Sharing by proxy: Invisible users in the sharing economy

Newlands, Gemma; Lutz, Christoph; Hoffmann, Christian

doi:10.5210/fm.v23i11.8159

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other countries, the numbers seem to be higher. In a Pew study (Zickuhr, 2013), 44 percent of Internet non-users in the United States were identified as users-by-proxy; the same proportion is reported in a study about Switzerland with representative data from 2009 (Friemel, 2016). Dolničar, et al (2013) found that over 40 percent of reported non-users had made use of internet intermediaries.…”

Section: Use-by-proxymentioning

confidence: 62%

Sharing by Proxy: Invisible Users in the Sharing Economy

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the future of work increasingly data-driven, platforms automate decisions based on the collection of vast quantities of user data. However, non-users constitute a challenge as they provide little to no data for either platforms or other users. We focus on a category of (non-)users that has not received any attention in research: users-by-proxy. Users-by-proxy make use of sharing services but they are not themselves part of the sharing transaction. Platforms cannot analyze their behavior to tailor services or allocate labor most effectively. Users-by-proxy also have significant implications for trust and reputation mechanisms. In this conceptual contribution, we provide a definition of users-by-proxy as a third category between users and nonusers, developing a typology of users-by-proxy based on motives of non-/use. We focus on the ramifications of users-by-proxy for the future of work and their significance for the limits of data-driven decision-making. ContentsIntroduction Digital participation and non-participation Use-by-proxy Use-by-proxy in the sharing economy Implications Conclusion and research agenda

show abstract

Section: Use-by-proxymentioning

confidence: 62%

Sharing by Proxy: Invisible Users in the Sharing Economy

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to many authors (e.g., Prendeville et al, 2017;Unterfrauner et al, 2019), the activities of makerspaces are already tangential to many principles of the circular economy, e.g., by extending product life through repair and sharing resources by collaborative commons. In addition, the aspect of education can be perceived as a tentative move toward a general participation in the sharing industry (Newlands et al, 2018). In contrast to engineers concentrating primarily on the specific product properties and functionalities (Halstenberg et al, 2019) and following strictly pre-defined processes, designers develop concepts implemented in the approach of eco or sustainable design (Sherwin, 2004) to improve the environmental performance of products.…”

Section: Scientific Starting Points: Makerspaces Makers and Behaviora...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable in Action: From Intention to Environmentally Friendly Practices in Makerspaces Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The steady growth of makerspaces to decentralized production enables access to new and previously unknown technologies for diverse users and thus equally promotes the social-ecological change in society. First, such facilities offer a physical space where ideas and innovations can be realized as prototypes or in small series. Secondly, they are also considered social spaces where people come together, exchange ideas, work collaboratively, and learn. The acquired knowledge is carried home and into peer groups outside the makerspaces. Therefore, in theory the maker scene has great potential for sustainable development especially in the educational and awareness raising context. However, there is a strong heterogeneity among makers not only in their intentions to use such places, but also in their educational background and experience in product development as well as in dealing with technology in general. It has been shown that makers certainly have an awareness of the need for sustainable development, however, this is not reflected in their actual making practices. Rather, makerspaces are characterized by high consumption of resources. A fundamental aspect here is the self-image of makers, in which sustainability plays a subordinate role. It is thus important to support individual production, which is associated with increasing consumption of resources in the early design phase, and to consider environmental aspects–even before 3D printers and laser cutters are switched on. In order to meet knowledge gaps and lack of motivation toward sustainable product creation in makerspaces, the ecoMaker project developed a theoretical framework that builds the bridge from knowledge to action. From this a concept for practical implementation is suggested that combines. Engineering processes and sustainability knowledge with established methods from the start-up scene transferred into tools and methods for the maker scene based on maker requirements. Those tools and methods are to be visibly installed at various places in the makerspace and target different stages of project ideas to help makers develop greener products and raise awareness of the makerspace as a place that promotes sustainable development. The elements have been co-developed with makers, applied in makerspaces and are freely available according to the open-source approach.

show abstract

“…Beyond this, future research within a digital inequalities paradigm should study the distinction mechanisms and new hierarchies in the digital economy (Schor et al, ), also in terms of new skills such as algorithmic literacy (Klawitter & Hargittai, ). The research should not only systematically assess who is earning money as a freelancer or provider on digital platforms such as Airbnb and Uber but also who is using on‐demand services as a consumer (Andreotti, Anselmi, Eichhorn, Hoffmann, & Micheli, ; Smith, ) or user‐by‐proxy (Newlands, Lutz, & Hoffmann, ).…”

Section: Second‐level Digital Dividementioning

confidence: 99%

Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data

Lutz

2019

Human Behav and Emerg Tech

Self Cite

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this literature review, I summarize key concepts and findings from the rich academic literature on digital inequalities. I propose that digital inequalities research should look more into labor‐ and big data‐related questions such as inequalities in online labor markets and the negative effects of algorithmic decision‐making for vulnerable population groups. The article engages with the sociological literature on digital inequalities and explains the general approach to digital inequalities, based on the distinction of first‐, second‐, and third‐level digital divides. First, inequalities in access to digital technologies are discussed. This discussion is extended to emerging technologies, including the Internet‐of‐things and artificial intelligence‐powered systems such as smart speakers. Second, inequalities in digital skills and technology use are reviewed and connected to the discourse on new forms of work such as the sharing economy or gig economy. Third and finally, the discourse on the outcomes, in the form of benefits or harms, from digital technology use is taken up. Here, I propose to integrate the digital inequalities literature more strongly with critical algorithm studies and recent discussions about datafication, digital footprints, and information privacy.

show abstract

Sharing by proxy: Invisible users in the sharing economy

Cited by 4 publications

References 58 publications

Sharing by Proxy: Invisible Users in the Sharing Economy

Sharing by Proxy: Invisible Users in the Sharing Economy

Sustainable in Action: From Intention to Environmentally Friendly Practices in Makerspaces Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action

Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About