'Digitalization' is a term more widely used to describe ongoing changes today than any time before, five decades after the introduction of digital technologies. When a term is used to cover such a wide range of phenomena in such a wide timespan, it becomes unfocused and lacking in explanatory power.

Based on a historical study of digitalization in the culture industries, we argue that the most disruptive change is the altered interface points between the end user and the providers of goods and services, what we call the digitalization of exchange. Even though it often is built upon other digitized processes, it is digitalization of exchange that makes it possible to reach new markets in other countries (globalization, or more precisely, a de-localization) and change from purchase of copies to streaming services (change of commodity form).

Digital technologies have allowed for significant changes to the publishing industry, music industry, and film and television industries over the last fifty years. Digitalization of production has cut costs and allowed more people to produce. Digitalization of reproduction changed how we relate to cultural products, and digitalization of distribution has allowed for much more choice and convenience for the audience.

Yet it is the digitalization of the interface points between publisher and audience, how payment is exchanged for access, that has caused the profound changes to the cultural industries. We believe this will be found also in other industries, and when new services are digitalized in the future.

Though stating a focus on the “human” has become a signal of an ethical agenda in current computing research circles (e.g. “human-centered AI” to “AI with human values”), the definition of this prolific “human” figure is murky. What are the features that define the “human” in studies that compare and contrast human and machine behavior? How do studies of computing compare assumed human abilities–such as vision or reading speed–to algorithms? How, in effect, do computing researchers discuss and operationalize “humanity”? We adopt a mixed-methods approach to measure patterns in discourse about “humans” in scientific literature on human-centered computing. We build on Brock’s (2018) Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis to examine how the producers of a tool “perceive, articulate, and ultimately define the technocultural space in which they operate and exist.” Where Brock situates his cultural analysis in critical race theory, we draw on critical disability theory to interpret discourse about the “human” which informs the development of technical artifacts. By teasing apart discourse about the “human” in computing scholarship, we can begin to understand the how scholars make choices about the ongoing design and production of “human”-centered computing.

In this paper we systematically survey emergent religious and spiritual (R/S) AI chatbot applications and outline our plans to conduct application walkthroughs to collect and analyze developer discourses. Our research asks: 1) How is authority, through trust and/or faith, discursively constructed around R/S chatbots? 2) How do developers synthesize Silicon Valley worldviews with existent R/S beliefs within the discursive construction of their applications? We sought to answer these questions by first conducting a systematic survey of existing R/S AI integrated applications on DuckDuckGo, iOS App Store, and Google Play Store. Through this we found that applications were framed in three primary ways by their creators as assistants, tools to be used, avatars, mentors embodying a particular R/S figure, and/or angels, beings with access to higher knowledge. These framings will inevitably shape how these tools are received and interpreted by their users, influencing the perceived R/S authority of an AI chatbot. Future work will conduct walkthroughs of a selection of applications from each data collection site. This will generate richer data detailing the material and discursive elements of R/S chatbots to be analyzed through discourse analysis. Our work will highlight how developers frame their creations and explore the potential complications that emerge when blending R/S belief and technological practice. We contribute to existing work on the intersection of R/S and technology and push the field forward by examining the under-explored and emergent development of AI integration into R/S practices.

This paper explores the operationalization of Habermas’ concept of the "space of reasons" in empirical research on the digital public sphere. The study engages with contemporary debates on misinformation, polarization, and democratic challenges, analyzing connections and ruptures in political judgment among social actors. Instead of a micro-level analysis, it adopts a macro perspective, considering interrelated institutions and actors. By focusing on substantive reasons, the research examines how arguments and counter-arguments structure public debates and shape political positioning.

The study proposes developing and validating a comprehensive taxonomy of arguments on controversial issues, such as feminist mobilizations and anti-feminist discourse in podcasts and social media. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is employed to systematize and analyze these discourses, following methodologies previously applied in research on climate change and misinformation, for example. Unlike fragmented classifications, this approach seeks a holistic understanding, integrating discursive practices with institutional structures and the actors involved.

The paper follows three key steps: (i) it explores the feasibility of applying the "space of reasons" concept in empirical research to systematize the circulation of reasons; (ii) it integrates reasoning practices into a broader network of multiple factors and relationships; (iii) it demonstrates how mapping substantive reasons enhances the understanding of intolerant, extremist, and authoritarian discourses. The study contributes to research agendas on public discourse and conflict dynamics, highlighting methodological and normative challenges in transitioning from micro to macro-level analysis, particularly in a digital environment that is reshaping investigative paradigms.