As informational automation advances, identification systems are proposing new computational ways of creating metadata about the human body. This shift represents a rupture akin to the transition from ancient techniques for inscribing the body to modern identification documents carried by the body, all rooted in colonial history. Amid concerns over datafication and human agency, this paper argues that not only material bodies, but also other aspects of the human are molded to fit a dominant logic of abstraction and quantification. Building on Koopman’s (2019) discussion of informational formats as instruments of power, we conceptualize identity tokenization as a historical process. Drawing on a two case study of two Web3 start-ups, this paper examines a type of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) which, unlike standard NFTs, are not used for trading but for recording and communicating information about their holder as immutable records on a blockchain. The paper examines how and why identity NFTs tokenize intangible aspects of the human by abstracting lived experience into informational formats computationally assigned to a body. The paper goes on to discuss how tokenization makes the human machine-readable and ready to circulate across communication infrastructures and systems of automated decision-making. Eventually, we argue that computational tokens constitute the attributed human, an individual increasingly defined by their computationally verifiable qualities communicated through identity tokens in automated identification systems. Using a thematic analysis of interviews and company documentation, three conceptual themes are identified: 1/ Identity tokenization, 2/ conjunction of ludic and bureaucratic logics, and 3/ Deferred anticipation.

This paper focuses on the role of fringe platforms in the UK’s 2024 anti-migrant riots and introduces the term ‘digital banter’ to describe a highly-localised discursive typology that acts to veil xenophobia, misogyny, and other forms of extremity behind the facade of humour. Several fringe platforms were identified as instrumental in spreading toxic content in the run up to the riots (Scott, 2024), and this paper interrogates digital banter on fringe platforms by applying the conceptual framework of “extreme speech” (Udupa & Pohjonen, 2019). By shifting analysis away from the faux binary between hate speech and an acceptable other, the spectrum of extreme speech recognises context and culturally coded circumstances. Thus, via extensive digital ethnography on three fringe platforms, three significant findings emerge from the analysis. The first is that digital banter is an English-specific repertoire of extreme speech that has comparable analogs cross-culturally. The second is that “banter merchants” set the rules of acceptability on fringe platforms. The third is that digital banter acts as a primary motivation for migration away from major platforms. By positioning banter within the framework of extreme speech, this paper contributes to understanding how small platforms mediate extremity through culturally-specific speech repertoires.

The rise of the creator economy has led mom and family influencers to integrate their children into their online narratives, enhancing their relatability and commercial value. Through emotional connection with audiences, influencers secure partnerships and build their brands. Children presence raises ethical concerns, including privacy threats, commodification of intimacy, and the pressures of algorithm-driven content production.

The research investigates how family influencers negotiate the imperative to share their children and whether resistance emerges among influencers and users. The study adopts a multi-method approach employing: content analysis of Instagram and TikTok posts published by family influencers; a survey targeted mothers with at least a child aged 0-5 years; in-depth interviews with mothers and influencers.

Findings reveal a constant presence of children visibility in influencers' content with children also are actively involved in sponsored posts and stories. Opinions about children's inclusion in visual content are mixed, with questionnaire and interviews showing that some think that it is acceptable, while other objects that risks are too high. Influencers who do not share pictures of their children acknowledge the potential sponsorship losses.

The study suggests a growing awareness of digital privacy risks, where financial incentives compete with ethical considerations.

Cultural producers of what one might consider more traditional media have denounced content (shorthand for digital, social media, or online objects) as an object as a far cry from creative output, and the term as an assault on art. Writers, directors, musicians, actors, and even stand-up comedians have not only disparaged content, but also those that produce it. As content is increasingly used to refer not just to media that circulates online but to the products of traditional cultural industries offline too, these producers have disparaged the use of the term and content itself as an assault on their outputs. Through critical discourse analysis of statements and conversations from filmmakers, actors, writers, musicians, and stand-up comedians, I examine how traditional cultural producers negotiate the term content’s application in and encroachment on their fields. I argue that discourse about content is not representative of a sea change in art’s integrity as much as it is a term that creators use to express anxieties about the devaluation of their work in response to changing political economic arrangements that the internet has catalyzed. As their work becomes increasingly accessible to larger audiences via digitization, cultural creators worry that their work is becoming less precious, sanctified, and more easily consumed and discarded, i.e., that their work could become content.