Over the past decade, public service media (PSM) have increasingly distributed content through digital platforms, most prominently YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. This article explores how this process of platformization, the integration of digital platforms in PSM, affects the public service remit of promoting key public values, such as universality, independence, and diversity. Specifically, it interrogates how Dutch PSM imagine platforms and their users, as well as how these imaginaries affect online public service strategies. The starting point is the notion of platform imaginaries: the ways in which social actors understand and organize their activities in relation to platform algorithms, interfaces, data infrastructures, moderation procedures, business models, user practices, and audiences. The analysis of these imaginaries builds on key public service policy documents and 15 interviews with employees from the NPO (Nederlandse Publieke Omroep; the governing body), the broadcasting associations, SKO (audience measurement service), and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Our analysis of these materials shows that the online strategies of Dutch PSM are guided by three imaginations of platforms as (a) intermediaries that function on the basis of specific “laws,” (b) places where new audiences reside, and (c) powerful corporations that largely operate beyond the national sphere of influence. These platform imaginaries consist of a complex of interrelated observations, arguments, ideas, and practices, which are generally accepted and partly contested. The main bone of contention is how platform audiences should be seen. It has been difficult to reconcile competing ideas about audiences and, consequently, about the role of PSM in a platform environment, as broadcasters and policy makers lack the necessary (aggregate) data to determine how the media landscape is exactly changing and what the best public service response is. The conclusion of the article proposes a number of steps to resolve this deadlock.

Increasingly media are asserting themselves as live. In television, this has been an important strategy and recently it has been employed by new media platforms such as Facebook, Periscope and Snapchat. This commentary explains the revival of live media by exploring the meaning and operations of the concept and argues the continued relevance of the concept for the study of social media. Traditionally, there have been three main approaches to the live in academic writing (i.e. liveness as ontology, as phenomenology and as rhetoric): each has its particular shortcoming. This paper proposes that it is more productive to understand the live as a construction that assists to secure media a central role in everyday life.

Launched in 2005 as a platform for user-generated content (UGC), YouTube is one of the most popular websites in the world. In this article, I focus on the site’s use of “the view,” which I argue serves as a pervasive category enacted through the platform, in its information regimes and beyond. The view supports a myth of viewer intentionality and satisfaction and serves as the operational logic of the platform as a whole. It is a category in Durkheim’s sense, ordering practices and naturalizing hierarchies and inequalities. These hierarchies concern, and impact on, participation, financial compensation, visibility, and popularity. In making my claims, I demonstrate how the celebratory discourse around YouTube as an empowering tool that levels the media playing field was positively misguided. I make a plea for a critical reading of the view, which can enhance our understanding of the platform and its culture.

As ever more data becomes available to work with, the use of digital tools within the humanities and social sciences is becoming increasingly common. These digital tools are often imported from other institutional contexts and were originally developed for other purposes. They may harbour concepts and techniques that stand in tension with traditions in the humanities and social sciences. Moreover, there are many easy-to-use tools for the collection, processing and analysis of data that require no knowledge of their limitations. Problematically, these tools are often assigned such values as reliability and transparency when in fact they are active mediators caught up in the epistemic process. In this paper, we highlight the need for a critical, reflexive attitude toward the tools we use in digital methods. It is a plea for what we call “tool criticism” and an attempt to think through what this mode of criticism would entail in practice for the academic field. The need for tool criticism is contextualised in view of the emerging ideological and methodological critique toward digital methods. Touching on the so-called science wars we explore knowledge as a construction and consider the importance of accounting for knowledge claims. These considerations open up an assessment of the accountability measures that are being discussed and developed in our field by individuals and institutions alike. In conclusion, we underscore the urgency of this endeavour and its vital role for media and communication scholars.

No abstract