After years of criticism of social media companies, there is an increasing interest among prospective users as well as researchers in “alternatives.” The concept of alternative social media adheres to the motto of fields such as science and technology studies: things could be otherwise. Instead of accepting “big tech,” corporate-controlled social media as the only possible option, focusing on alternative social media illustrates other sociotechnical paths that can be taken.

How do we map these paths? In other words, what are alternative social media? What is it that makes social media “alternative” and how can one approach their study? Rather than attempting to answer these questions in order to provide a precise and stable definition of alternative social media, this presentation will offer a working definition of ASM – with an emphasis on “working.”

We have built an archive of alternative social media scholarship (n=115) and subjected it to what we call an “alternative social mediography” – a meta-analysis of this academic field. We find the field has moved through two phases and is arguably in the midst of a third phase, one that focuses on governance. In writing our ography, we problematise “alternative” as an analytical category and how it has been wielded thus far.

Based on this ography, we conclude that ASM scholarship should analyze ASM as relational, emergent, and dynamic. In addition, we argue ASM scholars must use a situated perspective. Scholars of alternative social media must account for these factors.

Digital citizenship refers to the norms, behaviors, and responsibilities tied to the ethical and effective use of technology in society. It includes meaningful online participation, responsible technology use, and engagement with digital ecosystems (Mossberger et al., 2008; Ribble, 2011; Ohler, 2011). As digital platforms increasingly deregulate content moderation—exemplified by X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook under Elon Musk—extremist and harmful content proliferates, exacerbating challenges for marginalized communities and democratic civility (Schiffer, 2023; Ingram, 2024). Digital citizenship education, emphasizing digital literacy, ethical behavior, online safety, and civic engagement (Örtegren, 2024), must evolve to address these issues. However, current frameworks often overlook power literacy—the ability to leverage political tools for social change (Parkhouse, 2017)—and remain rooted in Western liberal ideals, marginalizing non-Western and collective forms of political belonging (Mamdani, 1996; Isin, 2002).

This paper argues for a reimagined digital citizenship grounded in decolonial cosmopolitanism, which balances universal ethical principles with respect for local differences and centers the experiences of the Global South (Appiah, 2006; Mignolo, 2011). It critiques traditional cosmopolitanism for its Eurocentric biases and advocates for a pluriversal approach that promotes epistemic justice and transnational solidarity. The proposed model of digital cosmopolitan citizenship emphasizes ethical technology use, respect for others’ rights and dignity, and active participation in digital spaces to empower marginalized voices. By untethering digital citizenship from state-centric frameworks, this approach addresses the collusion of corporate platforms, reactionary politics, and authoritarianism, offering a foundation for inclusive, transnational digital education.

Digital advertising has emerged as the dominant force in the global advertising industry, with online behavioural advertising (OBA), or commonly known as adtech, serving as its primary model. Central to this ecosystem has been the use of third-party cookies, enabling cross-site tracking, profiling and targeting. In the meantime, regulatory interventions, particularly in Europe, have sought to address this with data protection and e-privacy laws, with limited success. This paper examines the intertwined technological, regulatory, and economic forces shaping the evolution of third-party cookies, presenting an alternative narrative to the common assumption that the history of regulatory failures with adtech owes to the fast pace of technological advancement. Drawing on Thaler and Sunstein’s choice architecture theory as well as Hartzog’s advocacy for design regulation, this paper shows that European policymakers’ historical fixation with what they refer to as the “technologically neutral” and “future-proofing” regulatory approach has paradoxically impeded effective governance and contributed to regulatory stagnation.

Platform work challenges Marxist academics. The main question that arises is: does platform work create value? Some authors claim not only that the work performed by platform workers creates value, but also that the activity of users on Facebook and Instagram, for instance, is a source of value (Fuchs, 2014). This perspective, however, has already been heavily criticized by theorists affiliated with the theory of value, with whom we agree (Kangal, 2014; Bolaños & Vieira, 2014; Comor, 2015).There are also those who argue that the theory of value is not capable of explaining platform work (Arvidsson & Colleoni, 2012). And there are those who claim that digital platforms are purely rent-seeking companies, an expression of the parasitic nature of current capitalism (Dowbor, 2024; Christophers, 2020).