Ok yes, I actually agree with this conclusion. The influence of algorithms is important -- also the influence of, again, contracted labor to subjectively police (mediate/moderate) individuals (I'm thinking more about social media which is arguably a force for peer economy) as discussed here: The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed

In this instance, individual subjective judgments of other individuals is actually a function of an impersonal system, one which allows for ideologies and beliefs to determine "content violations." (Thinking of the #freethenipple campaign, extreme twitter harassment, etc..)

Isn't this contradicting the earlier arguments and cited source's point about accountability? To me, it is misguided to argue that the "personalized" features and processes of peer-to-peer economies alone prevents the platforms from being bureaucratic. On the contrary, I think evidence indicates that it is highly impersonal in terms of organizational structure.

This is a compelling idea -- that bureaucracies will become diffuse as labor of production (in this case, provision of a service) moves into purely contracted employees, and upper-level staff hold almost entirely white-collar jobs ("governance," strategy, design and of course, finance). This is accelerated by start-up and tech culture business structures. I could expound here about movement towards the diffusion of bureaucracy via contracts, and how it's happening in my own workplace (which is actually state government,) but I'll hold back.

Anecdote about "exclusion" (kind of) and disruption: As a hotel clerk in Richmond, people over 40 would frequently request that I get them a taxi, assuming that's an easy task. I would have to tell them it would be a 45-minute wait, but Uber could arrive in less than 5 minutes. No one ever knew their iCloud password to download the Uber app. They were always angry at me, the cab drivers, their iPhones, and they were always late to their events.

I feel this extends far beyond a niche -- these technologies become economic AND transportation infrastructure. The case of Austin proves the fragility of our reliance on these services. Unfortunately, the structure of the business, user agreements and lack of regulation overextends the ability of mediation/management for corporate rather than peer profit. Both the opening and closing of these services in cities can be seriously disruptive.

In the same way, social media technologies also provide substantial economic infrastructure as well as social infrastructure, activist infrastructure and even family infrastructure. What happens when a small biz owner who uses Instagram and Facebook for all transactions has their account closed without warning?

This is what I mean by an authoritative broker -- the ability of Uber to wipe away the livelihood of its drivers in moments (or, in the case of Austin, all of its drivers.) The size of Uber means it does not have the same interest invested in "brokering" transactions... it also will ban riders and drivers for "low" ratings -- anything below 4.6 out of 5 stars

Yes! Although I think this has changed since that research was likely written as tech companies, especially in these industries, have become even bigger behemoths and are increasingly criticized in popular media.

I agree with this characterization, though I think many platforms actually assume more of an authority role than the traditional idea of a "broker."

Rhetorical side coming out -- "contributor" and "peer" next to "labor" and "production" presents an interesting conflict: collectivist language in a capitalist context.

I think,also, the ways these platforms vary in coordinating user participation is an interesting area to explore. Uber appears to move towards a more true peer-to-peer economy with this: Uber's 'destinations' feature could turn basically everyone into an Uber driver

Until you consider this!: Uber Wants to Hire a Million More Drivers Then Replace Them All With Robots

Shakespeare is a great example for illustrating presentation of self and it's relation to rational choice/exchange theory, IMO.

Yep, and here is the potential cost or benefit to actors, which is decided based on their control of self presentation and their success at the theatricality of interaction. In a way, both are assets/goods and are costs/benefits. (If your reflected appraisals turn negative, your confidence may suffer, affecting your success with social "acting.")

Here we are, presentation. I think control of self-presentation and image is a "good" one owns and seeks to retain control over. Personal capital, if we want to go there. I appreciate considering these concepts alongside Exchange Theory.

I find parallels with the free rider issue to my own experience with workplace dynamics. I work in a bureaucracy which is especially non-social, which creates little collective cohesiveness or interests, except for justifying each's job within the bureaucracy -- an idea which Collins detailed heavily in his description of the evolution of universities and governments. This provides incentive for free riders, but little ability of groups (not being social or cohesive) to react to that behavior.

While rational choice provides valuable perspective, I have a lot of difficulty believing we calculate this way, explicitly. I think much of the calculation, for many people, is present but occurs on the gut level -- either way, our mental scales are skewed (Dozens of examples to point to, but I am thinking to an extent about the multiracial study and how monoracial online daters might justify interactions which reveal biases.) Exchange Theory, critically elevates and complicates this with the less tangible social "goods" -- status, relationship dynamics, knowledge, etc. -- which affect emotional and intuited responses.

(Dramaturgy!) I like the word actors specifically because it implies both the emotional/social (acting, self-presentation, rituals/ceremony, convolution in interactions) and also the rational -- we're just people, doing things.

Dramaturgy! I think?

Yes! I had an annotation elsewhere that got deleted, but one thing that strikes me about Conflict Theory applied here is the gender dynamic. Class conflict emerges from archaic traditions: (Affluent) men have to marry a bride whose family can afford an appropriate wedding.

Google search says: "Bride pays for everything except for half the flowers..."

While the focus of this article is on expensive weddings, I think that the economic reasons for getting married (tax incentives, insurance, gov't benefits, medical needs etc.) are worth discussing in terms of Conflict Theory (the relationship to class/poverty and the state) and Functionalism (marriage as utility).

Anecdotally, I've heard (often) of people saying they couldn't afford NOT to get married. In those cases, if they marry but do not "perform" with an expensive wedding, they stand to lose socially.

EDIT: Whoops. Should have read the following paragraph more closely.

Clarifying this: The author's anecdote about simplistic weddings in the past is important. Distinguishing between "proper" (read: expensive, big and familial) and courthouse (read: casual, impersonal) weddings shows how we construct and distort our understanding of tradition. Marriage as an institution is a tradition, a value and a moral imperative for many families. The wedding, however, is the symbol...

"Proper" implies that this type of wedding is conservative/conventional — it's understood as "traditional" regardless of the past, what's changed is simply how we express the value of marriage, by spending money, which is due to class changes (including our ability to travel.)

I read this sentence as conflating or muddling two separate "importances": spending money and exchanging vows. Beyond the moral objections, each has its own social utility: money spent on a lavish party is a signal which functions differently than the actual act of getting married.

This is not only Durkheimian (social ritual, moral value of tradition) but part of structural functionalism: we rely on families for varying utility (including love and support) and so we do things that are expensive and stressful because it's in our (at least perceived) interest within our social structures. Here, emotion and relationships play into our "cost-benefit" analysis.