A major development in the music industries in recent years has been the rise of “unsigned” or “self-releasing” musicians (sometimes problematically called “DIY musicians” or “independent musicians”) who upload music directly to music streaming platforms (MSPs). This article examines the distinctive way in which Chinese MSPs have sought to incorporate such self-releasing musicians into their platform eco-systems and what it tells us about the ways in which digital platforms commodify cultural expression. We show that a remarkable new system has developed in China, based on evolving dynamics of platform power and state-business relations, and very high levels of concentration and integration. Yet the work of independent, self-releasing musicians is playing a much bigger part in the Chinese system than other parts of the world, allowing them to reach audiences in ways that were not previously possible. Drawing on critical studies of digital platforms and of the historical development of the music industries, we show that this apparent democratisation also represents an incorporation and commodification of activity that would often previously have taken place beyond the music industries, in ways that place constraints on the cultural autonomy of self-releasing musicians.

Gender-based online violence (GBOV) involves digitally-mediated and-enabled forms of harassment and abuse targeting women, and thus represents a major challenge to feminist movements globally. In this paper, we argue that civil society-based feminist organizations from various parts of the world have responded to this challenge by centring evidence of GBOV in order to develop key though hitherto under-examined epistemic, cultural, and socio-political practices, which we term evidentiary activism. Using a qualitative content analysis of 82 documents produced by feminist organizations, our analysis finds that this activism has two fundamental components. First, feminist organizations engage with existing formal evidentiary cultures by advancing and critiquing legislative and regulatory reforms to address GBOV, platform-based technological 'solutions,' and conventional notions of user privacy and anonymity. Second, they embrace and contribute to informal evidentiary cultures, which treat evidence as a tool of cultural and political mobilization against GBOV through strategies of publicization, moral pollution, and the cultivation of feminist digital citizenship. We contend that, akin to evidence-based advocacy that is influential in the fields of biomedicine and health, feminist organizations participate in and invent modes of digitally-oriented evidentiary activism designed to combat GBOV. Feminists' recasting of the how, why, and what of evidence represents a noteworthy development in struggles against online violence and misogyny, and within digital culture more generally.

Algorithmic profiling has become increasingly prevalent in many social fields and practices, including finance, marketing, law, cultural consumption and production, and social engagement. Although researchers have begun to investigate algorithmic profiling from various perspectives, socio-technical studies of algorithmic profiling that consider users' everyday perceptions are still scarce. In this article, we expand upon existing usercentered research and focus on people's awareness and imaginaries of algorithmic profiling, specifically in the context of social media and targeted advertising. We conducted an online survey geared toward understanding how Facebook users react to and make sense of algorithmic profiling when it is made visible. The methodology relied on qualitative accounts as well as quantitative data from 292 Facebook users in the United States and their reactions to their algorithmically inferred 'Your Interests' and 'Your Categories' sections on Facebook. The results illustrate a broad set of reactions and rationales to Facebook's (public-facing) algorithmic profiling, ranging from shock and surprise, to accounts of how superficialand in some cases, inaccuratethe profiles were. Taken together with the increasing reliance on Facebook as critical social infrastructure, our study highlights a sense of algorithmic disillusionment requiring further research.

In China, the live-streaming industry boasts 587 million users worth 961 billion yuan in 2020 [Yimei Zixun (2021, 16 March). 2020–2021 Zhongguo zaixian zhibo hangye niandu yanjiu baogao. https://www.163.com/dy/article/G57R8DN00511A1Q1.html]. With so many live-streamers clamoring for fame and fortune, the sheer competition catalyzes the rise of ‘live-streaming guilds’ (zhibo gonghui) that help members elevate themselves in the performance charts of the various live-streaming apps. In this article, we conducted ethnographic research in one such guild that contracted its business from the live-streaming platform Zhubei. By conceptualizing these guilds as collectives of manipulating ‘algorithmic experts’ [Bishop, S. (2020). Algorithmic experts: Selling algorithmic lore on YouTube. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119897323], we argue that they optimize their live-streamers’ performance according to algorithmic parameters that the platforms themselves reveal. However, guilds manipulate audience affects more, going so far as to use heterosexual male workers to masquerade as female live-streamers to entice straight male audience members to tip generously. As such, we challenge the still-prevalent epistemological assumption that live-streamers work alone, and the received wisdom that platform algorithms are unknown and unknowable.

Core precepts of the Silicon Valley technology culture include disruption, breaking things, and profiting from the results. As technologies run ahead of regulatory regimes, academic literatures in different fields continue to discuss problems that require attention, including: the regulation of monopolies and data markets; moral dilemmas of AI, such as surveillance and behavioral engineering; various environmental harms associated with technologies; and the spread of disinformation and attacks on liberal democratic values. Most discussions of regulation focus on processes such as the relative merits of corporate self-regulation, government intervention, and multiple stakeholder governance. It is less clear what values or principles should animate these approaches. This analysis develops a holistic framework of principles drawn from different prominent areas of concern. The goal is to evaluate specific policy proposals more holistically, to ensure that they: minimize business and data market monopolies, better protect privacy and agency, improve environmental sustainability, and limit communication that threatens liberal democratic values. Not only are specific standards in each of these areas still poorly evolved, but unless these they are considered together, regulatory approaches in one area may miss or even create new problems in others. The aim is not to impose a priori solutions on complex problems, but to offer scholars and stakeholders a heuristic framework to guide policy thinking.