Debating the Platform Society in East Asia
A Discussion with Students at Leiden University
More and more aspects of our societies and economies are governed by digital technology. Our communication is filtered through chat apps, our news intake is filtered through social media feeds, and even processes that are less obviously about information flows rely on algorithms to analyse, sort, and govern our behaviour. Whether in health care, education, or housing, digital providers are re-shaping how our interactions work.
Media scholar José van Dijck refers to the result of these processes as ‘the platform society’. As van Dijck explains in a 2016 keynote speech, in the platform society, ‘social, economic and interpersonal traffic is largely channelled by an (overwhelmingly corporate) global online platform ecosystem that is driven by algorithms and fuelled by data’. Together with her colleagues Thomas Poell and Martijn de Waal, she argue in their newest book (2018) that core actors driving the platform society are often commercial enterprises. These enterprises, like Facebook or Google, claim to merely act as service providers or facilitators of social interactions. And yet such claims raise questions of who should then be held responsible for the at times detrimental outcomes that these interactions have, for instance when Facebook interactions aggravate hate and ethnic tensions in ways that can contribute to real-world violence. Meanwhile, platforms like Uber are famously restructuring the way employment works, while accommodation and travel platforms like Airbnb are profoundly reshaping urban space and living.
What can we learn from East Asian contexts about such processes? How do social media platforms like WeChat, Line, or Kakao change interactions between people there? How do new payment platforms or transportation apps change life in East Asian cities and rural areas? What role do proprietary algorithms play, in these contexts, and how do diverse actors ranging from government agencies to consumers respond to the profound changes that the platform society has wrought?
These are some of the questions that our graduate students in Asian Studies at Leiden University are debating this week, here on this website. Join us below, in the comment section, with your thoughts.
Reference
Van Dijk, Jose, Poell, Thomas, & de Waal, Martijn (2018), The Platform Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Share This Post, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: Florian Schneider
83 Comments
Comments are closed.
In line with the topics presented in this blog post, I have found an article from a marketing advisor website, which stresses how social media in China is a pivotal part of the selling process.
“Social media has now become so prevalent that customers are making purchasing decisions based on other people’s online opinions”.
In this sense, we can see how platforms shape our behaviour (we will buy a certain product if it’s trending on our favourite social media app), and how a platform can be used by a seller to promote their product (for example by posting ads and comments on a certain time range, in accordance with your target customer habits).
It would seem that we are somehow governed by whoever has the power to intervene in these platforms. My question then is: can we really talk about being driven in our choices if we are aware of the process itself?
https://www.marketingtochina.com/how-social-media-change-retail-market-in-china/
Do you mean to say whether we actually have agency, if we are aware of how we are being manipulated?
Maybe a stupid comparison, but compare it to love: we are aware of exactly what love does with us, how irrational it sometimes makes us feel, yet we still fall for it. Psychologically speaking, about 90% of our thinking is still based on intuitive ways of thinking, rather than rational thought. Constantly engaging in rational thinking is super taxing, so I doubt we would constantly change or decisions if we are aware of the processes
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow – for reference on the psychology part)
Thank you for your reply Vincent.
Yes, that is what I meant, and your comparison is not stupid at all! It’s very romantic and straight to the point.
I fully agree with you Vincent! This is actually a very good comparison, because of the fact what love is actually doing to us in a rational way. Being objective is hard then and irrationality comes into place. I truly believe and know that many people share this opinion with me is that we are being manipulated on a daily basis through advertising on social media which makes us believe that one should purchase a product based on the public’s opinion. I think we are aware of how we are manipulated but this awareness is maybe a too strong of a word for it. I think we all know it, but still are influenced by numerous of factors which eventually drives the outcome of our decision -making process. So intuitive thinking is based on the factors around us and we are thus not objective anymore.
In the following article, the case of Hong Kong shows how the rise of Social media platforms has changed interactions between people, by helping strenghten pre-existing bonds but also creating connection with strangers.
Moreover, it is confirmed that the use of social media as a mean through which get informed about global news works for Hong Kong too. “Of those surveyed in a survey by TNS, another market research firm, over 44 per cent of Hongkongers stated that Facebook was their first point of contact with breaking news.”
This inevitably brings us to consider what are the implications of relying on a social media to get relevant information, when said information comes already filtered and possibly tampered.
I’m looking forward to hear your opinion!
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/community/article/2142652/what-social-media-platforms-run-hong-kong-and-what-are?fbclid=IwAR33m2BB-wjN1ooHvr7Pji2teiSRn32D-GWbBM0hPnH-TVd7u7jQBRYqyCM
Honestly, I am a bit torn on that question. Clearly fake news is running rampant on social media like Facebook, US elections of 2016 are a prime example of that. So you shouldn’t necessarily trust anything you read on first glance.
However social media has such a massive spread that important news can reach thousands, if not millions, of people in an instant. It is an incredible tool to keep up to date with the world. Especially since all kinds of news sources can post on these social medias, meaning that you don’t have to track them individually.
So I don’t think it is a problem that peoples first contact with breaking news is on social media. The problem is that peoples ONLY contact with breaking news is on social media. Social media is a great way to give people notice of all kinds of topics and events happening around the world which is good. The bad thing is that people take those posts on face value instead of checking what other sources have to say about it, leaving them open for misinformation.
But the main problem with news you receive on social media is that it is usually a from a limited amount of sources, which usually just shows a limited and biased side of the information. Even when the information is not really “Fake”, it is still used as a tool to further a certain way of thinking.
As the amount of people watching traditional news and reading newspapers is steadily declining, the role of social media in the spreading of information is increasing, which makes it even more important to have clarity on what the total picture is. Unfortunately, I do not see people (including myself) actively comparing different news outlets looking for the full story on major news items to make sure they receive the full story.
I agree, Erik. I myself don’t actively compare different news outlets on every story either. I think maybe that’s because of the sheer amount of news there is every day. It is simply not possible to gain a deep understanding of every issue in the news every day. We receive news from all over the world, and we can’t understand all of it on the level that we should.
Social media facilitates staying in your own filtration bubble, and it causes the enormous abundance of news available to us every day, but I honestly do not see a way in which this could be solved if we didn’t use internet platforms. It’s not like people used to watch three different television news channels everyday.
While we wait for everybody to chug down their morning coffe, here’s another article I’ve found to be relevant to understand our topic.
The amount of marketing websites that suggests using digital platform as a way to optimize sales is outstanding. It is no secret then, that social media platforms are used to shape our behaviour.
Many websites like this offer a practical step to step pattern into entering the Chinese social media world.
There is no doubt then that the global platform ecosystem van Dijck talks about is real and that it permeates our society.
Are we heading towards a future where the real wars will be conducted not by nation-states but by digital platform owners, and were weapons are not guns but data?
It wouldn’t be the first time that I hear such an argument.
https://agencychina.com/blog/5-tips-to-grow-your-brand-online-in-china/
I personally don’t think so: wars will still be fought by states, or nations wanting to become states. It won’t be platforms that fight the wars themselves, but their role in the conflict might be significant.
I do think it is possible that wars themselves will largely disappear, but that’s because the cost of war – considering the destructive power of contemporary weaponry and the economic interdependence – has outgrown the potential gains. Cyberwarfare is definitely capable of filling that gap for inter-state competition: take North Korea’s hacks as an example.
In addition to this, I think cyberwarfare is already established as a common practice, much to the point that a lot of states barely care about it. Over the past years we have had multiple incidents of “China spying on the European Union”, “Germany spying on the Netherlands”, “Russia spying on the USA”, or “the USA spying on the European Union”.
By now we can assume that every nation is spying on each other as much as possible, whereas the physical action is practically gone (aside from the USA which just likes to stick their noses in everything they see).
I agree with you that data will be used as a weapon in the wars to come and I also believe that digital platform will play an important role due to their prominent position in peoples’ lives. But I don’t think that digital platforms will be the one to pull the trigger, or are even the cause, as these developments are in line with longstanding trends.
Like others have already said, cyber warfare has been commonplace for a while now. Almost every country has a cyber subdivision, though with varying degrees of efficiency. States mainly use cyber warfare to cripple networks, whether they be military, economic or social, or for espionage. I could very well see digital platforms becoming an important battlefield but states will still be the ones in the digital trenches.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2018/05/03/cyber-warfare-the-threat-from-nation-states/#2d55ef0f1c78
War is armed conflict. Data is just information. What would a war fought with information look like? I think that is just taking it a bit too far. Yes, digital platform owners will probably exploit us on a greater scale in the future, but they will also do it peacefully—maybe even cooperatively to squeeze every penny.
Interesting point you’re raising about big companies in some respects becoming more powerful than nation states.
I think in part that is already happening. The phenomenon in the SEA-context seems strongest in South Korea, where very accommodating governance has lead to the insane growth of a dozen huge omnipresent conglomerates, called Chaebol. Samsung is an example of such a company that we all know, but many people underestimate their immense size, presence and therefore influence in especially South Korea, but also worldwide. They have more than double the amount of employees Apple has, and almost 3.5 times more than Google, and together with another four, in value make up about half of the total Korean stock market.
I do not see why big successful conglomerates like these would stop growing anytime soon, and with that their ability to exert influence on politics and society keeps rising also.
Read more on this here: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/south-koreas-chaebol-challenge
In addition to this, do you guys think international cooperation should be better organized in order to counter the power of these huge enterprises? Or is it not a big problem that they in the end will have crucial power in world politics?
I’m not sure I see how Google would fight a war with facebook for example, but I do agree with you that these platforms will become more powerful than governments, and will influence our voting behavior. As things are going currently, this is leading to more polarized societies, and that may indeed lead to war indirectly.
Sorry to barge in again, but an article I read last week just popped into my head and I thought it might be useful to this debate.
The narrative on China that we’ve seen in the last decade is that of a country dominated by youth and technologies. On this note, I found this article on “What’sonweibo” particularly relevant, as it poses the question of those old generations who are not familiar with digital platforms and are left out of society.
The article describes a popular outcry on Weibo, following the breakdown of an old man who couldn’t pay with cash at his local shop.
The new payment platforms have indeed transformed the society, but can we argue that it has changed it for the better? Looking at this case, it would seem that one of the classic Chinese values of respecting the elders and taking care of them is being neglected, and the old generations left behind in their platform-less world.
https://www.whatsonweibo.com/how-chinas-digital-revolution-is-leaving-behind-its-elderly-population/
Interesting article Lucrezia! It does seem a bit hypocritical when a society that considers filial piety a key virtue, like that of China, seems to neglect the older generations in such cases. It makes one wonder how far filial piety in Chinese society reaches. Are people expected to only take care for their own elders?
Thank you Dongqi, I know right? It always surprises me how ancient values are still part of the Communist party narrative, but how at the same time these type of episodes are more and more present in the Chinese society.
The wallet-integration of social media like WeChat was the reason I wanted to do my essay on the different features of social medias. I think a trend like this is worrisome for a number of reasons, especially since it isn’t limited to just China, Amazon has opened a Amazon Go store where there are no lines, or registers. You grab your things, walk out the store and are automatically charged for your groceries through an app.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/21/amazons-first-automated-store-opens-to-public-on-monday
You already mentioned the gap and disconnect it has with older generations, which already is really bad. Though people will probably argue that this problem will solve itself over time as the older generation dies out and the new generations will have grown up with this system.
However there are more problems like privacy, theft and others. My main problem is the vulnerability it creates to any cyber attacks. Cyber warfare already has the ability to destabilize a country by knocking out a transportation network (like the trains) or an energy plant. This is already bad. Now imagine you have a economy based on a digital payment system like this. Forget people not being able to go to work or have a (big) blackout, if this app is taken down people won’t be able to buy food. Cyber warfare won’t just knock a country on its ass for an easy take over, I think it could break society.
So no, I don’t think it is a change for the better.
I do not think the transition towards the new payment platform in not only China, but also globally, indeed have some challenges. On the other hand, though, I feel these systems also solve some current problems. For example, people will not need to walk on the street bearing loads of money, so physical theft can be prevented.
I think my conclusion would be, this new way of paying is inevitable. It has pros and cons. Now it is important to critically examine the cons in order to be able to solve these issues. You could think of a helping service for older people to teach them how to use digital platforms.
If we are talking about East Asian context in processes of platform societies, I’d like to begin by throwing in the new (since June 15 2018) Minpaku law that came into effect in Japan. While “accommodation and travel platforms like Airbnb are profoundly reshaping urban space and living” as Dr Schneider stated above, the Japanese government is trying very hard to still have some sort of control over the growing international company. The Minpaku Law, aka Private Temporary Lodging Law, introduced Japanese AirBNB hosts to a lot of regulations regarding renting your home, including a host registration number and maximum of 180 days per year that the hosts could rent out their location. 50.000 locations were deleted and hundreds of bookings made between 15 and 19th June were canceled because the owners didnt have licences yet (which was almost impossible to attain so quickly). The Minpaku Law was implemented to strenghten the already existing Hotel Law (which had something to do with Love Hotels…), and also the apparent nuisance in the Japanese neighbourhoods caused by foreign guests. Hosts have been informed of the new regulations, but it’s a lot to adjust to: https://www.rethinktokyo.com/2018/06/13/how-legally-host-airbnb-japan-guide. A short but great explanation can be found here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-did-japan-suddenly-kill-thousands-of-airbnb-reservations.
Also an interesting read on tourismpollution in Japan, welcoming tourists and AirBNB’s new rules here : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/tourism-pollution-backlash-japan-crackdown-costs-airbnb-10m-kyoto
Thank you so much Joosje, I didn’t know this about Japan.
The situation reminds me a bit of my own country, Italy, were Air BnBs have been cracked down by new regulations that require licences.
Do you think the situation in Japan will affect negatively the tourist sector? I see in my country it has.
AirBNB is a worldwide known platform, and so it creates a sense of trust in the tourist going into an unknown country. When the platform is controlled/regulated by the state, does this limit the tourist flow?
Thank you
Hi Lucrezia!
Thank you for your reply :). It seems like all over the world governments are trying to better control AirBNB by introducing new rules (in Amsterdam as well..). I didn’t know Italy had such a big problem though!
To answer your question, I don’t think this will affect tourism in Japan negatively. In recent years, Japan has been very aggressive in its approach to attract more tourists and it works! This really great website: https://www.tourism.jp/en/tourism-database/stats/ show’s the amount of tourists from overzeas to Japan in years and months. When you look at the years (https://www.tourism.jp/en/tourism-database/stats/inbound/#annual) it’s a very steep climb! And looking at the months this year (especially after june 15th https://www.tourism.jp/en/tourism-database/stats/inbound/#monthly) we can see that the tourists per month are still more than last year, or the year before.
I don’t necessarily think that the tourist flow will be limited when the government tries to control such platforms, but it depends per government. Will it restrict everything, or will it still listen to the wishes of users? I think the Japanese government just wants to have a bit more control, but not shut it down completely as AirBNB really helps attract more tourist, in my opinion.
This is very interesting indeed. If you check Booking.com for Kyoto, you can see that the amount of hostels is vast, while the places are extremely low compared to hostels in Europe.
I remember that when I was traveling in Japan, the hostels were not only cheap, but also very clean and well-designed.
Do you think that this new law is going to affect the hostel business as well?
But are these all legal hostels? When taking Taiwan as an example, the majority of hostels do not have a permit because they do not conform to the safety standards. At the same time, the government does not seem to care all that much about it, as long as there are no major safety hazards.
Aside from the question of whether there are regulations or not, it is also important to look at how much control there is on these regulations.
That’s a very interesting point, unfortunately I don’t know so much about whether those hostels are legal.
In my experience, the prices of hostels in Japan are lower than those in Taiwan. A friend who worked for a hostel in Kyoto said they had to close down due to the intense competition with other hostels who set even lower prices.
This blog post reminded me of how the car pooling service “Uber” shaked up the local taxi business when it started operating in Taiwan.
It instantly became very popular. When I asked my acquaintances why they prefer to use Uber, they mentioned that Uber’s cars are not only newer, but their drivers are generally more professional than regular taxi drivers.
Nevertheless, the company made a name for its controversial practices: “After accumulating a huge number of penalties handed down by the government, Uber temporarily ceased operations in February last year, but relaunched two months later by forming partnerships with car rental companies.” This citation is from the news article below. If you now use Uber in Taiwan, they treat each ride as a car rental including a driver, to be able to continue their business model without having to adhere to the strict taxi regulations. According to the article they also evade a lot of tax and the harsh competition has driven taxi drivers to work longer hours.
Should Uber be able to continue their business in that way, or should they follow the same rules as taxi drivers?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2018/08/30/2003699467
The Chinese carpool service Didi is also undegoing a crisis following the allegations of rape in more than one episodes by a few female passengers.
The scandal has drown attention to how these new technologies dominate our lives, sometimes unfortunately not in a safe way.
Perhaps in this case, shared managment instead of one company monopoly could help solve the problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/business/didi-chuxing-murder-rape-women.html
Strict taxi regulations often exist for a reason. I think the whole Didi scandals (https://www.whatsonweibo.com/another-didi-murder-shocks-china-20-year-old-woman-killed-by-driver-on-her-way-to-a-birthday-party/) have shown that taxi regulations are necessary in order to maintain a safe (and fair) environment for both drivers and customers alike. Therefore, it’s definitely problematic that Uber keeps circumventing these regulations. At the same time, I do kind of tend to feel the whole Uber system is just superior to old-fashioned taxi servies from the customer’s point of view, so we also have to be careful imposing certain regulations just to protect these taxi services.
I do agree with the point that regulations exist for a reason, but when I was traveling in Asia, I noticed that car pool services such as Uber or Grab (I have never used Didi before) actually can help riders (especially tourists) from not getting scammed. When you use a normal taxi, the driver can do a detour without you noticing it. On Uber or Grab you will receive a summary of what route the driver took.
Maybe the taxi industry could learn something from carpool services to compete?
Definitely, and it should! From a customer’s perspective, Didi/Uber are certainly superior due to the transparency and ease of use. However, there should be additional regulations to make sure it’s also safer, i.e. security protocols and screening, such as is the case for real taxi drivers. There are also still arguments to be made for the exploitation of the drivers themselves.
The point about the exploitation of the drivers themselves is quite important in my opinion. Uber’s treatment of their drivers in the US is worrying enough, as they can barely scrape enough money together to survive, which means they are barely covering the costs of driving people around. The article below discusses this. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/09/uber-drivers-report-sweated-labour-minimum-wage
I do very much agree that the transparency and the ease of use (and also the cost, which is significantly lower than using a regular taxi) are convenient enough to remain a popular service.
I agree, there are problems with transparency when it comes to regular taxi’s. When I was in Beijing, it was often heard that regular taxi’s would give you your change in fake money. Using Didi was better in that as you simply used your wechat wallet, so you couldn’t be scammed. However, the lack of regulations is a big problem as you can read in the link below. I think this is something they definitely need to improve.
https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2164087/life-after-midnight-china-without-didi-rides-unlicensed-taxis-police-and-pedal
I totally agree with you Vincent, especially when you mention the fairness sorrounding the Uber employee regulations.
There is a lot we can learn from this innovations, but this also brings us back to our debate on labour exploitation in the digital era.
Are the customers and the drivers safe?
I think when it comes to platforms, customers are almost always big winners, privacy concerns left aside. However, the drivers (or labourers in general) will often experience a certain extent of abuse, due to being forced to compete in very harsh circumstances and being tied to the platform.
However, when talking about Uber, drivers and passengers rate each other after each finished ride. If a driver already received hundreds of ratings and has at least 4 out of 5 stars, doesn’t this already ensure some extent of security?
Also customers who misbehave can receive a bad rating. Therefore, those who have a low rating will find it difficult to fetch a ride on Uber, which protects the driver from nasty customers. Couldn’t we argue that this improves the whole situation?
Reacting on Luis, the rating situation could help to solve the issue. If people only choose the drivers with good ratings, it could be safer. There are only two problems I want to propose. Firstly, it does not solve the whole problem of security. In not so densely populated areas, you would sometimes need to choose a car with a lower rating. Secondly, I think, this rating system and its crucial importance to the driver creates a negative working environment for the driver. He literally always has to be superhappy and generous. Kind of black mirror ish right?
Additionally, I believe that drivers are very much benefitting from a platform like Uber as well.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3067576/uber-drivers-might-earn-more-than-traditional-taxi-drivers-but-is-that-enough
This article also highlight what other problems do occur though
While looking for an interesting story related to the use of platforms in East Asian context and more specifically in Korea, I came across one recent article that claims LinkedIn is being used by North Korean elites, while it is not particularly popular among the South Korean population.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/26/linkedin-becomes-social-media-choice-north-koreas-elite/
The very few people who do have access to internet within North Korea are normally limited to the country’s intranet, yet it seems that an even smaller number of privileged elites are able to have an online presence on the world wide web. These are probably elites who are able to travel and are active abroad, as they seem to utilize LinkedIn both within North Korea as well as abroad. The concern with these users, however, is that they might be using the platform for “approaching and canvassing targets”. Previously, the USA (along with Germany and the UK) claimed Chinese intelligence agencies were using fake accounts on LinkedIn as a platform to “recruit Americans with access to government and commercial secrets”, and demanded LinkedIn shut these fake accounts down. Iran, Russia, and now potentially North Korea, have also been linked to similar activities on the platform.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-linkedin-china-espionage-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-accuses-china-of-super-aggressive-spy-campaign-on-linkedin-idUSKCN1LG15Y
So the site is being singled out and requested to take action (the cautionary tale being “you are going to be like Facebook”), which leads to questions, as suggested by the original post, of who can be held responsible for problematic activities that take place on and are facilitated by online platforms.
That’s fascinating! Can one of our internet detectives also find their LinkedIn profiles?
Read this:
https://www.recordedfuture.com/north-korea-internet-usage/
Their LinkedIn profiles have since been removed but there are some screenshots of when they were still active.
North Koreans are increasingly opting for Chinese social media platforms though, so they might be more difficult to track in the future.
The key word in that question is the ‘facilitate’. So I do think that online platforms like Facebook need to take at least some responsibility, though not all. It is not their fault that people are using their platform that way, but they do have the authority and power to impose rules on the platform that could prohibit this.
To illustrate my point, picture a situation where drugs are illegal and people are regularly dealing in a certain club then when the police busts them the dealers are arrested but the club itself is also reprimanded. I think the same structure should apply for online platforms.
But would you say then that a company like Facebook only needs to limit behaviour that might be illegal, or that they are free to remove anything they don’t like?
Looking at how big the platforms of companies such as Facebook and Linkedin are, I feel it is important to have a clear picture of the way in which censorship is enacted.
Facebook is already removing things that don’t conform with their “community standards”. People have been postblocked for controversial things before so this is not a new thing. As indicated in this article, Facebook often removes content, usually politics related: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-political-activism-pages-inauthentic-behavior-censorship
I believe it would not be that difficult to censor or remove certain content when it is deemed “inappropriate” even though they’re often vague in their description about this.
But who draws the line and who decides what is right or wrong? I think it is very personal and is different from country to country.
One of the first things I noticed when shopping online in China was the power of platforms, Taobao in particular. A friend was helping me shopping for some tea as souvenir for my family back home, and I was dumbfounded to find that we would message five shops with the exact same product, have them reply almost instantaneously at 10pm, and be able to bargain with them. I think this is just a single example of how powerful Taobao has become as a platform.
The power of platforms in China has been the subject of quite some recent studies. During the CIRC16 conference this spring, some interesting presentations by Hatty Liu and Guan Zexu discussed the power of these platforms as a form of e-slavery (or maybe e-feudalism?): the individual labourers or shops are bound to the platform, as the platform is their only potential source of revenue. The platform decides the rules by which the labourers have to play. If the shops are not willing to answer questions at 10pm, they will simply lose customers to one of the many many competitors.
http://www.politicseastasia.com/staging/3558/timetable/event/modes-work-digital-labour/
I remember that a few years ago I tried to order something on Taobao in Shenzhen. I had to rely on a friend because you needed an Alipay account to pay which at that time only accepted UnionPay. Now, they also accept foreign cards such as Visa.
Apart from the service having removed hurdles for foreigners from using it in China, Taobao expanded into the Hong Kong and Taiwan markets in 2012.
Do you think one day they’ll further expand, maybe even on the European market?
https://www.techinasia.com/taobao-taiwan-hong-kong
My bet is that the Taobao service would not be as attractive in a market such as the European one, as we already have many existing brands and little random start-ups that could sell their products as individuals or small groups, like what happens on Taobao. I’d bet labour and shipping costs would also be too high to compete with the bigger, well-established brands that import from China. Inversely, the shipping costs and time as an individual makes it unattractive to shop on the Chinese Taobao and have it shipped here.
Have you heard of aliexpress.com? It’s part of the Alibaba group. In some way it is similar to Taobao, but the variety of products is not as big, furthermore they focus more on wholesale. You can still buy products at very low prices and they deliver them without shipping costs, although it might take two months for them to reach.
The funny thing is that all aliexpress arrive to the netherlands via air. But Dutch and Chinese customs make the process go very slow.
I agree with you here. Taobao is very much focused on Chinese enterprises and how the Chinese economy operates domestically. It might be quite hard to export this to other regions like the EU and still be a low-cost alternative to EU webstores. This article discusses how Taobao became so big because it worked very well in China’s domestic market: https://www.ft.com/content/52670084-6c2c-11e1-b00f-00144feab49a
Another reason why Taobao is so successful in China (and less so in Europe, although I have happily ordered from there before) is that it caters to the cultural differences between Asian and European consumers’ expectations concerning online shopping. The former want a more personal, interactive experience, which is where the intensive seller/buyer communication comes from. This is also part of the reason why eBay never made it big in China.
This is exploitation 101.
I think that although the digital era has helped some small businesses spread their range of customers, you have outlined in a clear way the dangers that such platforms entail.
Personally, I’m not looking forward to a world in which every product is available at any time, at the expenses of people who have to work 24/7.
I fully agree with you here. This is in fact, in my opinion is exploitation. The fact that we now live in a global community or actually a global village, is the result of ongoing technological innovations which also means that time is money and when everything, meaning every service as well as product is available at our beck and call. But the question then is, at what cost will this happen?
To dive into your final point, is it possible to have both at the same time?
When I think about it now. I have thought about more clearly, Suggesting that this is exploitation 101, is like saying there is nog grey area in this discussion and it is all black and white which it totally is not the case. You already admitted that the digital era allowed small businessess in China to expand their network, which is a strong argument. Perhaps companies such as Ali Express will allow poor countries more development and will force rich countries to lower their prices eventually. I am no economist but let’s at least admit that this is also a possibility and let’s also admit that exploitation has always been present in the Chinese economy even well before the digital era. The internet has brought us more together and has brought us prosperity, financially speaking.
When companies like Ali Express also come in Africa and South America against lowering costs that this will mean that it will be prosperous for their people in the long run. I believe that if this would be divided more over countries in Africa and South America it would be a good thing for everybody.
The question I would like to ask here is if you do not see a world where everything is available 24/7 then how would you see it change realistically? I think this is an inevitable outcome of the digital era.
If you want everybody to have the same chances then think again: in my opinion, this will never happen, this is a classic case of what i like to call ‘champagne socialism’.
To answer your question about whether it is possible to have both 24/7 service ánd a non-exploitative situation: I think/hope that this is just a matter of time.
Soon enough chatbots will become so advanced that service responses can be tweaked to reply in ways exactly how the seller would want (and better), to the consumer indistinguishable from if he were actually and authentically replying himself.
Right now we are just at the awkward stage where technological/societal developments are only still mainly benefitting consumers (since the biggest/easiest profits are naturally there), this will become more balanced as further developments fill the gaps offering solutions for the small businesses like above.
Is this just wishful thinking, or actually likely?
I agree with Ben here. Google has made such rapid improvements in speech recognition and speech mimicry that I can actually see bots replacing real humans in telephone help desks, or bots picking up when you want to get a spot in a restaurant etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6NHKmfnW0
On a more playful note: don’t forget to contribute to the power of Taobao in the shopping craze that’s coming up 11.11 !
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/lifestyle/how-to-use-taobao-singles-day-11-11-sale-9391332
It is indeed noticeable that societies are becoming increasingly governed by digital technology. Governments of countries are already making use of various technologies to govern the population. Take for example the introduction of the ‘Social Credit System’ in China. Will these developments be good or bad for societies in the end?
https://www.businessinsider.nl/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4/?international=true&r=US
It depends on what you consider good for society. I think the ‘Social Credit System’ can indeed lower crime rates and make people behave better. I don’t think you can argue that those results are not good for society. On the other hand is it good or even ethical to force that behavior onto people? No, not in the slightest as it takes away peoples’ rights and freedoms, giving the government more power in the process.
I personally stick with the latter one. I value freedom a whole lot more than such an “Utopia”. Even if freedom means that people can make bad decisions.
This is very true, societies are more and more governed through technology. However, the online public opinion found on for instance social media can also influence the government. The link below shows a research on how the online public opinion influences the political agenda in China. It concludes that when it comes to specific issues and incidents, online public opinion can put great pressure on the government. So perhaps these developments can also be good for society.
https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/2257/1133
With the increasing digitalization of our society, numerous actors (including governments and big companies of course) have amassed an enormous amount of digital data. This big data mining also comes with risks. Experts have long warned about the potential risks of data mining:
https://v3b.com/2015/06/the-big-risks-of-big-data-mining/
Relating this topic to East Asia, here’s an article about data mining in China that I found interesting:
https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/data-mining-at-its-worse-chinese-workers-wear-caps-monitor-emotions-brain-activity/story/275932.html
In some countries, digitalization has gone very fast. Will we still be able to live without the internet/digital technology?
https://www.scmp.com/tech/social-gadgets/article/2139588/chinas-embrace-all-things-digital-creates-new-class-have-nots
https://www.scmp.com/tech/social-gadgets/article/2139645/could-you-go-48-hours-without-internet-scmp-reporter-tried
Platformization is changing the transportation business in China as it is in the west. Platforms are becoming the dominant actors. They are taking over smaller companies, which causes the loss of relationship with customers. Besides, these platforms are collecting tons of data and are quickly becoming smart city actors in China.
Are these changes we should encourage as they create convenient transportation platforms where one can find numerous mobility options? Or should we worry for the effects this platformization will have on for instance our privacy and for the effects of dominant actors taking over the transportation industry, giving smaller companies no chance in competition?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christophmeyereurope/2018/08/16/six-ways-platformization-will-tear-up-the-transportation-rulebook/#751d71ef3d8e
It’s crazy to think that, maybe a few years ago, some online goods were exclusively available to one country. Even so within the borders of the EU. Nowadays, in the Netherlands we can place orders at local entrepreneurs across the countryside of China.
https://sampi.co/taobao-villages-china-rural-ecommerce/
I think social media are easy scapegoats for issues such as hatespeech. If anything, they provide hateful individuals an opportunity to vent; take that away and they might actually go outside and do something bad.
To say that social media provide people with a platform to spread hate or congregate is true, but these people will find each other no matter what, be it through email or old fashioned letters. Besides, what they have done is shown that the problem of hate speech is substantial, maybe even more substantial than we thought.
Things like cashier-less stores in China, for example, have me more worried though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYN3gozk4fo
“Bingobox is becoming part of your life”, as the above ad almost ominously claims. Through concepts like Bingobox, social media platforms like WeChat undoubtedly will know what you regularly buy.
But would you not say that being able to vent your opinion online makes it easier to be rude in your behavior? I am quite sure that there are many people that would not walk around scolding everyone they see when they have a bad day, but would not hesitate to go online and spew their hate on forums while being protected by their anonymity.
Furthermore, being rude online gives you the opportunity (in some cases) to simply remove your comments from a forum, or to turn off your computer and end the discussion. It is a lot harder to face direct punishment compared to face-to-face discussions.
I would like to add another dimension. Matthijs said that people will find each other no matter what to spread hate. I do not think so, as the online media is a very convenient way to spread your opinion. For doing it the old-fashioned way, it takes quite a lot of effort to reach someone else. This can prevent people from really saying what they want to say.
I agree that internet makes hatespeech a lot easier. Take for instance cyberbullying (or ijime in Japanese), which is a big problem. It takes place mainly through Line, but also on online platforms such as nichan. Of course the bullies can just bully at school, but when you hit someone you see the direct effect. If you hit “indirectly”, through internet conversations or even spreading photos (like nudes or just really embarrassing photos), you dont usually see the direct effects, while speaking to greater audience.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/01/19/reference/bullying-finds-fertile-ground-social-media/#.W-Lkz5NKiM8
Oh also going on on this! I rememer from my BA Psychology that when you don’t see your victim. you’ll be likely to go further in dealing them pain than when you see the victim.
You can read all about the Milgram experiment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment or if you’re more into movie clips (complete with some bad acting): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYLCy5PVgM
Milgram tried to show how the Holocaust couldve happened, which is a way off topic for us right now, but the experiment shows that we 1) go a lot further whenever an expert or authority orders us to do smth and 2) go a lot further when we’re away from the victim, or distanced at least.
Interestingly, in order to combat cyberbullying through LINE, a few municipals in Japan started to offer LINE-counseling. Victims can contact these counselors through LINE to address the cyberbullying. The counselor will contact the victim’s school, so that victim does not have to go to all the troubles telling his or her teacher about the situation.
I found it interesting that they try to find a solution through the app, rather than trying to put restrictions upon it.
This source tells more about it (but it is in Japanese)
https://www.sankei.com/life/news/181025/lif1810250024-n1.html
I mean, Google already works together with Facebook to share our information in that regard. Even here you can’t really look up anything without getting targeted ads thrown at you or recommendations based on past purchases. Things like the AH Bonuskaart do the same.
I agree with you that letting people vent on social media might prevent them from actually doing bad things. However, if an individual is actually capable of doing bad things, I think she/he is much more likely to do so when part of a group that shares these hateful thoughts and when receiving support of lots of people. Such groups are much more easily created through social media than through email or old fashioned letters, as joining a group or giving an opinion is much easier on social media. So I am not sure if letting people vent on social media in the end increases or reduces the number of hateful acts seen in the real world.
I agree!
Another aspect of these groups that are easier to form, find and join, because they are on a platform, is the way in which this distribution of ideas happens.
This process is far less confined and more random (untransparent) than through older digital channels like email, which is exactly where Facebook comes in: they are the ones setting the terms and conditions for how content is spread, and they should, therefore, bear some of the responsibilities that come with the information being broadcasted on their platform.
What these responsibilities and their consequences precisely should be then in practice, is of course an ongoing discussion.
To elaborate on the discussion of the Chinese cashless cities and its problems for the older generation in participating in it, here is an article showing that a cashless city could also be problematic legally. When vendors do not accept cash, they will break the law.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/11/china-cant-afford-a-cashless-society/
Governments are having troubles to control platforms. The Chinese government has written a report on the illegal activities happening on the online sales platform Alibaba. These illegal activities are the result of poor control over which second parties enter the platform, poor supervision over product information and internal problems including staff control. At the end of the report there was a page about the recommendations for better regulations. However, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce deleted this report after an intense dispute with Alibaba. Clearly the government is not certain about how to address this problem.
https://qz.com/335675/the-chinese-government-has-erased-a-damning-report-on-alibaba-but-you-can-read-it-here/
I was under the impression that the Chinese government wanted to institute a social credit system, so that untrustworthy sellers on websites like alibaba would simply get bad ratings, and then they’d think twice before scamming people because it wouldn’t anymore. At least, that’s what the government hopes will happen if they institute such a system.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit
It’s interesting how Van Dijk sets up a contradiction between the power of the state and the power of these corporate platforms, while in China the state seems to use these platforms to exert more power over its citizens.
Remember that everything you do with WeChat is available for the government to know, even when and where you go to a public restroom, because sometimes you can only get toilet paper if you use your wechat to scan a QR code there.
https://qz.com/1134600/china-launched-a-toilet-finding-platform-to-help-identify-330000-public-toilets/
Obviously when and where you go to the toilet is probably not useful information, but a lot of other things you do on wechat are. This link is merely to illustrate how deep into your private life wechat can see.
In Japan there was a disturbing case called the ‘twitter serial killer’, which caused quite a lot of criticism regarding the social media platform Twitter. A 27-year-old Japanese man created a twitter account specifically to contact young females who were having suicidal thoughts. He then proposed to them to help them commit suicide or counsel them, and lured them to his house. He then sexually assaulted, strangled, dismembered and stored them in his house.
When this horrible crime came to light, the Japanese ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology (MEXT) tried to find ways to better govern or patrol the social media platform twitter. They first tried to ban all tweets concerning suicide, but this caused criticism amongst experts who claimed that social media could be a outlet for people, since depression has a stigma in Japan.
Eventually, in January 2018 Twitter Japan began allowing users to be linked to a suicide prevention charity whenever they searched for words related to suicide.
This made me think about different ways to regulate such an enormous platform and how the government can or should intervene.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywbbm5/cops-say-japanese-serial-killer-used-twitter-to-lure-suicidal-victims-vgtrn
Also an interesting case when looking at search engines, is the case of yahoo Japan. Every year on March 11 (the day that the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami hit Japan in 2011), if you search 3.11 on yahoo.jp, they will donate 10 yen towards the victims of the earthquake. They raised approx. 216,000 US dollars in 2018. Using the power of their search engine in a positive way to give back to the communities who suffered from the natural disaster
http://neotokyo2099.com/2018/03/06/remember-search-3-11-yahoo-japans-search-engine-march-11th-help-raise-money-affected-earthquake-tsunami-nuclear-disaster/
Why not get rid of google and plant tree’s via Ecosia. https://www.ecosia.org/