Technocapitalism: Defining the New Digital Economy

As digital technologies transform nearly every facet of modern life, they redefine the foundations of our economy. “Technocapitalism,” a term developed by sociologist Luis Suarez-Villa, encapsulates this new era where technology and capitalism are intertwined, reshaping how we work, communicate, and express identity (Suarez-Villa, Technocapitalism, 2009). This article explores technocapitalism’s mechanisms and its evolution from an economic model into a structure that affects identity, culture, and visibility, particularly for marginalised groups like the queer community.

The Foundations of Technocapitalism

Technocapitalism describes the fusion of digital technologies and capitalist frameworks, where technology serves not only as a tool but as a primary driver of economic growth and consumer behaviour. Unlike traditional capitalism, technocapitalism centres on innovation, data, and the commodification of digital interactions, harnessing advancements to push consumption and engagement. Every interaction on digital platforms generates data, a valuable resource that enables companies to track, predict, and influence user behaviour with unprecedented precision (Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 2019).

The dominance of tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon underscores this trend, as these companies use algorithms and user data to shape consumer choices and embed themselves in users’ daily lives (Van Dijck, The Culture of Connectivity, 2013). With this pervasive reach, technocapitalism subtly influences not only consumption but also personal expression and identity, as platforms become arenas for self-presentation.

Platforms as Architects of Identity

In this technocapitalist framework, digital platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube act as the primary venues for identity construction and self-expression (Fuchs, Social Media: A Critical Introduction, 2014). For queer individuals and marginalised groups, these platforms offer a chance to share stories and build communities, yet their algorithms and content guidelines favour content fitting marketable molds.

By determining which content is “engaging” and profitable, algorithms shape the types of expressions that gain visibility. This hidden influence aligns with corporate interests, often filtering out content that deviates from normative ideals. According to Tarleton Gillespie, platforms are “custodians of the internet” that subtly guide users toward conformity through content moderation and algorithmic design, resulting in representation that serves technocapitalist objectives rather than authentic visibility (Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet, 2018).

Data and Surveillance: The Heart of Technocapitalism

Data has become the lifeblood of technocapitalism. Each interaction on digital platforms is logged, analysed, and monetised to create nuanced user profiles that predict preferences and behaviours (Andrejevic, Infoglut, 2013). For queer individuals, this means that expressions and identities are monitored, categorised, and harnessed to drive targeted advertising. Scholars Nick Couldry and Ulises Mejias describe this process as a “data colonialism” that appropriates digital interactions, turning them into a resource for capital gain (The Costs of Connection, 2019).

Shoshana Zuboff’s concept of “surveillance capitalism” further underscores this relationship: platforms track users’ activities under the guise of personalisation, yet the ultimate aim is to align individuals with profitable categories. This constant monitoring restricts the ways in which queer users can authentically express themselves, pressuring them to conform to the data-driven economy’s normative ideals.

Monetising Identity: The Economic Imperatives of Technocapitalism

Technocapitalism’s goal is to turn every interaction into a transaction, where identities are commodified to fit into neatly marketable categories. Researchers Jacquelyn Davis and Julietta Chouinard discuss how this economic imperative drives platforms to prioritise content that maximises engagement, promoting representations of queerness that are predictable and profitable (Theorising Technocapitalism, 2017).

This focus on commodification affects the representation of queer identities online. Authentic, complex portrayals are often overshadowed by more monetisable versions, with algorithms amplifying those that align with corporate interests and sidelining expressions that challenge normative narratives (Bishop, Artificial Hells, 2019). In this way, technocapitalism’s profit motives shape how queerness is displayed and perceived, creating a digital landscape where identities are curated to sell.

Conclusion

Technocapitalism has redefined our economy, placing digital engagement and commodification at its centre. Platforms function not just as spaces for connection but as architects of identity, defining the boundaries of representation through algorithms and data-driven surveillance. For queer communities, the implications are profound. While digital platforms offer unprecedented visibility, they impose limitations that reinforce conformity and commodification.

Understanding technocapitalism’s impact on identity and representation empowers users to engage more critically, advocating for more diverse and authentic expressions in digital spaces. Recognising these economic forces is essential to navigating the digital economy and challenging the restrictive boundaries it imposes on visibility and representation.