From Reputation Capital to Reputation Warfare: Online Ratings, Trolling, and the Logic of Volatility

被引:14
作者
Rosamond, Emily [1 ]
机构
[1] Goldsmiths Univ London, Visual Cultures, London, England
关键词
reputation; financialization; metrification; social capital; volatility; trolling; Steve Bannon; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1177/0263276419872530
中图分类号
G [文化、科学、教育、体育]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 04 ;
摘要
What are the consequences of the tendency for ubiquitous online reputation calculation to lead not to more precise expressions of reputation capital but, rather, to greater reputational instability? This article contrasts two conceptions of online reputation, which enact opposing attitudes about the relation between reputation and the calculable. According to an early online reputation paradigm - reputation capital - users strove to achieve high scores, performing the presumption that reputation could be incrementally accumulated and consistently measured within relatively stable spheres of value. Yet, ubiquitous calculation led not to more precise measurements of reputation, but rather to the increasing volatility of online reputation. Thus, a second online reputation paradigm - reputation warfare - has become increasingly prevalent, in which strategic actors indirectly capitalize on systemic volatility produced by reputation's ubiquitous online calculation. Steve Bannon's 2016 Trump campaign strategy, which mobilized trolls, exemplifies the indirect optimization of online reputation, placing an option on reputational volatility.
引用
收藏
页码:105 / 129
页数:25
相关论文
共 74 条
[71]  
Schweizer P., 2015, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
[72]   Economic psychology [J].
Tarde, Gabriel .
ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, 2007, 36 (04) :614-643
[73]   Making sense of financialization [J].
van der Zwan, Natascha .
SOCIO-ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2014, 12 (01) :99-129
[74]   Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com [J].
Zhu, Feng ;
Liu, Qihong .
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2018, 39 (10) :2618-2642