Anticipation as Platform Power : The Temporal Structuring of Digital Everyday Life

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Anticipation as Platform Power : The Temporal Structuring of Digital Everyday Life © The Author(s) 2023 Published version Koivunen, Anu; Nikunen, Kaarina; Hokkanen, Julius; Jaaksi, Vilja; Lehtinen, Vilma; Soronen, Anne; Talvitie-Lamberg, Karoliina; Valtonen, Sanna Koivunen, A., Nikunen, K., Hokkanen, J., Jaaksi, V., Lehtinen, V., Soronen, A., Talvitie-Lamberg, K., & Valtonen, S. (2024). Anticipation as Platform Power : The Temporal Structuring of Digital Everyday Life. Television and New Media, 25 (2), 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764231178228 2024 https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764231178228 Television & New Media 1 –18 © The Author(s) 2023 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/15274764231178228 journals.sagepub.com/home/tvn Article Anticipation as Platform Power: The Temporal Structuring of Digital Everyday Life Anu Koivunen1, Kaarina Nikunen2, Julius Hokkanen2, Vilja Jaaksi2, Vilma Lehtinen2, Anne Soronen2, Karoliina Talvitie-Lamberg3, and Sanna Valtonen2 Abstract This article explores anticipation as a temporal structure in digital platforms. It contributes to the growing research of platformisation of everyday life by focusing on temporality as a central dimension of platform power, a key mechanism tying participants by structuring intimacies, socialities, and relations that platforms enable and engender. The article shows how the temporality of foreboding, prospecting and speculating about one’s own and other’s social media presence and actions permeates the user experience. Studying media diaries and interviews with participants from different social and occupational groups (politicians, actors, the unemployed, undocumented migrants), the article analyses anticipation as a structure of feeling, as time- and energy-consuming digital labor and as the embodiment of platform power’s mechanisms. While anticipation has previously been examined as operational logics of the platform economy, this article demonstrates how anticipation also concerns ordinary media users on the level of their everyday life worlds, experiences and practices. Keywords Social Media, everyday life, platformisation, intimacy, temporality, affective labor, structure of feeling 1University of Turku, Finland 2Tampere University, Finland 3University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Corresponding Author: Anu Koivunen, School of History, Culture and Arts Studies, FIN-20014 University of Turku, Finland. Email: [email protected] 1178228TVNXXX10.1177/15274764231178228Television & New MediaKoivunen et al. research-article2023 2 Television & New Media 00(0) In this article, we study anticipation as a key mechanism behind digital platforms tying participants to themselves. Based on empirical research on everyday experiences of platformisation and social media platforms in particular, we show how the temporality of foreboding, prospecting and speculation regarding one’s own and others’ social media presence and actions permeates the user experience. We suggest anticipation be conceptualized as the temporal and affective structuring of intimacies, socialities and relationships that platforms enable and engender. The role of social media in structuring everyday life has been identified in a range of studies that explore the dominant temporal regimes or power dynamics involved in daily life, as shaped by platforms and social media (Abeele et al. 2018; Haber 2019; Jordheim and Ytreberg 2021; Kaun and Stiernstedt 2014; Poell 2020). Connectivity, networking and personalized logics are recognized as part of the anytime, anyplace communication that shapes daily life (Abeele et al. 2018). Those studies that focus on the temporal structuring of the everyday often indicate presentness, immediacy, speediness, and newness as dominant temporalities of social media (Haber 2019; Kaun and Stiernstedt 2014; Poell 2020) while also pointing out the multi-layeredness of the “affective temporality of social media” (Coleman 2018), with the constant co-pres- ence of the past (Paasonen 2021). In our approach to anticipation in the context of platformisation (Lobato 2019; Poell et al. 2019; Van Dijck and Poell 2013), we draw on the research tradition that focuses on media and everyday life, highlighting the ambiguous ways in which media become intertwined with the rhythms, spaces and relationships of our lives. In this scholarship, how media follow, adapt to and organize the spatial and temporal rhythms of domestic everyday life has been viewed as central to their relevance in people’s lives (Scannell 2014). The use of social media is bound tightly to everyday contexts, including our daily rhythms of waking up, checking our messages and scrolling social media feeds while we wait for something or take a break at work (Highmore 2004). Different feelings of comfort, pleasure and frustration are connected with routines and experienced differently within various social groups and identities (Cavalcante et al. 2017). The important insight derived from media-and-everyday-life studies is that the power of platforms resides in these banal routines. To quote Chun (2017, 1), “our media matter the most when they do not seem to matter at all.” In this paper, we study anticipation as (1) a key structure of experience in contemporary everyday platform activity, (2) time- and energy-consuming digital and affective labor, and (3) the embodiment of platform power’s mechanisms. In identifying anticipation as a structure of experience and feeling (Williams 1977) that unites various users, we argue it offers insights into platformed temporality as “power-chronog- raphy” (Sharma 2014), a social ordering that structures various online experiences and social struggles. While the structure of experience is shared, the implications of platform power vary according to one’s social position and life situation. Empirical studies that delve into differences in social position allow for nuanced situated knowledge about how platformed everyday lives are lived, but here, we focus on anticipation in order to foreground the structuring power of platforms, which, we argue, affects the socialities of all. While offering our analysis as a contribution to theory about platform Koivunen et al. 3 power, we build an understanding of anticipation at the grassroots level of media use, as described by people using digital platforms in various social and life situations. By researching experiences of digital everyday life through empirical interviews and diaries, we are able to advance debates on anticipation by “enfleshing” the hold of platforms, showing how it materializes in the form of anticipation. Platformisation, Anticipation, and Affect In recent research, anticipation is, firstly, discussed as an affect and a central experience in digital culture (Jansson 2013; Lupinacci 2021). It has been discussed as a component or driver of affective attunement toward the future (Papacharissi 2015). Drawing on Grusin’s (2011) concept of premediation, Papacharissi (2015) describes the centrality of “intense anticipation” regarding what might happen next as an important part of digital culture. In this approach, anticipation is described as premediation that mobilizes affect “in producing a mood or structure of feeling that makes possible certain kinds of actions, thoughts, speech, affectivities, feelings or moods, mediations that might not have seemed possible before or that might have fallen flat or died on the vine or not produced echoes and reverberations in the public or media sphere” (Grusin 2011, n.p.). Lupinacci (2021) and Jansson (2013) have identified anticipation as one of the key characteristics that shapes our experience of platformed life. While analyzing social media users’ experiences in the UK, Lupinacci (2021) described how the liveness of continuous connection results in a “constant state of anticipation.” Jansson (2013) describes premediated anticipation of the “circulated self,” which is related to the demands of social media, as an important part of the transmedia textures of the mediatized lifeworld. Anticipation has, secondly, been examined as operational logics of the platform economy (Helmond 2015; Poell et al. 2019). Political-economy analyses of automation and surveillance capitalism indicate a new temporal shift in the platformed media ecosystem (Andrejevic 2020; Zuboff 2019). Prediction through data has become a central way to do business and governance. Anticipating audience behavior, tastes and habits is used for marketing purposes to create targeted, predictive advertising on social media platforms. Carmi (2020, 1) originated the notion of rhythmmedia to capture how “media companies render people, objects and their relations as rhythms and (re)order them for economic purposes.” In this way, digital devices operate increasingly as “orienting” devices (Ahmed 2006; Twigt 2018) that focus on the future via the temporality of anticipation. Thirdly, the practice of anticipation emerges in theorizations about algorithmic imagination. Examining how Facebook users make sense of algorithms, Bucher (2017, 41) highlights how imagining the functions of platforms is productive: “the ways in which algorithms are experienced and encountered as part of everyday life become part of ‘force relations’ that give people a ‘reason to react’.” Studies of social media entrepreneurs discuss anticipation as a practice of predicting and “gaming” algorithms to maintain and increase visibility (Bishop 2020; Cotter 2019). This research on algorithmic imagination has demonstrated that users are simultaneously 4 Television & New Media 00(0) highly aware of the platform logic and negotiate its rules while assuming agency (Ruckenstein and Granroth 2020). Inspired by these approaches, we study anticipation as platform power, focusing on relationality toward other people and foregrounding the temporal, affective structure of these relationships. While approaches to anticipation as affect in a digital context may eschew the question of platform power, the political-economy perspective tends to overlook messy, ambivalent everyday platform experiences. Moreover, anticipation is often associated with the attention economy and commercial interests, whereas a wider analysis of everyday platform experiences highlights the continuous balancing between visibility and invisibility among many users (Abidin 2021; Talvitie-Lamberg et al. 2022). Anticipation highlights temporality, and as affect, within our approach, it denotes both open-ended orientation toward the future and context-specific, named emotions, such as anxiety or excitement. We suggest that platformisation entails experiencing a temporal ordering of digital everyday life that qualifies as a particular structure of feeling. In defining the “structure of feeling,” Raymond Williams (1977) highlights the coexistence of temporalities. Williams (1977) offers this concept to underline the importance of studying not merely the dominant or that which is waning but also what he termed the “pre-emergent” and “emergent” aspects of culture: social experiences “in solution”; the ephemeral but acutely felt and the “active and pressing, but not yet fully articulated” (p. 126). Reinterpreting Williams’s definition as highlighting a context-specific arrangement of temporalities as power in process, we invoke the notion of power-chronography (Sharma 2014) to highlight how power operates as a “biopolitical economy of time,” as various institutions of the modern power structure control and enhance “people’s qualitative experiences of time” (Sharma 2014, 19). Platform power, we suggest, operates by imposing and normalizing a temporal order of anticipation, that is, expectation and alertness in relation to what is happening next. As such, anticipation is both an imposed order and a mode of agency and survival. It is both feeling and practice, imagination, and materiality entangled in everyday life. The concept of anticipation allows us to grasp the complexities of the micropolitics of time and the way in which people in different life situations synchronize to one another’s time and to the larger structure of time. Thus, this synchronicity is “at the heart of everyday material relations” (Sharma 2014, 7), structuring intimacies, socialities, and relationships (Berlant 1998). Methods and Data As Helen Kennedy (2018) argues, research on platforms and datafication must be examined not only from the perspectives of technology and industry but also at the everyday level to capture how people understand, feel about and deal with data-gath- ering practices, as well as how these practices may affect different groups of people in different ways. This research project is based on media diaries and interviews with participants in four social and occupational groups in Finland: politicians, actors, the unemployed, Koivunen et al. 5 and undocumented migrants. Instead of focusing on one particular group or media users in general, we study experiences of digital life across these groups in a context in which myriad activities, from public services and work practices to personal connections and family life, are increasingly organized through digital devices, applications, and services. These particular groups were chosen to provide insights on the experienced differences and similarities in a platformed everyday life, which might not have been captured by using a more homogeneous user group. The politicians and actors were chosen due to their public occupation, which becomes enacted through digital platforms in various ways, whereas the unemployed and undocumented migrants were chosen due to their life situations, which render them targets of various governance strategies and surveillance (Nikunen and Valtonen 2023). We acknowledge that a focus on various user groups may entail a risk of essentializing users as representatives of a group and treating these groups as given categories. However, acknowledging such groups and positionalities offers valuable insights into differences in power-chronography in the digital everyday. At the same time, this approach enables us to identify shared experiences across groups. This serves our aim, which is to make visible the different contexts of everyday life in which platform power operates. All these groups may be rendered vulnerable in digital everyday life, albeit in different ways and with different consequences based on a person’s social status or life situation. Here, our interest is not in individual experiences of social media platforms but, rather, in the ways in which social structures and platform power intertwine and shape the everyday. The research was conducted in 2020 to 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Everyday life in Finland was interrupted by two lockdowns (2.5 months in Spring 2020 and 6 months in Winter 2020-2021); however, the restrictions were not as severe as those in many other European countries. While people worked from homes, there were no curfews imposed. Even though it is likely that the context of the pandemic intensified the digitalization of daily life, the participants in this research project discussed their digital everyday lives in general terms and only occasionally addressed the specific conditions brought about by the pandemic. The empirical data were collected at the beginning of the COVID crisis and, therefore, do not reveal the changes in digital engagement caused by the prolonged state of the pandemic. The participants kept diaries of their digital everyday lives for 7 to 10 days, after which time each participant was interviewed face-to-face, on Zoom, or by phone. The recruitment of the participants was performed by contacting them directly by email or phone (politicians and actors) and also through various day centers and support groups (the unemployed and undocumented migrants). Altogether, thirty-four politicians (twelve young politicians and twenty-two Members of Parliament), fifteen actors, thirty unemployed people, and sixteen undocumented migrants participated in the study. The participants were able to keep the diary in the language of their choice and in the form of either an audio or written version. The diaries offered the chance to address issues that were relevant for the participants, without predefined topics. The diary notes were used in interviews as examples or queries to reflect upon, except for the MPs, who only participated in the interviews. The concept of a diary was not familiar to everyone, and 6 Television & New Media 00(0) particularly among the undocumented migrants, the diaries varied in format and content (Nikunen and Valtonen 2022). These differences in the data are themselves revealing of the distinct life situations of the participants, and on a whole, they speak to the “messiness” of researching everyday life (Law 2004; Postill and Pink 2012). Such messiness is also a site of knowledge that requires reflexivity in terms of how it relates to the constructed research setting and goals of the study. Both the diary and interview data, representing 157 documents in total, were transcribed and coded thematically with Atlas.ti software using fifty-two codes. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, WhatsApp, YouTube, Messenger, LinkedIn, Snapchat, and TikTok were the platforms most frequently mentioned in the data. To understand how platforms are entangled in everyday social relations, we focussed on specific self-surveil- lance (138 mentions), self-presentation (428), social-surveillance (235), and management-of-social-relations (201) codes, which provided a specific perspective on experiences of and everyday labor in managing relationships on social media. In the preliminary analysis of our empirical data, our focus was on social relationships and self-presentation. The coded data were discussed and re-read together with the research team over several sessions. We searched for various ways in which these groups made sense of their digital relationships, and we found that temporal orientation (i.e., anticipation) appeared to be prevalent across all groups. Once we identified anticipation as a shared experience in the data, we began a more detailed analysis of the meanings and practices surrounding anticipation, distilling three anticipation dimensions in the process: (1) anticipation as a structure of feeling, (2) anticipation as practice, and (3) anticipation as a manifestation of platform power. Anticipation as a Structure of Feeling Anticipation, as a structure of feeling, illustrates the fact that social media’s key temporality is the potential of imminent future promise (i.e., “things just around the corner”) (Paasonen 2021, 73). While social media users generally search for affective intensities and many expect moments of amusement or interest, in our data, the futurity of platformed everyday life also entails worries and fears. In other words, the participants anticipated sharing news and entertainment with friends and family, but these positive expectations were accompanied by concerns over potential problems. Thus, as a structure of feeling, anticipation entails both expecting and imagining what lies ahead, as well as attempts to control potential risks and harms in advance. The participants actively feel and imagine others and their own relationships to others, as well as their atmospheric environment on the platforms. Their expectations regarding platforms arose out of past experiences and expected future outcomes. In our data, anticipation was linked intimately to the felt co-presence of both known and unknown others. Participants oriented themselves by imagining their own actions’ potential effects (Cefai and Couldry 2019). The participants planned and evaluated their modes of being on social media platforms from the perspective of actual and imagined users, as well as their motives and goals, but also in relation to the algorithms’ imagined operations. Their online activities and motives behind their social Koivunen et al. 7 media presence varied, but they described emotional efforts related to anticipated or unforeseen interactions. For participants in public roles, such as politicians or actors, anticipation is a part of their professional identity. They, like other participants in our data, nevertheless described platformed everyday life as entailing a large amount of affective labor. Attempts to prevent “uncontrollable relationality” (Sedgwick 2003, 37) led to participants carefully monitoring their own and others’ behavior. Professional actors in our data described how they pondered over planned posts, imagining or expecting potential responses. Anticipation materialized as attempts to control impressions toward and interactions with actual and imagined audiences: ‘If I get an idea that, for example, now, I could share this thought, then I start to consider very carefully what I will communicate with this [post] outwards if I share this kind of thought on social media. How much of the post, 60 percent or something else, is my own and not somebody else’s opinion? Could somebody read this and think, “Hey, I cannot work with this person because they think like that” or “Do I have to care about these things?” And, somehow, it has been like that. I haven’t liked to do that brainwork yet, so I have sort of remained in the background, so I more like to watch and listen and I’m not an active agent in that way on social media’ (Actor 15). This participant controls his presence on Instagram by imagining potential colleagues who, upon seeing his updates in the future, might be offended or react negatively. Our data demonstrate that planning or sharing posts is often accompanied by anxiety, caution and suspicion concerning the future (Soronen and Koivunen 2022). The participants in our project recognize and reflect on platform expectations, affective atmospheres and social expectations. They admitted to everyday pondering and the affective work that this imagining, speculating and fearing entail, even if the user may not act visibly on platforms. An unemployed participant noted, “Well, I don’t know. Instagram is quite OK. I don’t have anything bad to say about it, but (on) Facebook, if you end up commenting on something, you may get dirt for nothing, so it is better to be silent” (Unemployed twenty-six). Many participants question platform expectations, and when they post, they take precautions to minimize the odds of drawing the wrong kind of attention or creating unwanted consequences. In our data, anticipation often focuses on the assumed or imagined affective atmosphere of the platform. For some, expecting and preparing for rude comments and microaggressions overshadows their presence and agency on social media. For politicians, knowing about platform affordances, communication styles and particular emotional architectures (Wahl-Jørgensen 2018), as well as imagining each platform’s user demographics, is partly a question of professional competence and performance, something that concerns them as individual social media users. Twitter and Instagram emerged as contrasting examples. One young female politician described Instagram as “low-threshold social media” for newcomers because “adversaries” are not expected, while Twitter was described as the opposite. A male member of parliament (MP nineteen) described Twitter as an arena for “wars” and having an atmosphere of “scandals 8 Television & New Media 00(0) and outrage, and feelings of hate and anger,” in which he nevertheless participates. Politicians described Twitter as an essential yet contradictory arena for public discussion. A sense of felt duty and angst over potential attacks is present constantly, as one of the participants explained: ‘It is not funny at all; it requires a kind of backbone. It is almost like having short circuit yards. . . These are the dangers of contemporary life, particularly for public figures, which the members of parliament are by necessity. [. . .] I often have motivational conflicts about whether I’m going to take part in this or should I just let these absurdities go on. It is constant negotiation [regarding whether] one should correct the information’ (MP 5). A young female politician who expected to be “lynched” on Twitter wondered whether she was “strong enough to do politics and be in politics.” Pondering an upcoming election campaign, she asked, “Does one endure it? Perhaps, one sort of grows up and, of course, gets more adult and so on. But (pause) can one put up with it?” (Politician 1). Our data indicate that professional role, better resources (in the case of MPs, parliamentary staff and support groups in one’s constituency) and social media strategies cannot protect the individual user from feelings of vulnerability and anxious foreboding (Hokkanen 2022; Hokkanen et al. 2021). The anticipatory structure of feeling features a sense of duty toward participating and reacting during topical discussions, requiring the active monitoring of one’s social media feed and an ability to react quickly when something personally or professionally relevant occurs. Emotional efforts are intense when following others’ posts and ongoing discussions closely while simultaneously making decisions about whether to react. While some unemployed participants viewed themselves as uninteresting from other social media users’ perspective, politicians described feelings of duty. The imperative nature of sharing (van Dijck 2013, 58) and the “circulation of self” (Jansson 2013) was a structural feature of social media networking sites that was also invoked by the undocumented participants: ‘The social media. . . it kind of lures (you) to tell much more. It is like part of the whole thing about it. . . that I have to cross boundaries and tell so much in order to be somebody there. But I don’t want to tell what is going on at home; I don’t want to [post] pictures because they [other people online] are strangers. But they, they (talk about) their vacations and disputes and meals and everything with pictures, and that creates pressure and contradiction. Should I tell (them) too? It is very hard to keep boundaries, even for me. And, then, I think that it cannot be interesting to (give) my opinions. And I don’t want to know these things about others’ (Undocumented 13). For this undocumented participant, the felt platform expectation entails foreboding because visibility carries the risk of being identified by the authorities (police, border guards, and immigration services) or endangering their own families. Simultaneously, the participant expressed a sense of non-belonging and expected non-interest on the part of others, similar to what some unemployed participants expressed. Koivunen et al. 15 sense of control and security, however, varies among participant groups. For some, risks are higher than for others. However, the ways in which constant negotiation over how to express oneself and react and respond to potential messages and reactions from others have altered daily life across all these groups, demonstrating how platform power is organized as a temporal, intimate infrastructure in everyday life. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research has received funding from the Strategic Research Council, Academy of Finland, Grant Nos. 327392, 327394 and 352520. ORCID iD Anu Koivunen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-3418 References Abeele, M, R De Wolf, and R Ling. 2018. “Mobile Media and Social Space: How Anytime, Anyplace Connectivity Structures Everyday Life.” Media and Communication 6 (2): 5–14. Abidin, C. 2021. From “Networked Publics” to “Refracted Publics”: A Companion Framework for Researching “Below the Radar” Studies. Social Media + Society 7 (1). https://doi. org/10.1177/2056305120984458 Ahmed, S. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Andrejevic, M. 2020. Automated Media. London: Routledge. Berlant, L. 1998. “Intimacy: A Special Issue.” Critical Inquiry 24 (2): 281–8. Berlant, L. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bishop, S. 2020. “Algorithmic Experts: Selling Algorithmic Lore on YouTube.” Social Media + Society 6 (1): 205630511989732. Bucher, T. 2017. “The Algorithmic Imaginary: Exploring the Ordinary Affects of Facebook Algorithms.” Information Communication & Society 20 (1): 30–44. Carmi, E. 2020. “Rhythmedia: A Study of Facebook Immune System.” Theory Culture & Society 37 (5): 119–38. Cavalcante, A, A Press, and K Sender. 2017. “Feminist Reception Studies in a Post-Audience Age: Returning to Audiences and Everyday Life.” Feminist Media Studies 17 (1): 1–13. Cefai, S, and N Couldry. 2019. “Mediating the Presence of Others: Reconceptualising Co-presence as Mediated Intimacy.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 22 (3): 291–308. Chun, WHK. 2017. Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press. Coleman, R. 2018. “Social Media and the Materialisation of the Affective Present.” In Affect and Social Media, edited by T. Sampson, S. Maddison, and D. Ellis, 67–75. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Collignon, F. 2019. “The Politics of a Smile.” New Formations 95: 87–102. 16 Television & New Media 00(0) Cotter, K. 2019. “Playing the Visibility Game: How Digital Influencers and Algorithms Negotiate Influence on Instagram.” New Media & Society 21 (4): 895–913. Grusin, RA. 2011. “Premediation and the Virtual Occupation of Wall Street.” Theory & Event 14 (4). Haber, B. 2019. “The Digital Ephemeral Turn: Queer Theory, Privacy, and the Temporality of Risk.” Media Culture & Society 41 (8): 1069–87. Helmond, Anne. 2015. “The Platformization of the Web: Making Web Data Platform Ready.” Social Media + Society 1: 1–11. Highmore, B. 2004. “Homework: Routine, Social Aesthetics and the Ambiguity of Everyday Life.” Cultural Studies 18 (2–3): 306–27. Hokkanen, J. 2022. “Ja Jos Se Ei Kelpaa Algoritmeille Niin Sitten Ei Kelpaa. Se Siitä.: Datakäytännöt Nuorten Poliitikkojen Arjessa.” Politiikka 64 (2): 98–119. Hokkanen, J, A Koivunen, and M Turunen. 2021. Datan Alaiset: Kansanedustajien Digitaalinen Arki. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto. Jansson, A. 2013. “Mediatization and Social Space: Reconstructing Mediatisation for the Transmedia Age.” Communication Theory 23: 279–96. Jarrett, K. 2016. Feminism, Labour and Digital Media: The Digital Housewife. London: Routledge. Jordheim, H, and E Ytreberg. 2021. “After Supersynchronisation: How Media Synchronise the Social.” Time & Society 30 (3): 402–22. Karppi, T. 2018. Disconnect: Facebook’s Affective Bonds. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Kaun, A, and F Stiernstedt. 2014. “Facebook Time: Technological and Institutional Affordances for Media Memories.” New Media & Society 16 (7): 1154–68. Kennedy, H. 2018. “Living With Data: Aligning Data Studies and Data Activism Through a Focus on Everyday Experiences of Datafication.” Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy 1: 18–30. Law, J. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge. Lobato, R. 2019. Netflix Nations: The Geography of Digital Distribution. New York: New York University Press. Lupinacci, L. 2021. “Absentmindedly Scrolling Through Nothing’: Liveness and Compulsory Continuous Connectedness in Social Media.” Media Culture & Society 43 (2): 273–90. Marwick, A, and D Boyd. 2011. “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately’: Twitter Users, Context Collapse and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society 13 (1): 114–33. Mols, A, and J Pridmore. 2021. “Always Available via WhatsApp: Mapping Everyday Boundary Work Practices and Privacy Negotiations.” Mobile Media & Communication 9 (3): 422–40. Nikunen, K, and S Valtonen. 2022. “Precariousness and Hope: Digital Everyday Life of the Undocumented Migrants Explored Through Collaborative Photography.” Media and Communication 10 (2): 218–29. Nikunen, K, and S Valtonen. 2023. “Undocumented and Datafied: Anticipation, Borders and the Everyday Life.” In Doing Digital Migrant Studies, edited by K Leurs, and S Ponzanesi. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Paasonen, S. 2021. Dependent, Distracted, Bored: Affective Formations in Networked Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Papacharissi, Z. 2015. Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poell, Thomas. 2020. “Social Media, Temporality, and the Legitimacy of Protest.” Social Movement Studies 19 (5–6): 609–24. Koivunen et al. 17 Poell, Thomas, David Nieborg, and José van Dijck. 2019. “Concepts of the Digital Society: Platformisation.” Internet Policy Review 8 (4): 4. Postill, John, and Sarah Pink. 2012. “Social Media Ethnography: The Digital Researcher in a Messy Web” Media International Australia 145 (1): 123–34. Ruckenstein, Minna, and Julia Granroth. 2020. “Algorithms, Advertising and the Intimacy of Surveillance.” Journal of Cultural Economy 13 (1): 12–24. Scannell, P. 2014. Television and the Meaning of ‘Live’: An Enquiry Into the Human Situation. Cambridge: Polity Press. Sedgwick, EK. 2003. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Sharma, S. 2014. In the Meantime: Temporality and Cultural Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Silverstone, R. 1994. Television and Everyday Life. London and New York: Routledge. Soronen, Anne, and Anu Koivunen. 2022. “Platformed Intimacies: Professional Belonging on Social Media.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 25 (5): 1344–60. Talvitie-Lamberg, Karoliina, Vilma Lehtinen, and Sanna Valtonen. 2022. “Tactics of Invisibility: How People in Vulnerable Positions Make Datafied Everyday Life Livable.” New Media & Society. Published electronically November 22 2022. doi:10.1177/14614448221136077. Twigt, Mirjam A. 2018. “The Mediation of Hope: Digital Technologies and Affective Affordances Within Iraqi Refugee Households in Jordan.” Social Media + Society 4. doi:10.1177/2056305118764426. van Dijck, J. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity. A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Dijck, José, and Thomas Poell. 2013. “Understanding Social Media Logic.” Media and Communication 1 (1): 2–14. Wahl-Jørgensen, K. 2018. “The Emotional Architecture of Social Media.” In A Networked Self and Platforms, Stories, Connections, edited by Z. Papacharissi, 77–93. London: Routledge. Williams, R. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, Ara. 2016. “The Infrastructure of Intimacy.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 41 (2): 247–80. Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York, NY: PublicAffairs. Author Biographies Anu Koivunen is Professor of Gender Studies at University of Turku, Finland. Her current research focuses on politicised intimacies and socialities on digital communication platforms, the power of news journalism, and cultural programming in 20th century television. Kaarina Nikunen is Professor of Media and Communication Research at Tampere University, Finland. Her areas of expertise include digital culture, datafication, migration, emotions and affectivity, solidarity, and social justice. She is the author of Media Solidarities: Emotions, Power and Justice in the Digital Age (SAGE, 2019). Julius Hokkanen is a doctoral candidate in Gender Studies at Tampere University, Finland. Vilja Jaaksi is a PhD student at University of Turku, Finland, and a researcher in the Intimacy in Data-Driven Culture -project (IDA). Their work if focused on the tensions and potentials of digital media for the community and identity building of Finnish nonbinary people. 18 Television & New Media 00(0) Vilma Lehtinen is a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, Finland. Currently, she works for the Intimacy in Data-Driven Culture (IDA) project, studying older adults’ experiences of datafied everyday life. Anne Soronen works as University Lecturer of Media Studies at Tampere University, Finland. Her research interests include everyday media cultures, digital work, media production and ethnographic methods. She is currently researching the datafied practices and perceptions of the possibilities and limitations of data analytics of television and film industry professionals. Karoliina Talvitie-Lamberg is an Assistant Professor of Media and Communication Research at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, focusing on everyday datafication and participation in media environments and connected vulnerabilities. She leads several research projects on digital disconnection and ethical data paths. She is an expert on digital inclusion in public service development Sanna Valtonen works as a researcher at the Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, Finland. Her current work focuses on datafication of borders and the digital lives of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers.