Book review of: M. Pepi (2025). Against Platforms: Surviving Digital Utopia, Melville House, Brooklyn-London, 224 p.
Dr. G.J. van Bussel
After the publications of Srnicek’s Platform Capitalism (2016) and Zuboff’s Surveillance Capitalism (2019), there has been an exponential increase in the number of critiques of large technological firms and their platforms. [i] Concurrently, however, digital platforms have consolidated their influence over global societies. In Against Platforms, Mike Pepi, advances the argument that such platforms are not impartial, but rather ideological instruments that exert a significant influence on social, artistic, and political life. Pepi contests the techno-utopian perspective that platforms serve as instruments for ‘good’, for democratization, and equality. According to Pepi, digital platforms exhibit an extractive character, a phenomenon that has the effect of eroding autonomy, under the guise of promoting connectivity.
Digital platforms were initially presented as a ‘utopia’, an open space where the free flow of information would ensure a democratic and egalitarian society. Michael Pepi has expressed the opinion that this idea is misguided, at least in its current form. It is:
‘an ideology run amok. Techno-utopianism—the idea that technology, and technology alone, will create a more egalitarian, democratic society—has been around since we have had tools to make labor easier. But this utopia, like all utopias, doesn’t really exist. Despite this misguided attempt, techno-utopianism has effectively synthesized with two other powerful ideologies—techno-determinism and free-market capitalism—to create what many refer to as platform capitalism.’ (p. 2)
Pepi attempts to deconstruct the myths (created in Silicon Valley) that have enabled ‘techno-utopianism’ to become embedded in popular thinking, thereby allowing digital platforms to amass considerable power. However, a platform is a ‘privatization’ of the digital space, in which utopianism, determinism, and capitalism merge to achieve the commercialization of a platform. The nature of the platform is irrelevant; be it social media, gaming, search or e-commerce, the principles under discussion remain consistent. As private spaces, they cannot be neutral (one of those long-standing myths.) [ii] A private space only operates a platform that is aligned with the interests of its proprietors and developers. Specific choices are invariably made about features, architectures, and ideologies. These choices are indicative of the interests of their respective owners and developers. The platforms’ activities are inherently aligned with the objectives of these entities, with a primary focus on maximizing profit generation through diverse means. In summary, platforms can be considered as a manifestation of the capitalist system, commodifying data and attention, undermining traditional institutions, laws and rules, and present illusions of objectivity and decentralization. By using multiple layers of intensive marketing to create a hype (or succeeding hypes),
‘digital utopians have captured the public conscious so fully that we see a doubling down on the logic of Silicon Valley platforms even as their contradictions have been largely exposed, the hype oversold, and the politics roundly critiqued.’ (p. 17)
The book focuses on debunking the myths perpetuated by Silicon Valley firms’ techno-utopian marketing activities. Its chapters elaborate on these myths in detail. It starts in the Introduction and the first chapter (‘The utopia that never came’) with a general overview of techno-utopianism and the ‘hidden agendas’ of the platforms, characterizing them as capitalistic systems that work for profit based on the ideologies and interests of their owners and shareholders. Both chapters introduce the beliefs of techno-utopianism and the myths that form the core of Pepi’s criticism. In the following nine chapters, he gives his answers to these myths: ‘Computers can’t think’, ‘Data is never raw’, The Internet is not a thing’, ‘Technical solutions won’t solve social problems’, ‘Decentralization is an illusion’, ‘Software is hard’, ‘Algorithms are made of people’ , Technology isn’t given, it is made’, and ‘Platforms are not institutions.’ The final chapter, ‘After Platforms’, is a call to action. Pepi encourages us to actively oppose platforms, not just through critique, but by developing and reinforcing alternative forms of social organization and technological deployment that prioritize human connection, institutional resilience, and shared responsibility over the logic of platform capitalism. His aim is to design a future where technology serves humanity rather than the other way around.
In my opinion, Pepi identifies five overlapping myths. I have previously mentioned the first myth, that of neutrality. As platforms are private spaces, they cannot be neutral. They actively shape culture, politics, and economics while enforcing ideologies, yet they claim to be impartial. They present themselves as conduits for user-generated content but obscure their role in algorithmic curation and data extraction. This myth enables platforms to evade accountability for misinformation, bias and control, even when they influence elections, labour markets and public discourse. [iii]
The second myth Pepi recognizes, that of democratization, claims that platforms inherently democratize access to information, creativity, and participation. However, as Pepi points out, platforms often centralize power for their proprietors, extracting labour from users, monetize this labour, while giving very little in return. They ‘datafy’, atomize, and monetize under the guise of democratization (see ‘After platforms.’) [iv]
The third myth concerns the inevitability of technological progress. It is presented as an unstoppable force to which society must adapt, thereby justifying harmful disruptions as ‘progress’ and weakening efforts to create or demand alternatives. Pepi traces ‘inevitability’ back to the concept of ‘solutionism’, as defined by Evgeny Morozov: the belief that technology is the inevitable solution to social problems (see chapter 5.) [v]
The myth of disruptive innovation is closely related to the fourth myth. It glorifies platforms as revolutionary agents that dismantle outdated systems through continuous innovation. However, most of these technological innovations transform users into ‘raw material’ to be exploited for profit. While platforms may once have been disruptive technologies, they are not anymore. They have grown into monopolies, and ‘disruptive innovation’ obscures the reality of their exploitation of labour and replication of existing power structures (Chapter 10). As Astra Taylor emphasized in The People’s Platform:
‘A handful of giant companies remain the gatekeepers, while the worst habits of the old media model — the pressure to seek easy celebrity, to be quick and sensational above all — have proliferated in the ad-driven system.’ [vi]
The last myth that Pepi addresses is that of the creator economy, the idea that platforms empower independent creators through monetization tools. According to Pepi, these tools do not work to the advantage of the creators. He remarks that:
‘The costs of so much of cultural life was driven to zero for the audience, while platforms captured whatever value they could from an ad-driven model.’ (p. 109)
Pepi’s description of creators’ woes within platforms paints a picture of a digital environment that, despite its initial promise, has become exploitative, controlling, and detrimental to the well-being and creative freedom of individuals. Most earnings do not go to the creators, but to platforms and intermediaries, such as record companies. Platforms use algorithmic control to force creators to adapt to new trends and styles of content, rather than focusing on their original work. If creators do not comply, the algorithms can drastically reduce their reach — and thus their income. [vii]
Against Platforms offers a sharp critique of digital platforms, positioning them as technological, economic, and cultural structures. The cultural effects reshape cognition, creativity, and social relations. Pepi correctly argues that platforms enforce a regime of quantification, extraction, and instrumentalization — a regime that demands new forms of refusal. He argues that the techno-utopian vision has failed and has led to fragmentation, pressure, and manipulation.
Pepi contributes to the current discourse on technology, examining how digital platforms are transforming cultural production, social relations, and economic systems. His analysis is based on interdisciplinary research, implicitly bringing together media theory, political economy, and information theory. He frames platforms as systems that reduce human activity to quantifiable, predictable data streams, emphasizing their tendency to homogenize social, economic, and cultural output by optimizing for engagement metrics. Algorithmic bias is rooted in the ideologies of these platforms’ owners, developers, and shareholders and can have detrimental social consequences. [viii] Pepi demonstrates how the seemingly neutral interfaces of digital platforms can obscure power relations and dehumanizing business models. He reveals how technical architectures encode the political and economic values of the platforms’ owners, developers and/or shareholders.
However, there are some weaknesses, too. Although Pepi analyses the structural issues of platforms, he pays less attention to how users can negotiate, resist, or repurpose these environments. By doing so, he underestimates user agency, which, although not easy, is possible. [ix] While Pepi’s critique of techno-utopianism is compelling, Against Platforms would benefit from more nuance and less generalization, acknowledging the diversity of platform types and their varying societal impacts. Pepi offers potential solutions and alternatives, including decentralized technologies, stronger regulatory frameworks, and the promotion of digital literacy and critical thinking skills among users. These solutions lack specificity and are too general. Further elaboration of the solutions would have enhanced the book’s practical value.
The book could be considered a manifesto due to its clear stance, call to transformative action, provocative and persuasive narrative, and commentary on the relationship between technology and social culture. As a manifesto, however, it could have been more concise.
Overall, however, Against Platforms is a critical examination of the role and impact of major digital platforms such as Google, Facebook and Amazon. Pepi argues that these platforms have become too powerful and pervasive, leading to negative consequences for society, democracy, and individual autonomy through the centralization of power, surveillance capitalism, the erosion of democracy, the exploitation of labour, cultural homogenization, and the sidelining of regulation.
As a wake-up call: the owners of these platforms immediately implemented authoritarian and fascistoid MAGA ideas within their already biased algorithms after Trump’s inauguration.
For those who are unaware of the social impact of these platforms, this book is a wake-up call; for those who are aware, it provides analysis and arguments. It is a highly recommended read for all.
[i] N. Srnicek (2016). Platform Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge; S. Zuboff (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, PublicAffairs, New York.
[ii] See also: T. Gillespie (2010). ‘The politics of ‘platforms’’, New Media & Society, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 347-364. Online source, retrieved May 19, 2025, from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=3aac5e7f786a3568e2b40866f1a65c4ea3f1b131.
[iii] L. Winner (1980). ‘Do Artifacts Have Politics?’, Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, pp. 121-136. Online source, retrieved May 19, 2025, from: https://faculty.washington.edu/jtenenbg/courses/325/readings/Winner%20Do%20artifacts%20have%20politics%201980.pdf.
[iv] J. Dean (2005). ‘Communicative capitalism. Circulation and the foreclosure of politics’, Cultural Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-74, and C. Fuchs (2014). Digital Labour and Karl Marx, Routledge, New York.
[v] E. Morozov (2013). To Save Everything Click Here. The Folly of Techno-logical Solutionism, Public Affairs, New York.
[vi] A. Taylor (2014). The People’s Platform. Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age, Picador, New York. Quotation: back cover.
[vii] See, for instance: R. Landy (2025). Did Copyright Fail Music Artists. Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2025-13, Boston University. Online source, retrieved May 19, 2025, from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5241841 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5241841. About Spotify’s practice, see p. 1, with additional sources.
[viii] See: S.U. Noble (2018). Algorithms of Oppression. How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, New York University Press, New York. Also: T. Gillespie (2014). ‘The relevance of algorithms’, T. Gillespie, P.J. Boczkowski, and K.A. Foot (eds.), Media Technologies. Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, MIT, Cambridge (Ms), Chapter 9, pp. 167-193; Z. Tufekci (2015). ‘Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google. Emergent challenges of computational agency’, Colorado Technology Law Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 203-218; and A. Alsaleh (2024). ‘The impact of technological advancement on culture and society’, Scientific Reports, Vol 14, article 32140. Online source, retrieved May 19, 2025, from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-83995-z.
[ix] T. Bonini, and E. Treré (2024). Algorithms of Resistance. The Everyday Fight Against Platform Power, MIt Press, Cambridge (Ms.). Also: L. Cini (2023). ‘Resisting algorithmic control. Understanding the rise and variety of platform worker mobilisations’, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 125-144.
