Digital authoritarianism and stacktivism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2026.2.12Keywords:
algorithmic media, heterotopia, identity, user, stacktivism, stacks, digital authoritarianismAbstract
The development of digital media and the diversity of approaches to digital space analysis testify to the fact that the modern world is digitalized. Nearly all spheres of everyday life are reproduced through algorithms intended to simplify critical decision-making. Delegating the right to inform and provide decision-making scenarios to digital intelligence has created an illusion of freedom and objectivity. This study analyzes digital space as communication links according to M. Foucault, where algorithmic platforms are understood as heterotopias. Since each algorithmic platform possesses its own internal structure, rules, and logic of interaction, it can conflict with the digital space or complement it with its diversity. At the same time, the computational structures of each algorithm are created and function around the user as a media resource. Collecting information about users at the "input" of each algorithmic medium provides a model of behavior and values for the user at the "output". As FB, TikTok, Instagram, X, Zoom, Threads, YouTube, and other algorithmic media function according to their own algorithms, they not only form boundaries for communication but also create illusions. According to G. Bachelard, this constitutes "another space" that should be generated by the subject's imagination. However, this function of dream generation has been hijacked today by algorithmic media, forming digital authoritarianism. Shoshana Zuboff interprets this as "surveillance capitalism". The dream proposals within each algorithmic medium are subject to the rules of their specific heterotopia. This constructs a digital version of the user and splits them into a multiplicity of algorithmic identities. The article explores B. Bratton's concept of The Stack as a vertical six-layer model that transforms the user into an object of monetization and influence. Additionally, the phenomenon of "stacktivism" by G. Lovink is examined as a strategy for interactive resistance and hacktivism.
References
Bachelard G. (1969). The Poetics of Reverie. Childhood, language, and the cosmos / transl. from the French by D. Russell. Boston : Beacon press, 263 p.
Bratton B. H. (2015). The stack: on software and sovereignty. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 520 p.
Deleuze G. (2006). Post-scriptum sobre las sociedades de control. Polis. Revista Latinoamericana. № 13. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/polis/5509.
Faramelli A., Piper I. (2023). Everybody wants to be a fascist online: Psychoanalysis and the digital architecture of fascism. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture. Vol. 24, № 4. Art. 6.
Foucault M. (1984). Dits et écrits 1984, Des espaces autres (conférence au Cercle d'études architecturales, 14 mars 1967). Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité. № 5. P. 46-49.
Foucault M. (1967). Of Other Spaces. Heterotopias. URL: https://foucault.info/documents/heterotopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en/ .
Gagrčin E., Naab T. K., Grub M. F. (2026). Algorithmic media use and algorithm literacy: An integrative literature review. New Media & Society. Vol. 28, № 1. P. 423-447.
Jacobsen B. N. (2023). Regimes of recognition on algorithmic media. New Media & Society. Vol. 25, № 12. P. 3641-3656.
Kitchin R. (2019). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. The social power of algorithms. London : Routledge. P. 14-29.
Leonardi P. M., Nardi B. A., Kallinikos J. (Eds.). (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford : Oxford university press. 378 p.
Liang M. (2022). The end of social media? How data attraction model in the algorithmic media reshapes the attention economy. Media, Culture & Society. Vol. 44, № 6. P. 1110-1131.
Lovink G. (2022). In der Plattformfalle. Plädoyer zur Rückeroberung des Internets / Übers. aus dem Engl. P. Ilyes, J. S. Theodor. Bielefeld : Transcript Verlag. 164 s. (Digitale Gesellschaft ; Bd. 52).
Maine I. (2019). Google’s Exit from China. Medium. 14 May. URL: https://medium.com/@izaakmaine/googles-exit-from-china-ce778cbd8609 .
Mann M. (2012). The sources of social power. Vol. 1: A history of power from the beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 574 p.
Manovich L. (2013). Software takes command. Vol. 5. New York : A&C Black. 358 p.
Napoli P. M. (2014). Automated media: An institutional theory perspective on algorithmic media production and consumption. Communication theory. Vol. 24, № 3. P. 340-360.
Ohme J. (2021). Algorithmic social media use and its relationship to attitude reinforcement and issue-specific political participation – The case of the 2015 European immigration movements. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. Vol. 18, № 1. P. 36-54.
Scheffauer R., Goyanes M., Gil de Zúñiga H. (2024). Social media algorithmic versus professional journalists’ news selection: Effects of gatekeeping on traditional and social media news trust. Journalism. Vol. 25, № 4. P. 755-778.
