1. Jenny Davis, “Theorizing Affordances,” Cyborgology (blog), The Society Pages, February 16, 2015, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/02/16/theorizing-affordances; Jenny Davis, “A Short History of Affordances,” Cyborgology (blog), The Society Pages, July 13, 2015, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/07/13/a-short-history-of-affordances.
2. Jenny L. Davis and James B. Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36, no. 4 (June 16, 2017): 241–248, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0270467617714944.
3. The Autonomy, Agency and Assurance Innovation (3Ai) Institute, Australian National University, Canberra, https://3ainstitute.cecs.anu.edu.au.
4. Noah Jerome Springer, “Publics and Counterpublics on the Front Page of the Internet: The Cultural Practices, Technological Affordances, Hybrid Economics and Politics of Reddit’s Public Sphere” (PhD diss., Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Colorado, 2015), https://search.proquest.com/docview/1719155030?pq-origsite=gscholar.
5. Cyborgology (blog), The Society Pages, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology.
6. Theorizing the Web (conference), https://theorizingtheweb.org.
1. Canberra is relatively small for a capital city and has a suburban feel. When I moved there in 2017, coin-locked shopping carts were still new. Although they felt unusual to me, my husband, who grew up in New York City, used them regularly in the stores where his family shopped. He was amused by my confusion and slow uptake.
2. For literature on the merging of productive labor with consumption practices (“prosumption”), see Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: Bantam Books, 1980); George Ritzer, Paul Dean, and Nathan Jurgenson, “The Coming of Age of the Prosumer,” American Behavioral Scientist 56, no. 4 (2012): 379–398; George Ritzer and Nathan Jurgenson, “Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of the Digital ‘Prosumer,’” Journal of Consumer Culture 10, no. 1 (2010): 13–36.
3. This history of the shopping cart was constructed using historical analysis and patent records from the following sources: Jacques Ricouard and Claude Chappoux, “Coin Lock Device for Shopping Trolleys,” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1074, issue 3, January 20, 1987, p. 1449 (Google Patents, 1987); Aage Lenander, “Coin-Operated Lock for a Trolley System Including Especially Shopping and Luggage Trolleys,” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1047, issue 1, October 2, 1984, p. 142 (Google Patents, 1984); Frederik R. L. Rheeder and Deon Dixon, “Trolley Locking Device,” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1064, issue 1, March 4, 1986, p. 133 (Google Patents, 1986); Ellen Ruppel Shell, Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture (New York: Penguin, 2009); Sylvan N Goldman, “Commodity Accommodation and Vending Rack,” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1074, issue 3, January 20, 1987, p. 1449 (Google Patents, 1938); Franck Cochoy, “Driving a Shopping Cart from STS to Business, and the Other Way Round: On the Introduction of Shopping Carts in American Grocery Stores (1936–1959),” Organization 16, no. 1 (2009): 31–55.
4. Samer Faraj and Bijan Azad, “The Materiality of Technology: An Affordance Perspective,” Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, ed. Paul M. Leonardi, Bonnie A. Nardi, and Jannis Kallinikos (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 254
5. Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem, “Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no. 1 (2017): 36.
6. James J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Oxford: Houghton Mifflin, 1966); James J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition (New York: Psychology Press, 2014).
7. Donald A. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things (New York: Basic Books, 1988); Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).
8. Donald A. Norman, “The Way I See It: Signifiers, Not Affordances,” Interactions 15, no. 6 (2008): 18–19; Martin Oliver, “The Problem with Affordance,” E-Learning and Digital Media 2, no. 4 (2005): 402–413.
9. The first articulation of the mechanisms and conditions framework can be found in Jenny L. Davis and James B. Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36, no. 4 (2016): 241–248.
10. For this Carnegie Mellon University study, see Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta, “Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings,” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2015, no. 1 (2015): 92–112.
11. Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2018).
12. Safiya Umoja Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism (New York: NYU Press, 2018).
13. Batya Friedman, “Value-Sensitive Design,” Interactions 3, no. 6 (1996): 16–23; Batya Friedman, P. Kahn, and Alan Borning, “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems,” in Human-Computer Interaction In Management Information Systems: Foundations, ed. Ping Zhang and Dennis F. Galletta, 348–372 (New York: Routledge, 2006); Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren, “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems,” in Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, ed. Neelke Doorn, Dean Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman, 55–95 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013); Jeroen Van der Hoven and Noemi Manders-Huits, Value-Sensitive Design (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009); Till Winkler and Sarah Spiekermann, “Twenty Years of Value Sensitive Design: A Review of Methodological Practices in VSD Projects,” Ethics and Information Technology (2018): 1–5; Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019). See Value Sensitive Design Research Lab, Information School and Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, https://vsdesign.org, for an overview and further relevant works.
14. Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum, Values at Play in Digital Games (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014).
15. Eubanks, Automating Inequality, 11.
16. The political economy of technology is a robust and longstanding field in the social sciences. These two works were chosen for their exemplary quality and contemporary relevance. For more examples from this tradition see: Siva Vaidhyanathan, Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018); Cathy O’Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (New York: Broadway Books, 2016); Paul Dourish, The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017); Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?,” Daedalus 109, no. 1 (1980): 121–136; Steve Woolgar and Geoff Cooper, “Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&Ts,” Social Studies of Science 29, no. 3 (1999): 433–449; Lucas Introna and David Wood, “Picturing Algorithmic Surveillance: The Politics of Facial Recognition Systems,” Surveillance & Society 2, no. 2/3 (2002); Kate Crawford, “Can an Algorithm Be Agonistic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics,” Science, Technology & Human Values 41, no. 1 (2016): 77–92; Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015); Marc Berg, “The Politics of Technology: On Bringing Social Theory into Technological Design,” Science, Technology & Human Values 23, no. 4 (1998): 456–490; Judy Wajcman, “The Gender Politics of Technology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, ed. Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly, 707–721 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Ruha Benjamin, “Catching Our Breath: Critical Race STS and the Carceral Imagination,” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2 (2016): 145–156.
17. Noble, Algorithms of Oppression, 90.
18. Winkler and Spiekermann, “Twenty Years of Value Sensitive Design.”
19. Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)
20. Ernst Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” Theory & Psychology 19, no. 2 (2009): 296–312.
1. For critiques of the misuse, overuse, and undertheorization of affordances, see Leonardo Burlamaqui and Andy Dong, “The Use and Misuse of the Concept of Affordance,” in Design Computing and Cognition , ed. John S. Gero and Sean Hanna, 295–311 (New York: Springer, 2015); Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem, “Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no. 1 (2017): 35–52; Tim Ingold, “Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances,” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8, no. 1–2 (2018): 39–44; Keith S. Jones, “What Is an Affordance?,” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003):107–114; Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho, “Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept,” Proceedings of the Graphics Interface 2000: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–17 May 2000 (Montreal: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, 2000); Martin Oliver, “The Problem with Affordance,” E-Learning and Digital Media 2, no. 4 (2005): 402–413; Donald A. Norman, “The Way I See It: Signifiers, Not Affordances,” Interactions 15, no. 6 (2008): 18–19.
2. James J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966); James J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1979).
3. Russell Kahl, ed., Selected Writings of Hermann Von Helmholtz (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1971).
4. James J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition (New York: Psychology Press, 2014).
5. Edward S. Reed, “The Affordances of the Animate Environment: Social Science from the Ecological Point of View,” in What Is an Animal?, ed. Tim Ingold, 110–126 (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1988).
6. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, 285
7. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 127 (emphasis in the original).
8. Dobromir G. Dotov, Lin Nie, and Matthieu M. De Wit, “Understanding Affordances: History and Contemporary Development of Gibson’s Central Concept,” Avant: The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard 3, no. 2 (2012): 30.
9. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 127.
10. Kurt Koffka, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (New York: Harcourt, 1935); Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers, trans. by Donald K. Adams and Karl E. Zener (New York: McGraw, 1935).
11. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 130.
12. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 130.
13. Donald A. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things (New York: Basic Books, 1988).
14. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things, 9
15. Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).
16. See Oliver, “The Problem with Affordance.”
17. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things, 41.
18. Ingold, “Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances”; Tim Ingold, Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description (New York: Routledge, 2011); Tim Ingold, “Culture and the Perception of the Environment,” in Bush Base, Forest Farm: Culture, Environment, and Development, ed. Elisabeth Croll and David Parkin, 51–68 (London: Routledge, 2002); Bryan Pfaffenberger, “Social Anthropology of Technology,” Annual Review of Anthropology 21, no. 1 (1992): 491–516.
19. Ingold, “Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances,” 40.
20. Pfaffenberger, “Social Anthropology of Technology,” 497.
21. Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel, “Affordance Based Design: A Relational Theory for Design,” Research in Engineering Design 20, no. 1 (2009): 13–27; Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel, “Affordance-Based Design Methods for Innovative Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering,” Research In Engineering Design 20, no. 4 (2009): 225; Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel, “Affordance: The Fundamental Concept in Engineering Design,” Paper No. Detc2001/Dtm-21700, ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2001.
22. See Samer Faraj and Bijan Azad, “The Materiality of Technology: An Affordance Perspective,” in Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, ed. Paul M. Leonardi, Bonnie A. Nardi, and Jannis Kallinikos, 237–258 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); William W. Gaver, “Situating Action II: Affordances for Interaction. The Social Is Material for Design,” Ecological Psychology 8, no. 2 (1996): 111–129; Tarleton Gillespie, “The Politics of ‘Platforms,’” New Media & Society 12, no. 3 (2010): 347–364; Ian Hutchby, “Technologies, Texts and Affordances,” Sociology 35, no. 2 (2001): 441–456; Paul M. Leonardi, “When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies,” MIS Quarterly 35, no.1 (2011): 147–167; Paul M. Leonardi, “Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality,” Information and Organization 23, no. 2 (2013): 59–76; Jeffrey W. Treem and Paul M. Leonardi, “Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association,” Annals of the International Communication Association 36, no. 1 (2013): 143–189.
23. See danah boyd, “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications,” in A Networked Self, ed. Zizi Papacharissi, 47–66 (New York: Routledge, 2010); Andrew Richard Schrock, “Communicative Affordances of Mobile Media: Portability, Availability, Locatability, and Multimediality,” International Journal of Communication 9 (2015): 1229–1246; Jenny Davis, “Architecture of the Personal Interactive Homepage: Constructing the Self through Myspace,” New Media & Society 12, no. 7 (2010): 1103–1109; Kate Sarah Raynes-Goldie, “Privacy in the Age of Facebook: Discourse, Architecture, Consequences” (PhD diss., Curtin University, 2012).
24. See Jennifer L. Gibbs, Nik Ahmad Rozaidi, and Julia Eisenberg, “Overcoming the ‘Ideology of Openness’: Probing the Affordances of Social Media for Organizational Knowledge Sharing,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no. 1 (2013): 102–120; Ann Majchrzak, Samer Faraj, Gerald C. Kane, and Bijan Azad, “The Contradictory Influence of Social Media Affordances on Online Communal Knowledge Sharing,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no. 1 (2013): 38–55.
25. See Kate Crawford and Tarleton Gillespie, “What Is a Flag For? Social Media Reporting Tools and the Vocabulary of Complaint,” New Media & Society 18, no. 3 (2016): 410–428; Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018); Adrienne Massanari, “# Gamergate and the Fappening: How Reddit’s Algorithm, Governance, and Culture Support Toxic Technocultures,” New Media & Society 19, no. 3 (2017): 329–346.
26. See André Brock, “From the Blackhand Side: Twitter as a Cultural Conversation,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 4 (2012): 529–549; Jenny L. Davis, “Triangulating the Self: Identity Processes in a Connected Era,” Symbolic Interaction 37, no. 4 (2014): 500–523; Alice E. Marwick and danah boyd, “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience,” New Media & Society 13, no. 1 (2011): 114–133.
27. See Gale Parchoma, “The Contested Ontology of Affordances: Implications for Researching Technological Affordances for Collaborative Knowledge Production,” Computers in Human Behavior 37, no. Supp. C (2014): 360–368; Steve Wright and Gale Parchoma, “Technologies for Learning? An Actor-Network Theory Critique of ‘Affordances’ in Research on Mobile Learning,” Research in Learning Technology 19, no. 3 (2011): 247–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624168.
28. Roy D. Pea, “Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs for Education,” Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations 11 (1993): 47–87.
29. Diana Laurillard, Matthew Stratfold, Rose Luckin, Lydia Plowman, and Josie Taylor, “Affordances for Learning in a Non-Linear Narrative Medium,” Journal of Interactive Media in Education, no. 2 (2000): 1–19.
30. Daniel D. Suthers, “Technology Affordances for Intersubjective Meaning Making: A Research Agenda for CSCL,” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1, no. 3 (2006): 315–337.
31. Grainne Conole and Martin Dyke, “What Are the Affordances of Information and Communication Technologies?,” ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 12, no. 2 (2004): 113–124.
32. William M. Mace, “James J. Gibson’s Ecological Approach: Perceiving What Exists,” Ethics and the Environment 10, no. 2 (2005): 195–216.
33. William H. Warren, “Perceiving Affordances: Visual Guidance of Stair Climbing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, no. 5 (1984): 683–703.
34. See Claire F. Michaels, “Affordances: Four Points of Debate,” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 135–148; Claire F. Michaels and Claudia Carello, Direct Perception (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981); Robert Shaw, “Ecological Psychology: The Consequence of a Commitment to Realism,” Cognition and the Symbolic Processes, ed. Walter B. Weimer and David S. Palermo, 159–226 (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982); Michael T. Turvey, “Affordances and Prospective Control: An Outline of the Ontology,” Ecological Psychology 4, no. 3 (1992): 173–187.
35. Dotov, Nie, and De Wit, “Understanding Affordances,”31.
36. See James E. Cutting, “Two Ecological Perspectives: Gibson vs. Shaw and Turvey,” American Journal of Psychology 95, no. 2 (1982): 199–222.
37. Turvey, “Affordances and Prospective Control,” 180.
38. McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances.”
39. Benjamin T. Ciavola and John K. Gershenson, “Affordance Theory for Engineering Design,” Research in Engineering Design 27, no. 3 (2016): 251–263.
40. Ciavola and Gershenson, “Affordance Theory for Engineering Design,” 254.
41. Anthony Chemero, “An Outline of a Theory of Affordances,” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 181–195.
42. Hutchby, “Technologies, Texts and Affordances,” 415.
43. Andrea Scarantino, “Affordances Explained,” Philosophy of Science 70, no. 5 (2003): 960.
44. Richard C. Schmidt, “Scaffolds for Social Meaning,” Ecological Psychology 19, no. 2 (2007):137.
45. Lee Humphreys, Veronika Karnowski, and Thilo von Pape, “Smartphones as Metamedia: A Framework for Identifying the Niches Structuring Smartphone Use,” International Journal of Communication 12 (2018): 2793–2809); Maier and Fadel, “Affordance Based Design”; Parchoma, “The Contested Ontology of Affordances”; Dhaval Vyas, Cristina M. Chisalita, and Alan Dix, “Organizational Affordances: A Structuration Theory Approach to Affordances,” Interacting with Computers 29, no. 2 (2017): 117–131.
46. Leslie Z. McArthur and Reuben M. Baron, “Toward an Ecological Theory of Social Perception,” Psychological Review 90, no. 3 (1983): 215.
47. Schmidt, “Scaffolds for Social Meaning.”
48. Leonardi, “When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies”; Leonardi, “Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality”; Treem and Leonardi, “Social Media Use in Organizations.”
49. See Jenny L. Davis and James B. Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36 no. 4 (2016): 241–248; Evans, Pearce, Vitak, and Treem, “Explicating Affordances”; Jones, “What Is an Affordance?”; McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances”; Oliver, “The Problem with Affordance”; Thomas A. Stoffregen, “Affordances as Properties of the Animal-Environment System,” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 115–134; Gerard Torenvliet, “We Can’t Afford It! The Devaluation of a Usability Term,” Interactions 10, no. 4 (2003): 12–17.
50. Ingold, “Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances,” 39.
51. Norman, “The Way I See It: Signifiers, Not Affordances.”
52. See Evans, Pearce, Vitak, and Treem, “Explicating Affordances”; Hutchby, “Technologies, Texts and Affordances”; McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances”; Peter Nagy and Gina Neff, “Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory,” Social Media + Society 1, no. 2 (2015); Gina Neff, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie, “Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 2 (2012): 299–313.
53. McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances,” 7.
54. See Chemero, “An Outline of a Theory of Affordances”; McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances”; Nagy and Neff, “Imagined Affordance”; Neff, Jordan, McVeigh-Schultz, and Gillespie, “Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production”; Scarantino, “Affordances Explained.”
55. Nagy and Neff, “Imagined Affordance.”
56. Evans, Pearce, Vitak, and Treem, “Explicating Affordances.”
57. Jun Hu and George M. Fadel, “Categorizing Affordances for Product Design” (paper presented at the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, August 2012); Maier and Fadel, “Affordance-Based Design Methods for Innovative Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering”; Ivan Mata, Georges Fadel, and Gregory Mocko, “Toward Automating Affordance-Based Design,” AI EDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 29, no. 3 (2015): 297–305.
58. Davis and Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse.”
59. Brooke Dinsmore, “Contested Affordances: Teachers and Students Negotiating the Classroom Integration of Mobile Technology,” Information, Communication & Society 22, no. 5 (2019): 664–677; Kate Mannell, “A Typology of Mobile Messaging’s Disconnective Affordances,” Mobile Media & Communication 7, no. 1 (2019): 76–93; Apryl A. Williams, Zaida Bryant, and Christopher Carvell, “Uncompensated Emotional Labor, Racial Battle Fatigue, and (In)Civility in Digital Spaces,” Sociology Compass 13, no. 2 (2019): e12658.
60. Jennifer C. Mueller, “Racial Ideology or Racial Ignorance? An Alternative Theory of Racial Cognition,” Open Science Framework, March 2, 2019, https://osf.io/fw23k.
1. Taina Bucher, If . . . Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).
2. See Lucas D. Introna, “The Enframing of Code: Agency, Originality and the Plagiarist,” Theory, Culture & Society 28, no. 6 (2011): 113–141; Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Martin Müller, “Assemblages and Actor-Networks: Rethinking Socio-Material Power, Politics and Space,” Geography Compass 9, no. 1 (2015): 27–41; Phillip Vannini, “Non-Representational Research Methodologies: An Introduction,” in Non-Representational Methodologies: Reenvisioning Research, ed. Phillip Vannini, 11–28 (New York: Routledge, 2015); Peter-Paul Verbeek, “Materializing Morality: Design Ethics and Technological Mediation,” Science, Technology & Human Values 31, no. 3 (2006): 361–380.
3. Ernst Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” Theory & Psychology 19, no. 2 (2009): 296–312.
4. Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).
5. Latour, Reassembling the Social.
6. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences.”
7. Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?,” Daedalus 109, no. 1 (1980): 121–136.
8. McLuhan, Understanding Media.
9. See Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications (New York: Free Press, 1966); Jefferson Pooley and Elihu Katz, “Further Notes on Why American Sociology Abandoned Mass Communication Research,” Journal of Communication 58, no. 4 (2008): 767–786.
10. McLuhan, Understanding Media, 10.
11. See Latour, Reassembling the Social; Michel Callon, “The Sociology of An Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle,” in Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, ed. Michel Callon, John Law, and Arie Rip, 19–34 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1986); Michel Callon and John Law, “After the Individual in Society: Lessons on Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society,” Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 22, no. 2 (1997): 165–182; John Law, “Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics,” in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. Brian S. Turner, 141–158 (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).
12. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi (London: Continuum, 1987).
13. David Banks, “A Brief Summary of Actor Network Theory,” Cyborgology (blog), The Society Pages, 2011, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/12/02/a-brief-summary-of-actor-network-theory.
14. See Warwick Anderson, “From Subjugated Knowledge to Conjugated Subjects: Science and Globalisation, or Postcolonial Studies of Science?,” Postcolonial Studies 12, no. 4 (2009): 389–400; David Bloor, “Anti-Latour,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30, no. 1 (1999): 81–112; Sandra Harding, I. Grewal, C. Kaplan, and R. Wiegman, Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008); Sal Restivo, “Review Essays: Politics of Latour,” Organization & Environment 18, no. 1 (2005): 111–115.
15. See Kim Fortun, “From Latour to Late Industrialism,” Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4, no. 1 (2014): 309–329; Harding, Grewal, Kaplan, and Wiegman, Sciences from Below; Judy Wajcman, “Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In What State Is the Art?,” Social Studies of Science 30, no. 3 (2000): 447–464.
16. Mark Andrejevic, “Data Collection without Limits: Automated Policing and the Politics of Framelessness,” in Big Data, Crime and Social Control, ed. Ales Zavrsnik, 111–125 (London: Routledge, 2017); Sarah Brayne, “Big Data Surveillance: The Case of Policing,” American Sociological Review 82, no. 5 (2017): 977–1008.
17. Richard Dyer, White: Essays on Race and Culture, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2017).
18. Kevin Granville, “Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: What You Need to Know as Fallout Widens,” New York Times, March 19, 2018; Siva Vaidhyanathan, Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
19. Edwin Sayes, “Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Just What Does It Mean to Say That Nonhumans Have Agency?,” Social Studies of Science 44, no. 1 (2014): 134–149.
20. Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?”
21. Selena Savić and Gordan Savičić, “Unpleasant Design: Designing Out Unwanted Behaviour,” in A Matter of Design: Making Society through Science and Technology. Proceedings of the Fifth STS Italia Conference (Rome: Società Italiana di Studi sulla Scienza la Tecnologia, 2014).
22. Patrick Marshall, “Algorithms Can Mask Biases in Hiring,” Sage Business Researcher, February 15, 2016.
23. Matthew Adam Bruckner, “The Promise and Perils of Algorithmic Lenders’ Use of Big Data,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 93, no. 1 (2018): 3.
24. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 298.
25. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 299–300.
26. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 300.
27. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 205.
28. Kate Crawford and Meredith Whittaker, “The AI Now Report: The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Near-Term,” AI Now Institute, September 22, 2016, https://ainowinstitute.org/AI_Now_2016_Report.pdf.
29. Meredith Broussard, Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018).
30. Frank Pasquale, “Algorithms Can Be a Digital Star Chamber,” Aeon, no. 8 (2015), https://acon.co.essays/judge-jury-and-executioner-the-unaccountable-algorithm.
31. Verbeek, “Materializing Morality.”
32. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 306.
33. Don Ihde, Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).
34. Zeynep Tufekci, Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017).
1. William H. Warren, “Perceiving Affordances: Visual Guidance of Stair Climbing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, no. 5 (1984): 683–703.
2. Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem, “Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no. 1 (2017): 35–52.
3. Rob Withagen, Duarte Araújo, and Harjo J. de Poel, “Inviting Affordances and Agency,” New Ideas in Psychology 45 (2017): 11–18.
4. For further explication of this critique, see Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho, “Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept,” in Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–17 May 2000 (Montreal: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, 2000); Peter Nagy and Gina Neff, “Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory,” Social Media + Society 1, no. 2 (2015); Gina Neff, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie, “Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 2 (2012): 299–313; Gale Parchoma, “The Contested Ontology of Affordances: Implications for Researching Technological Affordances for Collaborative Knowledge Production,” Computers in Human Behavior 37, no. Suppl. C (2014): 360–368; Steve Wright and Gale Parchoma, “Technologies for Learning? An Actor-Network Theory Critique of ‘Affordances’ in Research on Mobile Learning,” Research in Learning Technology 19, no. 3 (2011): 247–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624168.
5. Danny Wicentowski, “Defying Police ‘Do Not Cross’ Line Would Be a Crime under Proposed Missouri Bill,” River Front Times (blog), February 23, 2016, https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/12/23/defying-police-do-not-cross-line-would-be-a-crime-under-proposed-missouri-bill.
6. HB37 died in committee, leaving the offense punishable by an up to $500 fine and community service.
7. See Jefferson D. Pooley, “Open Media Scholarship: The Case for Open Access in Media Studies,” International Journal of Communication 10 (2016): 6148–6164.
8. Rena Bivens, “The Gender Binary Will Not Be Deprogrammed: Ten Years of Coding Gender on Facebook,” New Media & Society 19, no. 6 (2017): 880–898.
9. Ernst Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” Theory & Psychology 19, no. 2 (2009): 296–312.
10. Brian Wansink, Koert van Ittersum, and James E. Painter, “Ice Cream Illusions: Bowls, Spoons, and Self-Served Portion Sizes,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 31, no. 3 (2006):240–243.
11. Portions Master, “Products: 125lbs/57kg Skinny Plate,” https://portionsmaster.com/products/view/125lbs-57kg-portions-master.
12. Jenny L. Davis, “Authenticity, Digital Media, and Person Identity Verification,” in Identities in Everyday Life, ed. Jan E. Stets and Richard T. Serpe, 93–111 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).
13. Noah J. Springer, “Publics and Counterpublics on the Front Page of the Internet: The Cultural Practices, Technological Affordances, Hybrid Economies, and Politics of Reddit’s Public Sphere” (PhD diss., University of Colorado, Boulder, 2015); Malte Ziewitz, “Evaluation as Governance: The Practical Politics of Reviewing, Rating and Ranking on the Web” (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2013).
14. Christopher M. Julien, “The Iconic Ghetto, Color-Blind Racism and White Masculinities: A Content and Discourse Analysis of Black Twitter on www.Imgur.com” (MA thesis, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, 2017).
15. Bernward Joerges, “Do Politics Have Artefacts?,” Social Studies of Science 29, no. 3 (1999): 411–431; Steve Woolgar and Geoff Cooper, “Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&Ts,” Social Studies of Science 29, no. 3 (1999): 433–449.
16. See Nathan Jurgenson, The Social Photo: On Photography and Social Media (London: Verso, 2019).
17. Julia Angwin, Madeleine Varner, and Ariana Tobin, “Facebook Enabled Advertisers to Reach ‘Jew Haters,’” ProPublica, September 4, 2017, https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters.
18. Alex Kantrowitz, “Google Allowed Advertisers to Target People Searching Racist Phrases,” BuzzFeed News, September 16, 2017, https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/google-allowed-advertisers-to-target-jewish-parasite-black?utm_term=.px1Y52YxQ#.pqB54857A.
1. Chelsea Gorrow, “Bystander Arrested as Police Handle Standoff,” Register-Guard (Eugene, OR), August 22, 2014, http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32047393-75/woman-arrested-for-crossing-police-line.html.csp.
2. “Jefferson Westside, Eugene, OR Livability,” Areavibes, https://www.areavibes.com/eugene-or/jefferson+westside/livability.
3. Jenny L. Davis and James B. Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36, no. 4 (2016): 245
4. Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho, “Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept,” in Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–17 May 2000 (Montreal: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, 2000), 7.
5. Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019).
6. Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).
7. Gina Neff, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie, “Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 2 (2012): 304.
8. See José Van Dijck, The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Taina Bucher, If . . . Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018); Jenny L. Davis, “Curation: A Theoretical Treatment,” Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 5 (2017): 770–793.
9. Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015); Siva Vaidhyanathan, Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).
10. See Michael Oliver and Colin Barnes, The New Politics of Disablement (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
11. William H. Warren, “Perceiving Affordances: Visual Guidance of Stair Climbing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, no. 5 (1984): 683–703.
12. Andrew Kirkpatrick, Joshue O’Connor, Alastair Campbell, and Michael Cooper, “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1,” W3C Recommendation 05 June 2018, World Wide Web Consortium, https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21.
13. Stefanie Duguay, Jean Burgess, and Nicolas Suzor, “Queer Women’s Experiences of Patchwork Platform Governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technology (June 19, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856518781530.
14. Tinder has since made its flagging feature more prominent.
15. Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe, “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, no. 4 (2007): 1143–1168; Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe, “Connection Strategies: Social Capital Implications of Facebook-Enabled Communication Practices,” New Media & Society 13, no. 6 (2011): 1873–1892.
16. Hua Wang, Renwen Zhang, and Barry Wellman, “Are Older Adults Networked Individuals? Insights from East Yorkers’ Network Structure, Relational Autonomy, and Digital Media Use,” Information, Communication & Society 21, no. 5 (2018): 681–696; Anabel Quan-Haase, Guang Ying Mo, and Barry Wellman, “Connected Seniors: How Older Adults in East York Exchange Social Support Online and Offline,” Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 7 (2017): 967–983.
17. Alice Marwick, Claire Fontaine, and danah boyd, “‘Nobody Sees It, Nobody Gets Mad’: Social Media, Privacy, and Personal Responsibility among Low-SES Youth,” Social Media + Society 3, no. 2 (2017); Robin Stevens, Stacia Gilliard-Matthews, Jamie Dunaev, Marcus K. Woods, and Bridgette M. Brawner, “The Digital Hood: Social Media Use among Youth in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods,” New Media & Society 19, no. 6 (2017): 950–967.
18. Saudi Arabia was the last country to maintain legal bans against women drivers.
1. André Brock, “Life on the Wire: Deconstructing Race on the Internet,” Information, Communication & Society 12, no. 3 (2009): 344–363; André Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” New Media & Society 20, no. 3 (2018): 1012–1033.
2. Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” 1016.
3. Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” 1020 (emphasis in original).
4. Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” 1023.
5. Sonia Livingstone, “On the Material and the Symbolic: Silverstone’s Double Articulation of Research Traditions in New Media Studies,” New Media & Society 9, no. 1 (2007): 16–24.
6. Ronald E. Day, “Kling and the ‘Critical’: Social Informatics and Critical Informatics,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, no. 4 (2007): 575–582.
7. Lisa Nakamura, “Cultural Difference, Theory and Cyberculture Studies: A Case of Mutual Repulsion,” in Critical Cyberculture Studies, ed. David Silver and Adrienne Massanari, 29–36 (New York: New York University Press, 2006).
8. Jenny L. Davis, “The End of What People Do Online,” New Criticals (blog), 2017, http://www.newcriticals.com/the-end-of-what-people-do-online.
9. Roger S. Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005).
10. Ben Light, Jean Burgess, and Stefanie Duguay, “The Walkthrough Method: An Approach to the Study of Apps,” New Media & Society 20, no. 3 (2018): 881–900.
11. Michael E. Fagan, “Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development,” IBM Systems Journal 38, no. 2/3 (1999): 258.
12. Light, Burgess, and Duguay, “The Walkthrough Method.”
13. Susan Leigh Star, “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” American Behavioral Scientist 43, no. 3 (1999): 377–391.
14. Light, Burgess, and Duguay, “The Walkthrough Method,” 883.
15. See Stefanie Duguay, Jean Burgess, and Nicolas Suzor, “Queer Women’s Experiences of Patchwork Platform Governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies (June 19, 2018).
16. Light, Burgess, and Duguay, “The Walkthrough Method,” 887.
17. Edwin Sayes, “Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Just What Does It Mean to Say That Nonhumans Have Agency?,” Social Studies of Science 44, no. 1 (2014): 134–149.
18. Rena Bivens and Amy Adele Hasinoff, “Rape: Is There an App for That? An Empirical Analysis of the Features of Anti-Rape Apps,” Information, Communication & Society 21, no. 8 (2018): 1051.
19. Bivens and Hasinoff, “Rape: Is There an App for That?”
20. Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Miriam Gleckman-Krut, and Lanora Johnson, “Silence, Power, and Inequality: An Intersectional Approach to Sexual Violence,” Annual Review of Sociology 44 (2018): 99–122.
21. Bivens and Hasinoff, “Rape: Is There an App for That?,” 1052.
22. Bivens and Hasinoff, “Rape: Is There an App for That?,” 1053.
23. Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019); Batya Friedman, P. Kahn, and Alan Borning, “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems,” in Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems: Foundations, ed. Ping Zhang and Dennis F Galletta, 348–372 (New York: Routledge, 2006).
24. Alexei Czeskis et al., “Parenting from the Pocket: Value Tensions and Technical Directions for Secure and Private Parent-Teen Mobile Safety,” in SOUPS ’10: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. Redmond, Washington, USA, July 14–16 2010 (New York: ACM, 2010); Mary Flanagan, Daniel C. Howe, and Helen Nissenbaum, “Values at Play: Design Tradeoffs in Socially-Oriented Game Design,” in CHI ’05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Portland, Oregon, USA, April 02–07 2005, 751–760 (New York: ACM, 2005); Batya Friedman and David Hendry, “The Envisioning Cards: A Toolkit for Catalyzing Humanistic and Technical Imaginations,” in CHI ’12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Austin, Texas, USA, May 05–10 2012, 1145–1148 (New York: ACM, 2012); Lisa P. Nathan, Predrag V. Klasnja, and Batya Friedman, “Value Scenarios: A Technique for Envisioning Systemic Effects of New Technologies,” in Proceedings of CHI ’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, April 28–May 3, 2007, 2585–2590 (New York: ACM, 2007)); Katie Shilton, “Values Levers: Building Ethics into Design,” Science, Technology & Human Values 38, no. 3 (2013): 374–397.
25. Katie Shilton, Jes A. Koepfler, and Kenneth R. Fleischmann, “How to See Values in Social Computing: Methods for Studying Values Dimensions,” in Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Baltimore, MD, February 15–19, 2014, 426–435 (New York: ACM, 2014); Katie Shilton, “Engaging Values Despite Neutrality: Challenges and Approaches to Values Reflection during the Design of Internet Infrastructure,” Science, Technology & Human Values 43, no. 2 (2018): 247–269.
26. Shilton, “Engaging Values Despite Neutrality.”
27. Carl DiSalvo, Adversarial Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012).
28. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects (Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2001).
29. Chantal Mouffe, “Some Reflections on an Agonistic Approach to the Public,” in Making Things Public, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 804–807 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).
30. DiSalvo, Adversarial Design.
31. DiSalvo, Adversarial Design, 113
32. Mark Shepard, “Sentient City Survival Kit: Archaeology of the Near Future,” in Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference, 2009. After Media: Embodiment and Context, University of California, Irvine, December 12–15, 2009.
33. See George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society, vol. 111 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934); Jenny L. Davis and Tony P. Love, “Self-in-Self, Mind-in-Mind, Heart-in-Heart: The Future of Role-Taking, Perspective Taking, and Empathy,” in Advances in Group Processes, ed. Shane R. Thye and Edward J. Lawler, 151–174 (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing, 2017); Michael L. Schwalbe, “Role Taking Reconsidered: Linking Competence and Performance to Social Structure,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 18, no. 4 (1988): 411–436.
1. James J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), 285.
2. Humanising Machine Intelligence, https://hmi.anu.edu.au.
3. Cambridge Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI) (http://lcfi.ac.uk/); Oxford Artificial Intelligence Society (http://oxai.org), Future of Humanity Institute (https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk), and Centre for Governance of AI (https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/govai/); Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (https://hai.stanford.edu); Tsinghua University Institute for Artificial Intelligence (https://gbtimes.com/tsinghua-university-establishes-institute-of-artificial-intelligence); AI Now Institute (https://ainowinstitute.org); DeepMind (https://deepmind.com); OpenAI (https://openai.com); Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (https://allenai.org).
4. Laura Robinson et al., “Digital Inequalities and Why They Matter,” Information, Communication & Society 18, no. 5 (2015): 569–582.
5. André Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” New Media & Society 20, no. 3 (2018): 1012–1030.
6. Philippe Verduyn et al., “Do Social Network Sites Enhance or Undermine Subjective Well-Being? A Critical Review,” Social Issues and Policy Review 11, no. 1 (2017): 274–302.
7. Amy Orben and Andrew K. Przybylski, “The Association between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use,” Nature Human Behaviour 3, no. 2 (2019): 173–182.
8. Markus Prior, Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
9. Manuel Castells, Communication Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
10. Jonathan Hopkin and Ben Rosamond, “Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK,” New Political Economy 23, no. 6 (2017): 641–655; Stephen Barnard, Citizens at the Gates (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).
11. Maya Indira Ganesh, “Entanglement: Machine Learning and Human Ethics in Driver-Less Car Crashes,” APRJA, http://www.aprja.net/entanglement-machine-learning-and-human-ethics-in-driver-less-car-crashes (2017); Robert Sparrow and Mark Howard, “When Human Beings Are Like Drunk Robots: Driverless Vehicles, Ethics, and the Future of Transport,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 80 (2017): 206–215.
12. Matthew Claudel and Carlo Ratti, “Full Speed Ahead: How the Driverless Car Could Transform Cities,” McKinsey & Company (2015), https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/full-speed-ahead-how-the-driverless-car-could-transform-cities.
13. “World’s First Gene-Edited Babies Created in China, Claims Scientist,” The Guardian, November 26, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist.
14. Deborah Lupton, “Quantifying the Body: Monitoring and Measuring Health in the Age of mHealth Technologies,” Critical Public Health 23, no. 4 (2013): 393–403; Deborah Lupton and Gavin J. D. Smith, “‘A Much Better Person’: The Agential Capacities of Self-Tracking Practices,” in Metric Culture: Ontologies of Self-Tracking Practices, ed. Btijah Ajana, 57–75 (London: Emerald Publishing, 2018); Gina Neff and Dawn Nafus, Self-Tracking (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2016).
15. Gabi Schaffzin, “Reclaiming the Margins in the Face of the Quantified Self,” Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal 14, no. 2 (2018).