Selected Papers of AoIR 2016:  

The 17th Annual Conference of the  
Association of Internet Researchers 

Berlin, Germany / 5-8 October 2016 
 

 

Suggested  Citation  (APA):  Ribak,  Rivka.  (2016,  October  5-­8).  Standards  rule?  Regulations,  literacies  and  
algorithms  in  times  of  transition.  Panel  presented  at  AoIR  2016:  The  17th  Annual  Conference  of  the  
Association  of  Internet  Researchers.  Berlin,  Germany:  AoIR.  Retrieved  from  http://spir.aoir.org. 
 

STANDARDS  RULE?  REGULATIONS,  LITERACIES  AND  ALGORITHMS  
IN  TIMES  OF  TRANSITION  
 
Chair:  Rivka  Ribak,  University  of  Haifa  
Moderator:  Joseph  Turow,  University  of  Pennsylvania  
  
In  this  panel  we  seek  to  reflect  upon  the  theme  "internet  rules"  by  drawing  on  the  notion  
of  standards,  developed  in  Science  and  Technology  Studies.  The  work  of  Susan  Leigh  
Star  lays  a  foundation  for  considering  the  relationships  between  rules,  standards  and  
algorithms  as  forms  of  infrastructure.  In  the  panel,  we  explore  the  production  of  
standards  as  they  become  transparent  infrastructures,  heeding  Star  and  Lampland's  call  
to  restore  these  standards'  "historical  development,  their  political  consequences,  and  
the  smoke-­filled  rooms  always  attached  to  decisions  made  about  them"  (2009:13).  
Standards  –  and  algorithms  –  are  rarely  queried,  as  they  promise  and  embody  
efficiency  and  order.  Indeed,  modernity  may  be  described  as  a  concentrated,  relentless  
effort  to  contain  the  accidental,  the  arbitrary,  the  residual;;  to  categorize,  order,  and  
routinize  the  unexpected;;  and  to  preclude  the  exceptional  and  unpredictable  (Bauman,  
1991)  –  in  a  word:  to  standardize.  As  Larkin  writes,  it  is  difficult  to  separate  an  analysis  
of  infrastructures  such  as  standards  from  the  modernist  belief  that  by  promoting  order,  
"infrastructures  bring  about  change,  and  through  change  they  enact  progress,  and  
through  progress  we  gain  freedom"  (2013:332).  
  
It  is  ironic,  then,  that  standards  are  distributed  unevenly  across  the  sociocultural  
landscape,  that  they  are  increasingly  linked  and  integrated  with  one  another,  and  that  
they  codify,  embody  or  prescribe  social  values  that  often  carry  great  consequences  for  
individuals  and  groups  (Star  and  Lampland,  2009:5).  In  this  context,  the  four  papers  and  
the  moderator  of  this  panel  explore  the  meaning  of  contemporary  standardization  
practices  in  such  diverse  fields  as  memory  applications,  crowdfunding,  biometric  
identification  and  national  archiving,  and  internet  literacy  –  viewing  them  as  empirically  
distinct  yet  theoretically  interrelated  attempts  to  impose  order  in  times  of  growing  
uncertainty.  Together,  they  address  two  tensions  that  inform  contemporary  
standardization  efforts,  regarding  standards  as  an  encounter  between  analogue  and  
digital  objects  and  practices;;  and  as  dialectic  of  invisibility  and  transparency,  a  
pragmatic  and  symbolic  endeavor.  
  
References  
  
Bauman,  Z.  (1991).  Modernity  and  ambivalence.  Cambridge,  UK:  Polity  Press.  



Larkin,  B.  (2013).  The  politics  and  poetics  of  infrastructure.  Annual  Review  of  
Anthropology,  42,  327-­343.  

Star,  S.  L.,  &  Lampland,  M.  (2009).  Reckoning  with  standards.  In:  M.  Lampland  &  S.  L.  
Star  (Ed.),  Standards  and  their  stories:  How  quantifying,  classifying,  and  
formalizing  practices  shape  everyday  life  (pp.  3-­33).  Cornell  University  Press.  

  
Total  recall:  Standardizing  memory  in  Facebook  applications  
  
Hagar  Bohbot  &  Rivka  Ribak,  University  of  Haifa  
  
"Memories  include  things  like  your  posts  and  others'  posts  you're  tagged  in,  major  life  
events  and  when  you  became  friends  with  someone  on  Facebook".  
(Facebook's  "On  this  day"  help  center1,  February  2016)  
    
It  seems  that  while  memory  studies'  scholars  are  debating  the  implications  and  
meanings  of  digital  memory  artifacts  (Garde-­Hansen,  2009;;  Mayer-­Schönberger,  2011;;  
Schwarz,  2013;;  van  Dijk,  2007),  Facebook  has  it  all  figured  out:  the  official  Help  Center  
for  Facebook's  memory  applications  (including  "On  this  day,"  "Year  in  review"  and  most  
recently  "Friends  day  video"),  describes  in  a  clear,  even  laconic  manner  what  
constitutes  a  memory.  Yet  Facebook's  definition  for  memory  has  not  always  been  as  
clear.  In  fact,  as  late  as  June  2015,  the  same  official  help  center  page  did  not  offer  any  
explanation  at  all.  
  
What  was  it  that  brought  about  this  conceptual  change?  Facebook's  memory  
applications  were  publicly  criticized  by  users  from  the  moment  they  came  into  being:  
"Algorithms  are  essentially  thoughtless.  They  model  certain  decision  flows,  but  once  you  
run  them  no  more  thought  occurs,"2  wrote  a  blogger  who  was  reminded  of  his  young  
daughter's  death  earlier  that  year  by  Facebook's  "Year  in  review"  application,  which  
pops  up  in  December  with  algorithmically-­selected  highlights  of  the  passing  year.  "For  
those  of  us  who  lived  through  the  death  of  loved  ones,"  he  continued,  "or  spent  
extended  time  in  the  hospital,  or  were  hit  by  divorce  or  losing  a  job  (…)  we  might  not  
want  another  look  at  this  past  year."  
  
These  types  of  criticism  were  also  made  in  relation  to  "On  this  day"  memory  application,  
which  was  officially  launched  on  March  24,  2015  after  about  a  year  of  test  versions  and  
user  feedbacks.  By  that  time,  Facebook's  designers  and  coders  provided  users  with  
some  control  over  the  reminiscing  process,  featuring  new  filters,  customized  notification  
and  privacy  settings.  This  trajectory  highlights  the  negotiations  between  coders  and  
algorithms  on  the  one  hand  and  users  on  the  other.  At  the  same  time,  it  sheds  light  on  
the  emergence  of  a  standardized  definition  of  "memory,"  allowing  us  to  "restore  the  
narratives  of  these  standards:  their  historical  development,  their  political  consequences,  
and  the  smoke-­filled  rooms  always  attached  to  decisions  made  about  them"  (Lampland  
&  Star,  2009,  p.  13).  
  

                                                
1  Retrieved  from:  https://www.facebook.com/help/439014052921484  
2    Eric's  archived  thoughts,  Retrieved  from:  http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/12/24/inadvertent-­
algorithmic-­cruelty    



This  paper  seeks  to  explore  the  standardization  process  of  digital  memory  artifacts  
generated  by  Facebook's  various  applications.  The  framework  for  this  discussion  
considers  the  specific  characteristics  of  standardization,  as  well  as  the  current  discourse  
surrounding  digital  memory  and  algorithms.  Lampland  &  Star  (2009)  offer  five  
commonalities  regarding  all  standards,  making  them  easier  to  identify:  standards  fit  
inside  one  another,  they  are  linked  and  intergraded,  their'  ability  to  function  is  relative  to  
specific  practices,  they're  unevenly  distributed  and  carry  a  set  of  values  which  impacts  
individuals.      
  
These  commonalities  can  be  used  to  describe  memory  algorithms  and  view  them  as  
certain  types  of  standards.  For  the  purpose  of  this  discussion,  Facebook's  memory  
algorithms  are  nested  in  other  algorithms  in  the  sense  that  they  require  having  e-­mail  
addresses  and  phone  numbers  to  sign  up  for  the  social  media  site,  which  are  linked  and  
nested  in  the  common  ways  to  invite  friends  to  like  a  Facebook  page  or  become  
Facebook  friends.  Facebook's  memory  algorithms  can  be  considered  unevenly  
distributed  because  they  assume  basic  technical  knowledge  for  all  users  (e.g.  how  to  
set  privacy  settings,  enable  or  disable  specific  applications  and  so  on),  they  are  relative  
in  their  meaning  and  impact  for  individuals,  so  one  user's  nostalgic  trip  down  memory  
lane  can  be  another's  horrible  recollection.  Facebook's  memory  algorithms  are  also  
intergraded  with  other  algorithms  in  the  sense  that  they  contain  different  forms  of  
standards:  writing  on  a  friend's  wall  is  significantly  different  than  writing  a  private  
message,  how  and  when  we  publish  photos,  who  we  tag  and  when  should  we  keep  
from  sharing  our  specific  location.  Finally,  these  memory  algorithms  embody  a  set  of  
values  and  ethics  by  filtering  conflict  and  diversity.  Facebook's  memory  algorithms  
operate  by  pulling  what  they  count  as  valid  memories  out  of  a  set  of  general  algorithm  
system,  and  they  are  able  to  do  so  by  employing  standards.  Over  time,  these  algorithms  
had  to  learn  to  identify  what  counts  as  memories  that  are  worth  reminiscing.  
  
According  to  Busch  (2011),  standards  –  and  by  extension,  memory  algorithms  –  are  
also  ideally  invisible,  anonymous,  merely  technical  and  even  neutral,  and  therefore  
exercise  power.  By  looking  at  Facebook's  memory  applications,  its  official  Help  Center  
pages,  as  well  as  the  texts  that  accompany  them  and  the  media  publications  regarding  
them,  and  performing  textual  and  visual  content  analysis,  I  hope  to  gain  insight  to  the  
standardization  process  of  digital  memory  on  Facebook,  and  the  algorithms  that  
organize  these  memory  artifacts.  
  
For  example,  Facebook's  memory  applications  make  apparent  use  of  post-­human  
language,  which  contributes  to  the  anonymity  of  the  algorithms  that  operate  them:  
"Would  you  like  to  receive  notifications  when  you  have  new  memories  to  look  back  
on?"3  asks  "On  this  day."  This  rhetoric  links  the  human  reminiscing  process  with  a  non-­
human  technical  action  –  to  receive  a  notification  from  Facebook,  but  more  importantly,  
it  throws  into  relief  the  standardization  of  technical  memory  production,  as  today's  posts  
are  turned  into  tomorrow's  "new  memories."  The  media  coverage  regarding  users'  
protest  against  the  cruelty  of  these  algorithms  and  their  expectation  for  higher  levels  of  
sensitivity  portrays  the  ongoing  negotiation  between  algorithms  and  users.  But  it  also  
sheds  light  on  what  constitutes  worth  reminding  on  Facebook,  worth  archiving  and  
                                                
3  Retrieved  from:  https://www.facebook.com/onthisday/?source=bookmark    



appropriate  for  sharing  on  the  social  network.  The  standards  that  impose  a  certain  
amount  of  friends  in  order  to  generate  a  "Friends  day"  video,  which  portrays  a  specific  
set  of  photos  and  posts  made  by  those  who  are  considered  users'  best  (Facebook)  
friends,  or  a  certain  amount  of  content  in  order  to  actually  have  "Facebook  memories,"  
and  users'  expectations  to  avoid  bad  memories  (of  e.g.  ex-­partners,  the  death  of  loved  
ones,  divorce  or  loss  of  jobs)  are  keys  to  further  understanding  the  specific  terrains  of  
conflict  regarding  digital  memory.  "Consuming  memories  from  the  past  and  resharing  
them"  promises  Facebook's  product  manager  Jonathan  Geller,  "rewires  our  
relationships."4  This  quote  portrays  Facebook's  ambition  do  draw  clear  boundaries  
between  analog  and  digital  memory,  and  define  the  latter  as  a  preferred  and  ideal  way  
to  experience  human  relations.  Digital  memory  is  intertwined  in  the  various  ways  in  
which  we  perceive  human  memory,  and  Facebook's  memory  algorithms  offer  a  unique  
window  to  these  practices.  
  
References  
  
Busch,  L.  (2011).  Standards:  Recipes  for  reality.  MIT  Press.  
Garde-­Hansen,  J.  (2009).  MyMemories?  Personal  digital  archive  fever  and  Facebook.  

In  J.  Garde-­Hansen,  A.  Hoskins  &  A.  Reading  (eds.)  Save  as…  Digital  memories.  
(pp.135-­150).  Basingstoke:  Palgrave.  

Mayer-­Schönberger,  V.  (2011).  Delete:  The  virtue  of  forgetting  in  the  digital  age.  
Princeton  University  Press.  

Schwarz,  O.  (2013).  The  past  next  door:  Neighbourly  relations  with  digital  memory-­
artefacts.  Memory  Studies,  7/1,  7-­21.  

Star,  S.  L.,  &  Lampland,  M.  (2009).  Reckoning  with  standards.  In:  M.  Lampland  &  S.  L.  
Star  (Ed.),  Standards  and  their  stories:  How  quantifying,  classifying,  and  
formalizing  practices  shape  everyday  life  (pp.  3-­33).  Cornell  University  Press.  

van  Dijck,  J.  (2007).  Mediated  memories  in  the  digital  age.  Stanford  University  Press.  
  
  
Crowdfunding  as  an  infrastructure  and  the  standards  governing  it  
  
Roei  Davidson,  University  of  Haifa  
  
Standards,  particular  legitimated  ways  of  doing  things  often  anchored  in  technological  or  
bureaucratic  settings,  have  a  key  role  in  modern  life,  and  an  especially  prominent  role  in  
mediated  processes.  In  this  study,  I  will  consider  divergent  understandings  of  standards  
in  STS  (Science  and  Technology  Studies)  and  economic  sociology  (for  an  overview  see  
Talmud  2013).  While  recent  STS  treatments  of  standards  have  emphasized  their  
exclusionary  consequences  (Lampland  &  Star  2009),  work  in  economic  sociology,  
especially  in  valuation  studies,  suggests  that  standards  are  essential  for  the  design  of  
fair  socio-­technical  systems.  To  integrate  these  understandings,  this  study  will  consider  
cultural  crowdfunding  as  a  complex  infrastructure  “that  facilitate[s]  the  flow”  (Larkin  
2013,  328)  of  money  and  attention  from  backers  to  founders  of  cultural  projects  in  

                                                
4  The  Washington  Post,  retrieved  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-­
intersect/wp/2015/03/25/facebooks-­on-­this-­day-­wants-­to-­rewire-­your-­relationship-­to-­the-­past-­heres-­why-­
thats-­strange/    



diverse  cultural  sectors  (see  Bennett  et  al.  2015  on  cultural  crowdfunding)  and  focus  on  
the  nature  of  the  standards  governing  it.  
  
STS  approach  
  
From  an  STS  perspective,  Lampland  &  Star  (2009)  emphasize  the  exclusionary  aspects  
of  standards.  They  note  that  “standards  are  distributed  unevenly”  (6)  and  that  these  
standards  assume  that  the  individuals  and  groups  interacting  with  them  possess  
particular  proficiencies  or  properties.  As  a  result,  those  lacking  such  proficiencies  or  
properties  might  be  denied  access  to  the  services  or  products  these  standards  govern  
often  while  creating  a  façade  of  equality  and  fairness.  For  example,  an  individual  that  
does  not  use  social  network  sites  might  find  it  difficult  to  use  crowdfunding  platforms.    
  
Valuation  approach  
  
The  notion  of  standard  is  invoked  differently  in  valuation  studies,  a  branch  of  economic  
sociology  which  deals  with  the  way  actors  evaluate  the  worth  of  products  or  services.  
Going  beyond  the  neo-­classical  assumption  that  the  value  of  a  product  is  neutrally  
shaped  by  forces  of  supply  and  demand,  these  studies  distinguish  between  “standard  
markets”  and  “status  markets”  (Aspers  2009).  Standard  markets  are  markets  in  which  
an  explicit  socially-­constructed  quality  convention  exists  to  assess  the  goods  being  
exchanged.  By  contrast,  in  status  markets  the  value  of  a  good  is  assessed  according  to  
the  social  status  of  the  actors  interacting.  In  STS  terms,  one  could  think  of  both  these  
types  of  markets  as  governed  by  standards.  However,  in  “standard  markets”  the  
standards  are  explicit  while  in  status  markets  they  are  more  implicit.  Art  markets  
(Velthuis  2005)  and  illegal  markets  governed  by  the  mafia  are  such  “inscrutable  
markets”  (Gambetta  1994)  where  it  is  difficult  to  assess  the  value  of  the  product  and  
therefore  buyers  and  sellers  revert  to  assessing  actors’  reputation.  In  art,  such  
reputation  might  be  divined  from  the  success  of  an  artist’s  past  work  in  the  market,  or  
from  the  identity  of  their  representing  gallery.  In  illegal  markets,  reputation  can  be  
gleaned  from  an  actor’s  affiliation  with  a  particular  crime  organization.    
  
In  highlighting  the  advantages  of  explicit  standards  as  an  alternative  to  implicit  
standards  linked  to  reputation,  the  valuation  approach  draws  on  classic  analyses  of  
modern  society  which  emphasize  its  complex  nature  (Durkheim  1933)  and  the  
emergence  of  bureaucratic  structures  to  deal  with  such  complexity.  From  a  neo-­
Weberian  perspective,  systems  of  peer-­production  such  as  crowdfunding,  which  have  
been  hailed  as  radically  democratic,  might  in  fact  be  coercive  and  charisma-­driven,  
compelling  participants  to  adopt  social  networking  technologies,  eroding  distinctions  
between  work  and  the  private  sphere,  and  benefitting  a  small  elite  of  charismatic  
individuals.  This  perspective  is  attentive  to  the  “inclusivity  and  accountability  that  have  
long  characterized  bureaucracies”  (Kreiss  et  al.  2011,  255)  and  the  tendency  of  sharing  
economies  to  erode  these  capacities.  
  
Integrating  the  approaches  and  applying  them  to  crowdfunding  
  
Both  approaches  agree  that  standards  are  important  social  phenomena  and  that  they  
are  anchored  in  particular  social  contexts  and  embody  particular  values.  This  is  evident  



in  economic  sociology  in  the  argument  that  all  economic  action  is  socially  embedded  
(Granovetter  1985).  The  claims  that  standards  are  often  nested  within  broader  
standards  and  that  these  in  turn  operate  within  vaster  infrastructures  (Lampland  &  Star  
2009,  17)  also  reflect  this  position.  Theoretically,  a  valuation  approach  contributes  the  
insight  that  in  the  absence  of  explicit  standards  focused  on  the  particular  action  of  an  
individual  or  group,  implicit  standards  linked  to  social  status  automatically  kick  in,  and  
therefore  while  some  standards  can  be  inherently  exclusionary,  the  lack  of  explicit  
standards  can  be  even  more  regressive.    
  
Empirical  study  
  
This  study  examines  the  role  of  implicit  standards  (status)  and  explicit  standards  in  a  
crowdfunding  platform’s  operation.  Further,  from  an  infrastructural  perspective,  the  
study  examines  crowdfunding’s  nested  dependence  on  online  social  networks  which  
promote  particular  neoliberal  practices  of  self-­promotion  (Marwick  2013)  and  its  
embeddedness  in  contemporary  culture  industries  which  demand  from  producers  
intense  “self-­discipline”  (McRobbie  2002).  In  the  second  post  published  on  the  
Kickstarter  blog,  one  of  its  founders  echoed  the  optimistic  view  of  peer  production:  
“Kickstarter  aims  to  give  each  one  of  us  a  chance  to  fund  our  ideas,  starting  directly  with  
the  people  who  are  closest  to  it  (friends,  fans,  community-­fellows)  …  to  discover  that  we  
can  offer  each  other  value  through  creation  without  a  middleman  dictating  the  product  
and  terms”  (Strickler  2009).  In  contrast,  semi-­structured  interviews  with  17  culture  
producers  in  the  U.S.  and  Israel  who  have  attempted  to  use  crowdfunding  suggest  that  
crowdfunding  is  enabled  by  a  long  list  of  intermediaries  –  agents,  PR  professionals,  and  
journalists  among  others.    I  thematically  analyze  these  interview  transcripts  as  well  as  
data  from  participant  observations  of  crowdfunding-­related  events,  and  analyze  the  
Kickstarter  blog  and  Kickstarter  fulfillment  list  –  to  consider  both  the  nature  of  
crowdfunding  as  a  heterogeneous  infrastructure  that  has  not  done  away  with  
middlemen,  and  the  prominence  of  implicit  and  explicit  standards  as  criteria  for  
assessing  crowdfunding  projects  and  their  founders.    
  
References  
  
Aspers,  P.,  2009.  Knowledge  and  valuation  in  markets.  Theory  and  Society,  38(2),  

pp.111–131.  Available  at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11186-­008-­9078-­9.  
Bennett,  L.,  Chin,  B.  &  Jones,  B.,  2015.  Crowdfunding:  A  New  Media  &  Society  special  

issue.  New  Media  &  Society  ,  17  (2  ),  pp.141–148.  Available  at:  
http://nms.sagepub.com/content/17/2/141.abstract.  

Durkheim,  E.,  1933.  The  division  of  labor  in  society,  New  York:  Free  Press.  
Gambetta,  D.,  1994.  Inscrutable  markets.  Rationality  and  Society,  6(3),  pp.353–368.  
Granovetter,  M.,  1985.  Economic  Action  and  Social  Structure:  The  Problem  of  

Embeddedness.  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  91(3),  pp.481–510.  
Kreiss,  D.,  Finn,  M.  &  Turner,  F.,  2011.  The  limits  of  peer  production:  Some  reminders  

from  Max  Weber  for  the  network  society.  New  Media  &  Society  ,  13  (2  ),  pp.243–
259.  Available  at:  http://nms.sagepub.com/content/13/2/243.abstract.  

Lampland,  M.  &  Star,  S.L.,  2009.  Reckoning  with  Standards.  In  Standards  and  their  
stories:  how  quantifying,  classifying,  and  formalizing  practices  shape  everyday  life.  
Ithaca:  Cornell  University  Press,  pp.  3–24.  



Larkin,  B.,  2013.  The  Politics  and  Poetics  of  Infrastructure.  Annual  Review  of  
Anthropology,  42(1),  pp.327–343.  Available  at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­
anthro-­092412-­155522.  

Marwick,  A.E.,  2013.  Status  Update:  Celebrity,  Publicity,  and  Branding  in  the  Social  
Media  Age,  New  Haven:  Yale  University  Press.  

McRobbie,  A.,  2002.  Clubs  to  Companies:  Notes  on  the  Decline  of  Political  Culture  in  
Speeded  Up  Creative  Worlds.  Cultural  Studies,  16(4),  pp.516–531.  

Strickler,  Y.,  2009.  Why  Kickstarter?  Kickstarter  Blog.  Available  at:  
https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/why-­kickstarter.  

Talmud,  I.,  2013.  Economic  Sociology.  Sociopedia.isa.  Available  at:  
https://economicsociologydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/economic-­
sociology.pdf.  

Velthuis,  O.,  2005.  Talking  prices:  Symbolic  meanings  of  prices  on  the  market  for  
contemporary  art,  Princeton  University  Press.  

  
  
Technological  standards  and  the  politics  of  representation  
  
Avi  Marciano  and  Sharon  Ringel,  University  of  Haifa  
  
In  the  introduction  to  their  edited  collection,  Star  and  Lampland  suggest  that  "to  
standardize  an  action,  process,  or  thing  means,  at  some  level,  to  screen  out  unlimited  
diversity,"  and  argue  that  "the  silencing  of  'Other'  choices  […]  is  a  moral  choice"  (2009,  
p.  8).  Busch  contextualizes  this  claim  within  a  wider  political  perspective,  suggesting  
that  "however  much  standards  appear  to  be  neutral,  benign,  merely  technical  [and]  
obscure,  […]  they  are  […]  an  extremely  important  and  growing  source  of  social,  political,  
and  economic  relations  of  power"  (2011,  p.  28).  
  
In  this  paper,  we  reflect  upon  the  moral  choices  and  power  relations  hidden  in  
processes  of  standardization,  as  implicated  in  two  case  studies  in  Israel:  the  
establishment  of  a  national  biometric  database  and  the  digitization  of  archives  at  the  
National  Library  of  Israel  (NLI).  We  show  how  institutionalized  standards  –  allegedly  
technical  and  objective  –  work  to  define  different  aspects  of  Israeli  nationality.  More  
specifically,  we  point  to  the  ways  in  which  standardized  digitization  of  texts  and  bodies  
sets  the  boundaries  of  Israeli  nationality  through  the  shaping  of  memory  and  citizenship,  
respectively.  
  
Case  study  #1:  The  establishment  of  a  national  biometric  database  
  
In  December  2009,  after  a  decade  of  public  debates,  the  Israeli  parliament  approved  a  
controversial  law  sanctioning  the  issuing  of  biometric  IDs  and  passports,  and  more  
importantly  –  the  establishment  of  a  national  biometric  database.  The  law  imposes  
compulsory  enrollment  upon  Israeli  citizens  and  allows  access  to  the  database  to  all  
national  security  authorities.  As  such,  the  Israeli  biometric  project  is  unprecedented  in  
the  democratic  world.  Almost  four  years  later,  in  July  2013,  the  Israeli  government  
launched  a  two-­year  preliminary  experimental  phase  before  the  full  implementation  of  
the  project,  during  which  citizens'  enrollment  is  voluntary.  This  preliminary  phase  is  
aimed  to  evaluate  different  aspects  of  this  project,  including  the  public  response  and  the  



suitability  of  technical  criteria  according  to  which  the  biometric  machines  operate.  Since  
the  beginning  of  this  phase,  the  Israeli  Biometric  Database  Management  Authority  has  
published  four  biannual  reports  that  summarize  the  results  and  detail  the  challenges  –  
technical  and  others  –  that  have  arisen  at  this  meeting  point  of  technologies  and  
citizens.    
  
In  this  first  case  study,  we  analyze  various  operational  documents  as  well  the  
aforementioned  interim  reports,  to  show  how  "technological  standards"  are  used  to  
define  eligible  bodies  through  inclusion,  exclusion  and  hierarchization  of  citizens.  We  
illustrate  how  such  standards  turn  the  complex  socio-­cultural  notion  of  citizenship  into  
technical  quests  of  authentication  and  identification,  and  more  importantly  –  how  they  
produce  a  "layered  citizenship"  (Lips,  Taylor,  &  Organ,  2009).  
  
Case  study  #2:  The  digitization  of  archives  at  the  National  Library  of  Israel  
    
Since  2008,  the  NLI  began  implementing  a  digitization  project,  which  includes  both  
conversion  of  analogue  materials  into  digital  formats,  and  maintenance  of  digitally-­born  
cultural  and  heritage  materials.  When  cultural  texts  are  digitized  and  made  publicly  
accessible  on  the  web,  they  become  an  open  resource  for  a  variety  of  cultural  agents,  
including  historians,  authors,  teachers,  screenwriters  and  others.  Therefore,  the  
formation  of  a  digital  corpus  is  not  a  mirror  image  of  the  library,  or  an  online  archive  –  
rather,  it  is  a  new  means  for  storing  and  retrieving  information,  which  provides  new  
affordances  for  cultural  production  (Marcum,  2014;;  Marty,  2009).  The  practices  and  the  
meanings  developed  during  this  transitional  period  were  studied  through  participant  
observation  at  the  NLI  digitization  center,  and  through  an  analysis  of  reports  and  other  
documents  that  were  produced  in  the  process.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  project,  the  
workers  who  are  in  charge  of  the  scanning  faced  questions  regarding  the  best  practices  
for  scanning  the  historical  materials.  However,  only  in  2014  the  NLI  published  a  
document  that  defines  the  standards  for  digitization  of  archival  materials.          
  
In  the  second  case  study,  we  analyze  the  official  reports  that  guide  the  selection  of  
archival  materials  for  digitization,  define  appropriate  techniques  for  scanning,  and  
suggest  formats  for  the  preservation  of  digital  objects.  We  show  how  those  "technical  
guidelines"  define  the  ways  in  which  archival  materials  should  be  preserved  as  digital  
objects  for  future  generations.  Furthermore,  we  illustrate  how  those  standards  have  the  
potential  to  shape  future  national  memory.  
  
Standards  and  the  politics  of  representation  
  
Our  case  studies  demonstrate  how  political  questions  are  reduced  to  technological  
standards  that  eventually  shape  specific  aspects  of  Israeli  nationality,  but  at  the  same  
time  bypass  the  public  discussion  about  the  meaning  of  inclusion  and  exclusion.  In  the  
first  case  study,  the  standards  appear  as  numbers  that  set  the  threshold  for  citizenship  
through  the  definition  of  a  successful  biometric  enrollment.  In  Joseph  Pugliese's  terms,  
these  numbers  actually  set  the  boundaries  of  representation  by  including  the  eligible  
and  excluding  the  others  (Pugliese,  2005).  In  the  second  case  study,  the  standards  are  
operational  scanning  guidelines  that  determine  not  only  which  cultural  texts  will  make  
their  way  into  digital  archives,  but  also  how  these  texts  will  be  digitally  preserved.  In  



other  words,  the  standards  of  scanning  have  the  power  to  shape  the  digital  national  
memory  by  determining  the  boundaries  of  the  representation  of  texts.  The  highly  
technological  contexts  in  which  the  standards  we  analyze  operate  shed  technical,  
objective  and  scientific  light  on  these  processes  of  standardization.  Thus,  these  
contexts  have  the  capacity  to  obscure  the  politics  behind  these  standards.  
    
Putting  these  case  studies  together,  we  conceptualize  standardization  in  terms  of  the  
politics  of  representation,  and  attend  to  the  ways  in  which  practices  of  standardization  
have  the  capacity  to  shape  the  relationship  between  the  state  and  its  citizens.  From  this  
perspective,  our  study  demonstrates  Busch's  claim  that  "standards  are  the  recipes  by  
which  we  create  realities"  (Busch,  2011,  p.  2).    
  
References  
  
Busch,  L.  (2011).  Standards:  Recipes  for  reality.  Cambridge,  MA:  The  MIT  Press.  
Lips,  A.  M.  B.,  Taylor,  J.  A.,  &  Organ,  J.  (2009).  Managing  citizen  identity  information  in  

e-­government  service  relationships  in  the  UK.  Public  Management  Review,  
11(6),  833-­856.  

Marcum,  D.  (2014).  Archives,  libraries,  museums:  Coming  back  together?  Information  &  
Culture,  49(1),  74-­89.  

Marty,  P.  F.  (2009).  An  introduction  to  digital  convergence:  Libraries,  archives,  and  
museums  in  the  information  age.  Museum  Management  and  Curatorship,  24(4),  
295-­298.  

Pugliese,  J.  (2005).  In  silico  race  and  the  heteronomy  of  biometric  proxies:  Biometrics  in  
the  context  of  civilian  life,  border  security  and  counter-­terrorism  laws.  The  
Australian  Feminist  Law  Journal,  23,  1-­32.  

Star,  S.  L.,  &  Lampland,  M.  (2009).  Reckoning  with  standards.  In  M.  Lampland  &  S.  L.  
Star  (Eds.),  Standards  and  their  stories:  How  quantifying,  classifying,  and  
formalizing  practices  shape  everyday  life  (pp.  3-­24).  Ithaca,  NY:  Cornell  
University  Press.  

  
Who  Rules  the  Rules?  
Definitions  of  risk  among  media  literacy  stakeholders    
  
Neta  Ziskind,  University  of  Haifa  and  Open  University  
  
Can  too  many  cooks,  even  those  with  the  best  intentions,  spoil  the  broth?  In  this  
presentation  I  focus  upon  the  ways  various  stakeholders  attempt  to  cooperate  in  the  
formulation  of  rules  that  children  must  abide  to  avoid  risks  of  digital  technologies.  
Children's  safety  in  this  context  is  a  primary  public  concern.  When  it  is  compounded  by  
uncertainty  about  the  power  of  new  technologies,  public  and  policy  debates  become  a  
tug  of  war  between  highly  protectionist  positions  versus  libertarian  ones  (Livingstone,  
Haddon,  &  Görzig,  2012).  Here  I  present  a  similar  tug  of  war  between  various  
stakeholders  in  Israel,  as  each  promotes  their  own  standards  and  rules  to  achieve  
digital  literacy  and  safety  of  children  online.  Both  standards  and  rules  are  linked  to  
policy;;  standards  in  this  context  refer  to  an  agreement  towards  a  common  ground  to  put  
together  a  curriculum  (Tyner,  2014),  while  rules  are  formulations  of  explicit  procedures  



to  produce  and  interpret  texts  as  the  curriculum  demands  (Olson,  &  Torrance  (2009).  I  
analyzed  the  attempts  to  agree  upon  standards  and  rules  and  ask  what  the  process  
reveals  as  to  the  relative  power  of  various  stakeholders.      
  
The  discourse  of  risk  
  
In  Ulrich  Beck's  seminal  work  from  1992,  he  argued  that  modern  societies  in  the  West  
were  in  a  transition  from  being  industrial  into  being  risk  societies.  Beck  was  concerned  
with  hazards  that  arise  from  natural  causes  but  also  from  the  operation  of  modern  
technologies.  Parental  attitudes  towards  digital  and  mobile  media  may  serve  as  an  
illustration  of  the  complexities  of  everyday  struggles  in  the  risk  society.  Parents  express  
fear  that  they  will  not  know  how  to  cope  with  risks  faced  by  their  children  online.  Though  
the  fears  are  not  always  warranted,  the  rise  in  the  perception  of  fear  has  real  
consequences  in  their  lives  (Clark,  2013).  Smedts  (2008)  argues  that  parents'  identity  is  
being  "entrepreneurially  filled  in"  (p.  126)  as  more  and  more  experts,  including  those  on  
educational,  psychological,  and  technological  issues,  tell  parents  how  to  act.    
  
In  this  presentation,  I  describe  findings  from  interviews  I  conducted  with  a  highly  diverse  
set  of  expert  stakeholders  who  all  attempt  to  cooperate  in  conceiving  rules,  guidelines  
and  standards  for  advancing  practices  of  literacy  they  deem  necessary  to  deal  with  risks  
associated  with  children  and  the  internet.  As  standards  codify  and  embody  ethics  and  
values  (Lampland  &  Star,  2009,  p.  5),  I  asked  what  the  process  of  formulating  a  
standard  of  digital  literacy  reveals  as  to  the  motives  and  values  of  the  various  
stakeholders.        
  
Stakeholders  and  the  rules  of  media  literacy  
  
The  stakeholders  I  interviewed  take  part  in  the  collaborative  effort  known  as  Safe  
Internet  Week.  This  event  was  initiated  in  Israel  in  2004  by  a  commercial  stakeholder,  
Microsoft.  After  a  few  years,  the  Ministry  of  Education  took  over  the  reins  and  started  
orchestrating  a  joining  of  forces  to  promote  media  literacy  among  students.  
Stakeholders  include  government  agencies  –  the  Israeli  Police,  Israel  Defense  Forces,  
and  the  Ministry  of  Public  Defense;;  commercial  entities  such  as  Microsoft,  Intel  and  
Google;;  and  NGOs,  notably  Israel  Internet  Association  (ISOC),  Eshnav  (dedicated  to  
teaching  safe  internet  usage),  the  Adler  Institute  (promoting  Adlerian  family  therapy),  
ELI  (foundation  for  protection  of  abused  children),  The  Red  Button  (an  NGO  dedicated  
to  battling  cyber  bullying  using  their  own  app).    
  
As  may  be  deduced  from  the  diversity  of  stakeholders'  backgrounds  and  therefore  their  
motives,  early  on  in  the  interviews,  I  found  that  the  guidelines  to  promote  literacy  by  
each  stakeholder  vary  significantly  in  approach,  design  and  underlying  values.  Some  
address  one  particular  issue.  Others  are  of  the  omnibus  type  and  deal  with  different  
types  of  risky  behaviors.  Some  prescribe  values  of  human  compassion  (as  in  battling  
cyber-­bullying)  while  others  promote  technological  expertise  (as  in  preventing  phishing  
attempts).      
  
Method  
  



I  adopted  the  framework  proposed  by  Burns  and  Machado  (2010)  to  analyze  the  
discourse  of  collaborative  management  of  risk  that  arises  from  new,  complex  
technologies,  in  order  to  reflect  upon  the  process  of  standardizing  media  literacy  rules.  I  
employed  critical  discourse  analysis  (CDA)  to  address  these  issues.  Fairclough  (2001)  
states  that  every  practice  is  an  articulation  of  diverse  social  elements  within  a  relatively  
stable  configuration.  CDA  allows  exploration  of  discourses  of  risk  preventions  and  
shows  that  rules  proposed  by  stakeholders  both  generate  and  depend  upon  prevalent  
ideas  about  childhood,  hierarchy,  and  responsibility.    
  
Initial  Findings  
  
Analysis  of  practices  of  each  stakeholder  allows  insight  into  the  questions  of  power,  
authority  and  responsibility.  The  Ministry  of  Education,  as  the  organizing  stakeholder,  
promotes  cooperation  by  opening  the  yearly  efforts  with  an  official  meeting  of  all  
stakeholders  at  the  ministry's  headquarters.  While  this  meeting  sets  the  standards  for  
Safe  Internet  Week,  nearly  all  stakeholders  are  united  in  criticizing  the  Ministry  of  
Education;;  they  perceive  it  as  concentrating  its  efforts  in  a  single  week,  while  forsaking  
the  instruction  of  media  literacy  for  the  rest  of  the  school  year.            
  
Authority  figures  also  do  not  adhere  to  a  single  formulation  of  values.  One  NGO  
employs  soldiers  to  lecture  pupils,  other  pupils  are  addressed  by  police  officers  or  by  
volunteers  from  the  Public  Defenders'  Office,  while  still  others  watch  a  presentation  
delivered  by  pupils  from  their  own  school,  who  had  received  a  brief  preparation  on  the  
bare  essentials  of  media  literacy.    
  
The  question  of  responsibility  is  a  particularly  thorny  one.  The  Ministry  of  Education  
assigns  teachers  with  the  responsibility  of  dealing  with  cyber  bullying,  including  
incidents  that  happen  after  school  hours.  Parents  expect  the  school  system  and  NGOs  
to  teach  digital  literacy  as  they  feel  unequipped  to  do  so,  while  all  stakeholders  hold  
parents  responsible  to  the  children's'  knowledge  of  media  literacy,  as  the  values  that  
underlie  it  must  be  instilled  inside  the  home.          

  
While  the  common  goal  is  to  formulate  educational  standards  that  outline  what  digitally  
literate  students  should  know,  understand  and  be  able  to  do  (Pearson  &  Young,  2002),  
it  proves  difficult  to  agree  upon  them  in  the  discussed  context.  A  critical  analysis  of  the  
discourse  of  risk  and  media  literacy  highlights  the  values  that  lie  at  the  heart  of  the  
practice  of  standardization.  This  analysis  delves  into  the  process  of  the  making  of  
standards  that  frequently  remains  transparent  and  even  invisible.    
  
References  
 
Beck,  U.  (1992).  Risk  society:  Towards  a  new  modernity  (Vol.  17).  Sage.  
Burns,  T.  R.,  &  Machado,  N.  (2010).  Technology,  complexity,  and  risk:  A  social  systems  
perspective  on  the  discourses  and  regulation  of  the  hazards  of  socio-­technical  
systems.  Sociologia,  (62).    

Clark,  L.  S.  (2013).  The  parent  app:  Understanding  families  in  the  digital  age.  Oxford  
University  Press.  

Fairclough,  N.  (2001).  The  dialectics  of  discourse.  Textus,  14(2),  231-­242.  



Lampland,  M.,  &  Star,  S.  L.  (2009).  Standards  and  their  stories:  How  quantifying,  
classifying,  and  formalizing  practices  shape  everyday  life.  Cornell  University  Press.  

Livingstone,  S.  M.,  Haddon,  L.,  &  Görzig,  A.  (Eds.).  (2012).  Children,  risk  and  safety  on  
the  internet.  Policy  Press.  

Olson,  D.  R.,  &  Torrance,  N.  (2009).  The  Cambridge  handbook  of  literacy.  Cambridge  
University  Press.  

Pearson,  G.,  &  Young,  A.  T.  (Eds.).  (2002).  Technically  speaking:  Why  all  Americans  
need  to  know  more  about  technology.  National  Academies  Press.  

Smedts,  G.  (2008).  Parenting  in  a  technological  age.  Ethics  and  Education,  3(2),  121-­
134.  

Tyner,  K.  (2014).  Literacy  in  a  digital  world:  Teaching  and  learning  in  the  age  of  
information.  Routledge.