Platform imperialism

Last updated

Platform imperialism is the domination of a few Western digital platforms, particularly American platforms, such as Google, Netflix, Facebook, and YouTube, throughout the global cultural and technological spheres due to structural power differences between countries. [1] This causes an asymmetrical power balance between a few Western countries as platform owners and many non-Western countries as platform users. [2] Non-Western platforms do not control the global platform markets, and thus cannot change the existing lopsided power relations between Western and non-Western countries.

Contents

Platform imperialism has been described by scholars in political economy, critical cultural studies and media studies. [2] The discourse on platform imperialism includes several core areas, such as intellectual property, the global digital divide, free labor, and the nation-state, focusing on the role of the nation-state alongside transnational capital. [2] Digital platforms have been influential in capital accumulation and digital culture in the networked 21st century. Numerous digital platforms, such as smartphones, social media, and OTT (over-the-top) platforms, are crucial because they function as digital mediators.

Background

Platform imperialism is a digital form of cultural imperialism. Major theoreticians, such as Herbert Schiller, Thomas Guback, and Jeremy Tunstall, argued that a few Western countries controlled the international flow of television programs and films. The dominance of a few Western countries, particularly the U.S., was distinctive, as the robust U.S. cultural industry exerted influence over the cultural life of other nations. However, with the emergence of numerous countries that have developed their own popular cultures, such as Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Hong Kong, and Korea, the one-way flow of popular culture from the U.S. to other countries has waned. Due to the arrival of pluralism, some[ who? ] argued that cultural imperialism is over. However, with the rise of digital platforms, such as social media, smartphones, and OTT (over-the-top) platforms, the imperialism discourse has resurfaced as the U.S. has become the primary actor in the digital platform field.

Derivative platform imperialism

Based on the notion of platform imperialism, numerous scholars have described specific forms of platform imperialism, such as Netflix Imperialism, Facebook Imperialism, and Amazon's platform imperialism. [3] [4] For example, in the global cultural sphere in the early 21st century, Netflix has continued to reign supreme due in large part to its AI-supported algorithms and data, as well as many cultural materials. Netflix has continued to develop original content while licensing cultural programs from other countries; therefore, it rapidly increases the number of paid subscribers and, therefore, financial gains. Local OTT platforms in many countries cannot compete with Netflix due to the lack of cultural content and global networks. The tension between Netflix and local OTT platforms increases, but Netflix controls the entire OTT platform market, resulting in Netflix imperialism.[ citation needed ]

Sources

References

  1. ↑ Bannerman, Sara (2024). "Platform imperialism, communications law and relational sovereignty". New Media & Society . 26 (4): 1816–1833. doi: 10.1177/14614448221077284 . S2CID   247311011.
  2. 1 2 3 Jin, Dal Yong (2015). Digital Platforms, Imperialism and Political Culture, 2-7. Routledge
  3. ↑ West, Emily (2022). Buy Now: How Amazon Branded Convenience and Normalized Monopoly. MIT Press.
  4. ↑ Davis, S. (2021). "What is Netflix imperialism? Interrogating the monopoly aspirations of the ‘World’s largest television network.’" Information, Communication & Society, 26(6), 1143–1158


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.