Platform Logic: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Platform‐Based Economy

Abstract

Digital platforms are not just software‐based media, they are governing systems that control, interact, and accumulate. They also solidify markets; that is, social networks of exchange that do not necessarily leave data traces, into infrastructure, that is, material arrangements of traceable activity. This article examines the forms of domination found in this digital platform model, and corrects some existing simplistic theoretical conclusions about digital platforms. It first provides a schematic overview of digital infrastructures of governance, and the attendant systemic mechanics they engender. It then argues that we need a more syncretic, interdisciplinary approach to the platform‐based economy. The shifting emphases of different academic disciplines in relation to digital platforms are only partially grounded in their different normative biases; they can also be attributed to use of different disciplinary lenses. The field of information systems management and design studies is chiefly concerned with direct, technical interplatform affordances and connections, and with providing observations of certain systemic attributes of digital platforms. Critical political economy, by contrast, mainly considers the emerging transnational, geopolitical formations of platform capitalism. The interplay between these different systemic mechanics is summarized and presented here in the concept of “platform logic.”

Should We Regulate Digital Platforms? A New Framework for Evaluating Policy Options

“…Prime examples here are Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter. 4. Platforms of platforms are platforms or ecosystems on which other platforms work, which Andersson Schwarz () has described as panoplies of interconnected platforms. As an example, Apple's iOS mobile operating system clearly has the characteristics of an ecosystem as it provides a platform to access other digital platforms (e.g., Google Maps).…”

“…The downside of this fundamentally positive characteristic is that there is also a risk that the platform itself or others (i.e., governments) that have access to the data can use it improperly. Moreover, certain digital platforms may restrict certain discourse and modes of discourse (Andersson Schwarz, ), which may impact on the freedom of expression and communication of users. Of course, there are big differences in how freedom from improper influence is interpreted between countries.…”

Public Policy in the Platform Society

“…Andersson Schwarz () makes an even stronger point in this Special Issue. Users may see digital platforms as technologies that enable us to share, communicate, or transact freely, but in reality they are governing systems that control, interact, and accumulate.…”

“…Jørgensen (), meanwhile, focuses more specifically on the individuals behind these technical decisions, elucidating what senior executives at platform companies understand by human rights, and how they seek to apply this in their business practices. Finally, Andersson Schwarz () takes a broader look at the forms of government which can be found in the digital platform model, seeking to present a concept of “platform logic” as a broad way of understanding decision making in these systems.…”

Aestheticizing Google critique: A 20-year retrospective

“…Google 'coordinates' multiple parties finding and doing business with each together, whilst being rewarded for their interactions. Back-end Googlization would be the uptake of such a market or 'platform logic' across the web (and app space), as practiced by Facebook, Uber, Airbnb, and others (Schwarz, 2017). How Google makes its money was described in 2002, in some of the earliest ad word art, as 'semantic capitalism' (Bruno).…”