Digital Economy – Media’s Role in Shaping Society

Social media platforms generate immense revenue by transforming user interactions into economic assets, profiting from user engagement while offering little in return. Although framed as “free” services, platforms rely on user activities as a hidden form of labour, exploiting attention, content, and data without fair compensation. This blog argues that social media users perform unpaid labour, a process that platforms exploit under the guise of “free” services, and calls for a reevaluation of the user-platform relationship.

As someone who is constantly on social media, I recorded my posting for one day. First, I posted my photography on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu, about a commercial street. It received 547 views, 3 likes, and 1 comment. Next, I posted a video on the Chinese video platform BiliBili about a bug in the Steam market. It received 15,000 views, 154 likes, and 342 comments, which was due to the fact that many people encountered the problem I described in the video, and it also triggered a lot of discussion. Despite the good results, I did not receive any financial gain due to the platform’s threshold for user creative incentives return eligibility. But the ads posted on the platform appear in my post and video webpage, and the platform is monetising through advertising. In fact, my labour has not been rewarded as I had imagined.

Dallas Smythe’s “audience commodity” theory sheds light on this structure, arguing that media audiences are commodities sold to advertisers, performing “work” simply by paying attention to content (Smythe, 2012, p. 233). Social media intensifies this by turning every interaction—scrolling, liking, or watching—into a commodity that platforms sell to advertisers. Platforms are ostensibly “free,” yet users effectively “pay” through their attention, which becomes a monetizable product. This model converts moments of leisure into commodified labour, benefitting platforms while users remain uncompensated.

Nicole Cohen’s concept of “double commodification” extends this critique, explaining how platforms generate revenue from both user attention and the data produced by user interactions. (Cohen, 2013, p. 179) Platforms analyse these interactions, creating a stream of marketable data, or “cybernetic commodities” (Cohen, 2013, p. 183). Facebook’s extensive data collection on likes, comments, and shares illustrates this: each interaction informs personalised advertising, a revenue stream from which users derive no direct benefit. Through double commodification, users become both unpaid workers and commodified products within a system designed to maximise profit without rewarding its contributors.

Kylie Jarrett’s “Digital Housewife” metaphor offers further insight by comparing social media engagement to traditional domestic work. Jarrett argues that users, like housewives, perform unpaid labor that sustains a system from which they receive little direct reward (Jarrett, 2017, p. 3). On platforms like Pinterest, users curate boards and share ideas, driving engagement without compensation. This “affective labor” builds the community and platform appeal essential to Pinterest’s success, resembling domestic work that supports family life yet goes unrecognized economically. Jarrett’s metaphor underscores the gendered dimension of social media labor, as women are often central to community-building efforts online, yet their contributions remain underappreciated and uncompensated.

Brooke Erin Duffy’s notion of “aspirational labour” further reveals how social media exploits user ambitions. Many creators invest time and resources in building their social media presence. They “approach social media creation with strategy, purpose, and aspirations of career success” (Duffy, 2017, p. 48). Yet only a select few achieve such success, while the majority provide free content that keeps audiences engaged, benefiting the platform disproportionately. TikTok exemplifies this, where countless influencers work to grow followings, with only a fraction attaining financial rewards while the platform capitalises on their unpaid labour.

The notion that social media platforms are “free” is increasingly inadequate as they derive vast economic value from user activity while offering minimal reciprocal value. Users generate content, provide data, and fuel engagement—contributions that are essential to the platform’s business model but that go unacknowledged as labor. Recognising this dynamic and understanding social media engagement as a form of labour challenges us to consider alternative models of fair compensation or transparency. To create a more equitable digital economy, platforms should explore ways to reward users for their role in sustaining the platform and acknowledge the economic value users provide. Without such measures, social media remains an ecosystem where user contributions primarily enrich platforms, exposing the deeper exploitative dynamics of the digital economy.

Reference

Cohen, N.S. (2013) Commodifying Free Labor Online: Social Media, Audiences, and Advertising. In: E. West and M. McAllister, eds. The Routledge Companion to Advertising and Promotional Culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 163–180.

Duffy, B.E. (2017) Not Getting Paid to Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jarrett, K. (2017) Feminism, Labour, and Digital Media: The Digital Housewife. London: Routledge.

Smythe, D.W. (2012) On the Audience Commodity and its Work. In: M.G. Durham and D.M. Kellner, eds. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 230–245.

Airbnb’s promotional video for Airbnb.org, featuring stories of hosts offering shelter in times of crisis, presents the platform as a community-centred initiative in the digital economy. This narrative suggests that Airbnb can create genuine, decentralised connections that support people in need. However, this portrayal obscures a deeper reality: Airbnb’s model transforms personal spaces into commercial assets, promoting a market-orientated approach that conflicts with the platform’s idealised vision of community-driven sharing. I argue that, while Airbnb taps into the appeal of digital empowerment, its emphasis on market mechanisms ultimately commodifies private space, challenging the integrity of the “sharing economy” and raising questions about the platform’s social impact.

Airbnb’s alignment with the Californian Ideology, a vision of libertarian individualism and technological optimism, forms the basis for its appeal. Barbrook and Cameron (1995) define the Californian Ideology as a framework that sees technology as a tool for individual empowerment, envisioning a free-market cyberspace where people connect without intermediaries or regulation (Barbrook & Cameron, 1995, p. 5). In Airbnb’s narrative, this vision is realised through stories of hosts autonomously offering their homes, suggesting that the platform facilitates a form of digital democracy where individuals can freely provide support. This ideal of self-determined generosity implies that, by leveraging Airbnb’s technology, individuals can foster community outside traditional institutional frameworks (Barbrook & Cameron, 1995, p. 3).

Yet, the Californian Ideology’s emphasis on individual freedom and market-driven interactions overlooks the socio-economic disparities such platforms can exacerbate. Barbrook and Cameron argue that this ideology often ignores structural inequalities, promoting a one-sided vision of opportunity that tends to benefit the economically privileged (Barbrook & Cameron, 1995, p. 8). Airbnb’s platform model exemplifies this tension, as its impact on local housing markets—where short-term rentals can drive up costs and displace residents—demonstrates. While Airbnb promises to empower individuals, it primarily benefits those with property to rent, reinforcing socio-economic divides rather than reducing them. This contradiction reveals a limitation of the Californian Ideology: freedom framed solely in economic terms can obscure broader social costs, as Airbnb’s commercial model ends up restricting access to affordable housing rather than creating equitable opportunities.

Airbnb’s platform design promotes a market-orientated model of hospitality by transforming homes into commercial assets. According to Spier (2024), Airbnb’s interface encourages hosts to adopt “professional” standards through features like pricing recommendations, photo guidelines, and automated communications (Spier, 2024, p. 9). This design encourages a shift from casual hosting to profit-driven transactions, aligning host behaviour with corporate goals and commodifying what was once private space. This approach fits within Freedman’s notion of the “economy of abundance,” where platforms use vast inventories of personal resources to expand consumer choice yet often impose standardised practices that undermine genuine individual agency (Freedman, 2016, p. 74).

Additionally, Airbnb claims neutrality in its role as a “platform,” presenting itself as a mere connector between hosts and guests. This neutrality thesis, as Spier notes, enables Airbnb to avoid responsibility for local market impacts, despite its direct influence on user behaviour (Spier, 2024, p. 7). The platform’s design subtly directs hosts to conform to Airbnb’s commercial model, challenging the idea that it is merely a passive intermediary. By embedding specific values and priorities into its design, Airbnb shapes interactions in ways that serve its profit motives, undermining the community-orientated narrative it promotes.

Extended Link: Airbnb’s Latest Commercialisation Initiative: The Co-Host Network

In essence, while Airbnb projects a vision of digital freedom and empowerment, its model reveals the limitations of this ideal within a profit-driven framework. For Airbnb to genuinely align with its community-focused image, it would need to balance its commercial objectives with social responsibility, perhaps by supporting non-commercial exchanges or community initiatives. Without such changes, Airbnb’s promise of digital empowerment remains primarily rhetorical, serving as a strategy to enhance brand appeal rather than a true embodiment of the sharing economy.

References

Barbrook, R. & Cameron, A. (1995). The Californian Ideology. Mute.

Freedman, D. (2016). “Web 2.0 and the Death of the Blockbuster Economy.” In Curran, J., Fenton, N., & Freedman, D. (eds.), Misunderstanding the Internet. London: Routledge, pp. 74-99.

Spier, S. (2024). “Uncovering Digital Platforms’ Ethics and Politics: The Case of Airbnb.” Philosophy & Technology, 37, pp. 1-27.

Tag: Digital Economy

Airbnb: Freedom or Commodification in the Digital Economy?