1) The document discusses how to conceptualize the relationship between technology, media, and sociality for digital media. It proposes modeling this through the layers of software systems, including models, algorithms, data structures, defaults, user interfaces, and external interfaces. 2) These layers both structure social interaction, through how they represent social phenomena computationally, and are structured by social interaction through communicative practices between users, developers and operators. 3) The model aims to provide a more nuanced understanding than general concepts of media logic by examining the specific logic embedded in different layers of particular software systems.

1. Modelling the Media Logic of Software Systems
Jan-Hinrik Schmidt
@janschmidt
Senior Researcher
for digital interactive media
and political communication
# MLR2015  Bonn  22.09.2015

2. The challenge
• „Internet Research“ – whether it‘s focus is on political participation, on the
changing boundaries of privateness and publicess, new modes of
collaborative cultural production, etc. – has to face a central question:
How do we conceptualize and theorize the nexus of
technology, mediality and sociality for digital, networked media?
• Concepts such as Media Logic, Media Dispositiv, or Affordances
address this question from different perspectives
• While they clearly are very valuable both theoretically & empirically,
I‘d argue that these concepts do not …
1. … provide an analytical lens operating on the level of particular software systems
 For some purposes, we need more nuanced statements than just assessing „the
networked media logic “ or particular genres („the affordances of Blogs“)
2. … grasp the duality inherent to the „technology-mediality-sociality“-relation
 Software systems are at the same time structuring social interaction and structured by
social interaction
#mlr2015 2 of 12

3. Modelling the Media Logic of Software Systems (1/2)
#mlr2015 3 of 12
Layers of
Software Systems
External Interfaces
User Interfaces
Default Settings
Data Structures
Algorithms
Models

4. I: Models
Models refer to the concepts, schemes and general ideas with which software
developers abstract from the contingent social reality to arrive at formal
descriptions which can be coded, i.e. expressed in computational language.
Models frame on a very basic level what a particular software system should and
will „do“, and what not
Cc-BY 2.0, tec_estromberg, https://www.flickr.com/photos/92334668@N07/11122773785/
Specific practices (e.g. requirement
engineering) are performed to
translate knowledge about social
domains to be modelled (cf. Funken
2001; Kaminski 2012)
Modelling social reality relies on the
assumption of formalizability (and
thus: computability) of social reality
#mlr2015 4 of 12

5. II: Algorithms
Algorithms refer to all procedures inscribed in software
code to calculate, aggregate, filter, combine and display
data in digital communication
The impact of algorithmic filtering, sorting etc. on media
production and media consumption has been strongly
debated – and to a somewhat lesser extent researched –
over the last years
• e.g. in the field of journalism research (cf. Gillespie
2013; Napoli 2014; Dörr 2015)
• e.g. voicing concerns about lack of
transparency and accountability,
especially with regard to „algorithms
that do not result in simple, ‚correct‘
answers – [...] that are utilized as
subjective decision makers“
(Tufekci 2015, p. 206)
#mlr2015 5 of 12

6. III: Data Structures
Data structures refer to the variables, categories, data types and their relations
through which communication and actors are represented
Data structures transform social phenomena into binary distinctions and make
them – in conjunction with algorithms – computationable
„Datafication“ does also contribute to practices of sorting, inclusion and social
control (cf. Lyon 2003; Gugerli 2009), with (at least) three issues of power involved
1. Who is designing
data structures for
which purpose?
2. Who is setting data
(system-generated
vs. user-generated
data)?
3. Who is able to
query data for
which purposes? #mlr2015 6 of 12

7. IV: Defaults
Defaults refer to the standard values of data categories which are pre-set without
users‘ action, thus shaping (at least initially) the form and behaviour of software
Since default settings are seldom changed, they are considered as a viable
alternative to legal rules in order to govern user behavior (e.g. Shah/Kesan 2008)
or „nudge“ users to perform certain practices (cf. Sunstein 2015.
• e.g. with respect to privacy
management on SNS
(cf. Riesner et al. 2013)
• e.g. supporting or
undermining copyright
regimes on UGC platforms
#mlr2015 7 of 12

8. V: User Interfaces
• User Interfaces refer to those parts of a software system
users interact with to select from functionalities, to input
data or to extract information.
• User Interfaces, through „front-ends“ and „back-ends“, make
constraints and opportunities afforded by a software system
visible and experiencable to the user(*)
(*) including us researchers, who are mainly „code-illiterate“
• Design decisions range from simple functionalities
(e.g. size and title of „Status update“ field)
to rather general modes of presenting information
(e.g. concept of „timeline“ / „newsfeeds“)
#mlr2015 8 of 12
Facebook (2015)
Facebook (2008)

9. VI: External Interfaces
External Interfaces refer to those parts of
software systems which regulate the exchange of
data with other systems
– e.g. Code Objects such as Facebooks Like Button
 operated by users to share content from all parts of
the web within other platforms and networks
– e.g. „Application Programming Interfaces“ (API)
 mainly accessible to developers; affording exchange
of data as well as connecting different services and
functionalities (e.g. mash-ups; authentification; …)
Weiterführend: http://www.programmableweb.com/api/google-maps/mashups |http://labs.davidbauer.ch/zeitreise #mlr2015 9 of 12

10. Modelling the Media Logic of Software Systems (2/2)
Layers of
Software Systems
External Interfaces
User Interfaces
Default Settings
Data Structures
Algorithms
Models
#mlr2015 10 of 12
Structuring communicative practice
Being structured by
communicative
practice
Users
Developers
Operators
observation/interaction
(direct & indirect)
Communicative figuration
e.g. requirement analysis, A/B-
testing, user feedback & user
reviews, „hacking“ / modding,…

11. Summary & Outlook
How do we conceptualize and theorize the nexus of
technology, mediality and sociality for digital, networked media?
Software systems contribute to a structuring of social reality which is
(a) inscribed into models, algorithms, data structures, default settings, user
interfaces and external interfaces, and
(b) at the same time being (re-)produced by a communicative figuration of
users, developers, and operators of software systems
How to translate this model into empirical research?
- Not sure yet.
- Planned: In-depth case study of a platform for citizen-politician-interaction
- Reconstructing decisions that went into layers of software system via structured
interviews with developers and operators
- Reconstructing constraints and opportunities experienced via structured
interviews with users
#mlr2015 11 of 12

12. Thank You!
Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt
Hans-Bredow-Institute
Rothenbaumchaussee 38, 20148 Hamburg
j.schmidt@hans-bredow-institut.de
www.hans-bredow-institut.de
www.schmidtmitdete.de
@janschmidt
#mlr2015 12 of 12

13. References
Bodle, Robert (2011): Regime des Austauschs. Offene APIs, Interoperabilität und Facebook. In: Oliver Leistert und Theo Röhle (Hg.): Generation
Facebook. Über das Leben im Social Net. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, S. 79–100.
Chlebek, Paul (2012): Praxis der User Interface-Entwicklung: Informationsstrukturen, Designpatterns, Vorgehensmuster. Wiesbaden: Vieweg +
Teubner.
Dörr, Konstantin Nicholas (2015): Mapping the field of Algorithmic Journalism. In: Digital Journalism, in print.
Funken, Christiane (2001): Modellierung der Welt. Wissenssoziologische Studien zur Software-Entwicklung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Gerlitz, Carolin; Helmond, Anne (2013): The Like economy. Social buttons and the data-intensive web. In: New Media & Society, S. 1–18.
Gillespie, Tarleton (2013): The relevance of algorithms. In: Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo Boczkowski und Kirsten Foot (Hg.): Media technologies. Essays
on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge [u.a.]: MIT Press.
Gugerli, David (2009): Suchmaschinen. Die Welt als Datenbank. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hjarvard, Stig (2013): The mediatization of culture and society. London: Routledge.
Kaminski, Andreas (2012): Wie entsteht Software? Übersetzungen zwischen vertrautem Kontext und formalem System: Die heiße Zone des
Requirements Engineerings. In: Christian Schilcher und Mascha Will-Zocholl (Hg.): Arbeitswelten in Bewegung. Arbeit, Technik und Organisation in
der „nachindustriellen Gesellschaft“. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S. 85–123.
Lyon, David (Hg.) (2003): Surveillance as social sorting. Privacy, risk, and digital discriminatio. London [u.a.]: Routledge.
Napoli, P. M. (2014), Automated Media: An Institutional Theory Perspective on Algorithmic Media Production and Consumption. Communication
Theory, 24: 340–360. doi: 10.1111/comt.12039
Riesner, Moritz; Netter, Michael; Pernul, Günther (2013): Analyzing settings for social identity management on Social Networking Sites.
Classification, current state, and proposed developments. In: Information Security Technical Report 17 (4), S. 185–198.
Shah, Rajiv C.; Kesan, Jay P. (2008): Setting online policy with software defaults. In: Information, Communication and Society 11 (3), S. 989–1007
Sieber, Samuel (2014): Macht und Medien. Zur Diskursanalyse des Politischen. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Sunstein, Cass R. (2015): Nudging and Choice Architecture: Ethical Considerations. In: Yale Journal on Regulation. Online verfügbar unter
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2551264, zuletzt geprüft am 30.03.2015.
Tufekci, Zeynep (2015): Algorithmic Harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent Challenges of Computational Agency. In: Colorado Technology
Law Journal, Vol.13, No. 2, 203-217
#mlr2015 13 of 12