I read Mark Andrejevic‘s article on “Social Network Exploitation” yesterday (in Paparcharissi (ed) A Networked Self, Routledge 2011), and its marxist critique of the ways companies might and/or do exploit our use of social media is excellently chilling. I’m going to be teaching this article this semester, and have a half-written blog post on it, so more of that later.

But anyway, inspired by Andrejevic’s article, I poked around a bit and found two interesting conferences this spring:

Critique, Democracy, and Philosophy in 21st Century Information Society: Towards Critical Theories of Social Media is an academic conference to be held in Uppsala near Stockholm on May 2-4. Andrejevic is on the list of speakers, as are many other interesting thinkers, including Christian Fuchs, Trebor Scholz, Ursula Huws, Andrew Feenberg and Charles Ess. I’m not impressed that only two of the listed 14 speakers are women – you’d think balanced representation would be key in a critique of social media, and I certainly hope they improve upon that before the program is final. They do also have an open call for papers, with abstracts due Feb 29. Here’s some of the topic description:

This conference deals with the question of what kind of society and what kind of Internet are desirable, what steps need to be taken for advancing a good Internet in a sustainable information society, how capitalism, power structures and social media are connected, what the main problems, risks, opportunities and challenges are for the current and future development of Internet and society, how struggles are connected to social media, what the role, problems and opportunities of social media, web 2.0, the mobile Internet and the ubiquitous Internet are today and in the future, what current developments of the Internet and society tell us about potential futures, how an alternative Internet can look like, and how a participatory, commons-based Internet and a co-operative, participatory, sustainable information society can be achieved.

Unlike Us 2 is an event to be held in Amsterdam on March 8-10 which is hosted by a “research network of artists, designers, scholars, activists and programmers who work on ‘alternatives in social media’”, with the subtitle “Understanding Social Media Monopolies and their Alternatives.” David Berry tweeted this one to me after I mentioned the Uppsala conference, and he is one of the confirmed speakers. So is Anne Helmond, whose research blog I’ve been following for years. There are also some interesting videos from the first Unlike Us event on their blog.

Andrejevic’s chapter, and in fact the whole of Papacharissi’s anthology, is available as a PDF on Scribd, which is presumably not even remotely legal, so I won’t link.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “conferences and writings providing criticism of social media

  1. Martin Arvebro

    Two conferences on critical approaches to social media + excellent marxist article on exploitation in soc.med. http://t.co/XNcsgJkr

  2. Carleen

    Two conferences on critical approaches to social media + excellent marxist article on exploitation in soc.med. http://t.co/XNcsgJkr

  3. Andy Coverdale

    conferences and writings providing criticism of social media (@jilltxt) http://t.co/2HpOhc6k

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.