nonprofits: Molodezhnaia Sluzhba Bezopasnosti (MSB, Youth Security Service) and Liga Bezopasnogo Interneta (LBI, Safe Internet League), which sponsors an emergent "cyber Cossack" movement. MSB, which can be referred to as "citizen investigators," has developed a high degree of technical and legal experience and cooperates actively with the police. LBI promotes a conservative vigilantism to ensure "virtuous browsing," with a strong focus on education. In March 2019 hearings at the Russian Civic Chamber on a bill addressing the activity of kiberdruzhiny (cyber patrols) revealed tensions between the "politically involved" (Duma members and kiberdruzhiny's organizations) supporting the bill and the "experts" (representatives of internet companies and security specialists) opposed to it alleging the proposed law's inefficiency. A third group, the supporters of a free and democratic Runet, is absent from the official debates but speaks out on social networks and through independent media against the development of civil surveillance.