MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625329257

IMAGINING DARKNETS: PRIVACY AS COMMODITY AESTHETICS

2015· article· en· W2625329257 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Hunsinger

Bibliographic record

VenueAoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityAlienationMateriality (auditing)Consumption (sociology)SociologyIdentity (music)AestheticsCommodityRelation (database)EpistemologyLawEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a field of distributed subjectivity, consumption is one mode through which we co- construct ourselves and our relation to things. Darknets and their users are clearly participating in reconstituting field of consumption, as is the internet in which darknets exist. Within consumption we labor to represent ourselves in relation to our material relations(Baudrillard, 1981) (Baudrillard, 1998). This paper argues that darknet users examples of both the de-massification of internet audiences and the re-constitution of a mass consumer identity centered on the commodity aesthetics of darknets(Haug, 1986). Specifically, I demonstrate that privacy on darknets is not so much a matter of reality but is a matter of a perceived commodity aesthetic by their subjective audience. Our consumption and our co-construction of the relations of our subjective approaches to commodity aesthetics is both the identification and alienation of the reflexive awareness of the subject’s desires/needs. Within darknets these desires/needs extend through our simplest curiosities, to political organizing, to representations of illicit activities, to the activities themselves. The alienation and identification of desires functions much like the creation of the identity qua the quasi-object that is produced is always partly the user's alienated identity (Gehl, 2014; Herman, 2013; Latour, 1993). This process produces the capacity to realize the values in the darknets as capital itself, including the values found in the relationship to the materiality of capital presented therein. Given the proclivities of the representations of constituted on darknets, this proposal examines how users create and recreate the darknet, both as a capital materiality and as an capital idea. Fundamentally, my argument resists the idea of criminality and exceptionalism found in popular press understandings of darknets, in favor of the argument that although the criminal element does exist, the broader nature of capital in darknets is about knowledge, information provision, and economic value creation. In short, I argue that the representation of material and non-material capital on darknets creates a wild zone of consumption allowing the subject to be reconstituted with the awareness of an extended horizon (Luke, 1995);(O’Tuathail, 1994)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.045
Scholarly communication0.0110.019
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAoIR Selected Papers of Internet ResearchSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207