{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","title":"Digital Capitalism","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2021022153","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","id":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","uuid":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","title":"Digital Capitalism","normalized_title":"digitalcapitalism","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2021022153","isbns":["2021022153","9781032119182","9781032119205","9781003222149","2405518376"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":343,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Digital%20Capitalism","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/search"},"page":{"printed_page":200,"pdf_page":214,"physical_index":214,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"e16e9d80b3ca1a6f927ecb58af6c49e97e486d8dc33ab108569a6fa222baf38c"},"chapter":"DIGITAL CAPITALISM","content":"Jhally and Williams’s analyses of advertising as capitalism’s religion and magic system correspond to Marx’s analysis of commodity fetishism in general. Marx (1867) argued that a commodity is a peculiar thing; it is “strange” (p. 163), “metaphysical” (p. 163), ‘“mystical’” (p. 164), and ‘“mysterious’” (p. 164). As a consequence, the commodity “stands on its head”, and “grotesque ideas” (p. 163) about the commodity’s nature emerge.\n\nMarx’s notion of the commodity fetishism and Jhally and Williams’s applications of this concept to the critical analysis of advertising also matter in respect to social media; firstly, in the context of social media advertisement’s general structure, and secondly, in respect to social media’s inverse commodity fetishism. McDonald’s is one of the biggest advertisers on Facebook. One example posting shows a “Mexican burger” and says: “Get in the mood for Mexico with spicy Habanero chilli mayo in this week’s #GreatTastesoftheWorld: the Mexican Stack!”\n\nThe ad presents a particular image of a burger as being tasty, multicultural, international, spicy, etc. McDonald’s presents itself as fostering an international lifestyle and eating culture by adopting culinary influences from all over the world. This image is, however, fetishistic, illusionary, magic, and religious. It is a belief system that may not correspond to the actual reality of the production of the burger that is advertised. The consumer does not know where the meat and ingredients come from and under which conditions they are produced. The advertisement distracts attention from common criticisms of McDonald’s relating to working conditions, possible health, and environmental impacts, the McDonaldisation of the world, etc. The advert is fetishistic because it tries to create a brand image that only presents the burger and the company in a positive light and disregards the actual social conditions of production. What is specific for commodity fetishism on social media? Advertising’s commodity fetishism in print publications and broadcast media (radio, television) is standardised and unified, every consumer of these media receives the same advertising messages. In contrast, we find personalised and targeted commodity fetishism on social media. Advertisers like McDonald’s can target its ads at users who, based on their previous online activity, for example appear to be fond of fast food.\n\nTargeted commodity fetishism is a first feature of advertising on social media. A second feature is what I in various publications have termed the inverse commodity fetishism (Fuchs 2014, chapter 11; Fuchs 2015, chapter 5). In conventional commodity fetishism, one cannot experience the social context of commodity production but is directly confronted with the logic of money and the commodity. On Facebook and other targeted-advertising-based social media platforms, the commodity fetishism is inverted: because access to the platform is free and the sale of the big data commodity is hidden, one does not experience monetary exchange or commodity purchase on Facebook. Instead, the social dimension of communication, sharing, and community is what is foregrounded and experienced. As an effect, the commodity form is hidden behind the social form so that commodity fetishism tends to take on an inverted form. For Facebook users, it is not directly experienceable that users produce a commodity for Facebook, that they actually work for Facebook, and they are the ones generating the company’s profits. The inverse commodity fetishism makes it more difficult for users to perceive themselves as workers who are creating value and are being exploited.\n\n200\n\nThemes","previous_page":199,"next_page":201}