DİJİTAL KAPİTALİZMİN AÇIĞA ÇIKIŞI: FACEBOOK VE UBER ÖRNEKLERİ ÜZERİNDEN TOPLUMSAL ETKİLERİNİN ANLAŞILMASI

Year 2024, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 111 - 135, 25.10.2024

Cansu Arısoy Gedik

Abstract

Dijital kapitalizm ile ekonomi politiğin yakınsaması, günümüzün küresel dijital ortamında teknoloji ve ekonomi arasındaki karmaşık etkileşimleri vurgulayarak derin bir araştırma alanı sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın merkezinde de geleneksel ekonomik paradigmaları yeniden şekillendiren, tüketimi ve istihdamı önemli ölçüde etkileyen dijital teknolojiler yer almaktadır. Dan Schiller'in teorik çerçevesini kullanan bu makale, bu teknolojilerin ekonomik yapılar ve sosyal davranışlar üzerindeki etkilerini ve ilgili riskleri ekonomi politiğin merceğinden incelemektedir. Sırasıyla sosyal medya ağlarının ve esnek ekonominin sembolü olan Facebook ve Uber’in örnek olay incelemeleri aracılığıyla eleştirel bir analiz sunulmaktadır.
Facebook, kullanıcı verilerinin metalaştırılmasına dayanan iş modeliyle, veri gizliliği ihlallerinin politika ve düzenleyici çerçeveler üzerinde geniş kapsamlı sonuçlara yol açan Cambridge Analytica skandalı sırasında sergilenen dijital kapitalizmin güvenlik açıklarına örnek teşkil etmektedir. Bu olay, açık kullanıcı rızasını zorunlu kılan ve veri hareketliliğini güvene alan katı veri koruma yasalarına olan acil ihtiyacı vurgulamaktadır. Uber’in modeli, dijital kapitalizm altında geçici işlerin istikrarsız doğasını vurgulamaktadır. Uber, sürücüleri bağımsız yükleniciler olarak sınıflandırarak yalnızca maliyetleri en aza indirmekle kalmaz, aynı zamanda önemli riskleri çalışanların üzerine yıkar; bu da işçi sınıflandırmasını yeniden tanımlayan ve iş çalışanlarına kapsamlı haklar ve faydalar sağlayan politikalara olan ihtiyacı göstermektedir. Bu vaka çalışmaları yalnızca Schiller’in dijital ekonomik modellere yönelik eleştirisini yansıtmakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda dijital kapitalizm ekosistemindeki tüm paydaşların çıkarlarını koruyan sağlam düzenleyici çerçevelere olan ihtiyacı vurgulayarak dijital teknolojilerin dönüştürücü potansiyelini de vurgular. Bu analiz, dijital kapitalizme ilişkin anlayışa, özellikle de yönetim ve toplumsal yapılarla nasıl etkileşime girdiği konusunda önemli ölçüde katkıda bulunarak, dijitalleşen çağda sosyal ve ekonomik refahı koruyan politikaların formülasyonuna yönelik kritik içgörüler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

dijital kapitalizm, ekonomik dönüşüm, veri gizliliği, gig ekonomisi, toplumsal değişim

DIGITAL CAPITALISM UNVEILED: UNDERSTANDING ITS IMPACT FOR SOCIETY THROUGH CASES OF FACEBOOK AND UBER

Abstract

The convergence of digital capitalism and political economy offers a profound area for exploration, highlighting the complex interactions between technology and economy in today's global digital landscape. Central to this study are the digital technologies that reshape traditional economic paradigms, influencing consumption and employment significantly. Utilizing Dan Schiller’s theoretical framework, this paper examines the impacts of these technologies on economic structures and social behaviours, alongside the associated risks through the lens of political economy. A critical analysis is presented through the case studies of Facebook and Uber, emblematic of social media networks and the gig economy respectively. Facebook, with its business model based on the commodification of user data, exemplifies digital capitalism's vulnerabilities as showcased during the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where data privacy breaches had far-reaching implications on policy and regulatory frameworks. This incident emphasizes the urgent need for strict data protection laws that mandate clear user consent and ensure data mobility. Uber’s model highlights the unstable nature of gig work under digital capitalism. By classifying drivers as independent contractors, Uber not only minimizes costs but also shifts substantial risk onto the workers, illustrating the need for policies that redefine worker classifications and provide comprehensive rights and benefits to gig workers. These case studies not only reflect Schiller’s critique of digital economic models but also emphasize the transformative potential of digital technologies, stressing the need for robust regulatory frameworks that protect interests of all stakeholders in the digital capitalism ecosystem. This analysis contributes significantly to our understanding of digital capitalism, particularly in how it interfaces with governance and societal structures, offering critical insights into the formulation of policies that safeguard social and economic welfare in the digitized age.

Keywords

digital capitalism, neoliberalism, marxism, sharing economy, gig economy

References

• [1] Arısoy Gedik, C., & Pirol, M. (2022). Salgın Sonrası Yeni Gerçeklikle Yüzleşmek: Dijital Tüketicilerin Değişen Tepki ve Uyum Süreçleri. TAM Akademi Dergisi, 1(2), 139-160. https://doi.org/10.58239/tamde.2022.02.004.x
• [2] Betancourt, M. (2010). Immaterial value and scarcity in digital capitalism. CTheory, no pagination. http://ctheory.net/ctheory_wp/immaterial-value-and-scarcity-in-digital-capitalism/
• [3] Celik, H., & Arısoy, C. (2015). Bilginin Özgürleşememe Sorunu: Neoliberal Ortam İnternet İçeriğine Müdahaleler. LaborComm 2015 – 6. Uluslararası İşçi ve İletişim Konferansı, 1-22.
• [4] Ding, X., & Chai, Q. (2022). The rise of digital capitalism and the social changes it caused: How to develop the digital economy in socialist China. China Political Economy, 6(1), 35-43. doi:10.1108/CPE-10-2022-0017
• [5] Fuchs, C. (2013). Capitalism or information society? The fundamental question of the present structure of society. European Journal of Social Theory, 16 (4), 413–434. doi:10. 1177/1368431012461432
• [6] Hartmans, A. (2020, April 20). Instagram only had 13 employees when it was bought by Facebook for $1 billion. A decade later, here’s where they’ve all ended up. Business Insider Africa. https://africa.businessinsider.com/tech/instagram-only-had-13-employees-when-it-was-bought-by-facebook-for-dollar1-billion-a/zhzc9q6
• [7] Heller, H. (2020). The birth of capitalism in global perspective. In K. Yazdani & D. M. Menon (Eds.), Capitalisms (pp. xx-xx). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199499717.003.0008
• [8] Hunt, A., & Samman, E. (2019). Gender and the gig economy Critical Steps for Evidence-Based Policy. Working Paper 546, 3-43. https://euagenda.eu/upload/publications/untitled-198213-ea.pdf
• [9] Jie, G., Sym Foong, P., Yifan, Y., Weilin, J., Yijie, C., Xiayin, Y., & Perrault, S. (2022). From 996 to 007: Challenges of Working from Home During the Epidemic in China. ACM, January, 1-16.
• [10] Jin, Z. (2005). Global Technological Change from Hard Technology to Soft Technology. Intellect Books.
• [11] Lafuente, E., Ács, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2022). Analysis of the digital platform economy around the world: A network DEA model for identifying policy priorities, Journal of Small Business Management, 1-45 doi:10.1080/00472778.2022.2100895
• [12] Library of Congress. (2018, October 30). France: Government Adopts Law Banning Cell Phone Use at School. Retrieved February 9, 2024, from https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2018-10-30/france-government-adopts-law-banning-cell-phone-use-at-school/
• [13] Lin, J. (2021, June 25). Reconstructing The Gig Economy Equation: How This Founder Is Optimizing Income and Opportunity For Gig Workers. Forbes. Retrieved February 9, 2024, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessicalin/2021/01/25/reconstructing-the-gig-economy-equation-how-this-founder-is-optimizing-income-and-opportunity-for-gig-workers/?sh=7aab816f16f0
• [14] McKinsey & Company. (2023, August 2). What is the gig economy? Retrieved February 9, 2024, from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-the-gig-economy
• [15] Nachtwey, O., & Staab, P. (2015). Die Avantgarde des digitalen Kapitalismus. Mittelweg, 36(6), 59-84. http://www.his-online.de/zeitschrift/mw36-archiv/1225/62015
• [16] Pace, J. (2018). The Concept of Digital Capitalism. Communication Theory, 28(3), 254–269. doi:10.1093/ct/qtx009
• [17] Pellegrino, A., Abe, M., & Shannon, R. (2022). The Dark Side of Social Media: Content Effects on the Relationship Between Materialism and Consumption Behaviors. Front Psychol, April 13(870614), 1-16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.870614
• [18] Pitt, M. (2022, July 14). The Story of Oil 1822–1922. Retrieved February 9, 2024, from https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/the-story-of-oil/
• [19] Qiu, J. L. (2014). Goodbye iSlave: Foxconn, Digital Capitalism, and Networked Labor Resistance. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 34(4), 119–137. doi:10.15992/j.cnki.31-1123/c. 2014.04.010
• [20] Reena, M., & Udita, K. (2020). Impact of Personalized Social Media Advertisements on Consumer Purchase Intention. Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati Fascicle I Economics and Applied Informatics, 26(2), 15-24.
• [21] Schiller, D. (1999). Digital capitalism: Networking the global market system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• [22] Schiller, D. (2023). Digital capitalism in the 2020s: Dividing the world. Etkileşim, 12, 526-542. doi: 10.32739/etkilesim.2023.6.12.232
• [23] Silverwood, J., & Berry, C. (2023). The distinctiveness of state capitalism in Britain: Marketmaking, industrial policy and economic space. Economy and Space, 55(1), 122-142. doi:10.1177/0308518X221102960
• [24] TeamStage. (n.d.). Gig Economy Statistics: Demographics and Trends in 2023. Retrieved February 9, 2024, from https://teamstage.io/gig-economy-statistics/
• [25] United Nations Economist Network. (2023, March 23). New Economics for Sustainable Development: Attention Economy. UN.org. Retrieved February 9, 2024, from https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/attention_economy_feb.pdf
• [26] Uță , I. C. (2018, October 2). The Story of Instagram and WhatsApp Founders Leaving their Facebook-acquired companies. Retrieved February 9, 2024, from https://brandminds.com/the-story-of-instagram-and-whatsapp-founders-leaving-their-facebook-acquired-companies/
• [27] Yeşilbağ, M. (2022). New geographies of platform capitalism: The case of digital monopolization in Turkey. Big Data & Society, 9(2), 1-14. doi:10.1177/20539517221124585