Log in to star items.
- Convenors:
-
Barbara Morsello
(University of Padova)
Valeria Quaglia (University of Bologna)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
- Location:
- C-7, 0.15
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 9 September, -
Time zone: Europe/Warsaw
Short Abstract
What if the boundaries between health activism and influencing blur? This panel examines how platformization transforms participation, expertise, and the politics of health communication in digital environments.
Description
Digital platforms are transforming the ways health, illness, and bodies are experienced, communicated, and governed. This ongoing platformization of health reconfigures long-standing forms of participation, expertise, and activism that STS has explored for decades. Forms of participation from below, such as evidence-based activism and biocitizenship, find new spaces and opportunities for enactment, while refused-knowledge communities bring their marginalised claims to wider audiences. This scholarship has shown how patients and lay people mobilise expertise to contest biomedical authority and democratise knowledge online. Today, however, these participatory practices increasingly unfold within platform infrastructures driven by algorithmic visibility, monetisation, and datafication. These socio-technical transformations reshape subjectivity, embodiment, and the politics of participation.
This is particularly evident in the emerging figure of the health influencer, ranging from patient-influencers to healthcare professionals active on digital platforms, raising the question of whether these actors represent a continuation of activism or rather a substantially different phenomenon. Increasingly, it has been noted that the boundaries between these two modes of communicating and enacting health online appear blurred. While health activism has historically relied on collective action, solidarity, and contestation, influencer practices centre on individual branding, visibility, and partnerships with institutions and companies. They amplify patient voices and peer knowledge, yet also risk reproducing inequalities and spreading commercialised or low-evidence content.
In line with the conference theme of exploring resilient socio-technical futures, this panel asks: what if the boundaries between health activism and health influencing increasingly blur? How might such entanglements shape the future of digital health communication, and what forms of resilience, empowerment, and accountability could emerge?
We invite empirical and theoretical contributions that address, but are not limited to:
• Shifting repertoires, solidarities, and lay expertise from activism to influencing;
• Authority, legitimacy, and accountability in digital health cultures;
• Algorithmic visibility, monetisation, and inequality;
• Platform agency in reshaping health communication and imaginaries of resilient futures.
Accepted papers
Session 1 Wednesday 9 September, 2026, -Paper short abstract
Menstrual cycle tracking apps combine feminist empowerment, scientific knowledge, medical advice, and commercial logics. Drawing on interviews and interface analysis, this presentation examines how these apps blur activism and influence while shaping women’s health infrastructures.
Paper long abstract
Menstrual cycle tracking apps (MCTAs) have become everyday technologies for millions of people, positioning private digital technoservices at the center of contemporary women’s health innovation. Indeed, the most widely used apps are not limited to simple calendars for tracking past and predicting future menstrual cycles. A significant part of their activity involves producing media content (videos, podcasts, articles, encyclopedic resources) and health-, nutrition-, or well-being–related advice, delivered within the apps in personalized ways based on users’ data, through notifications, daily advice, and chatbots.
Moreover, MCTAs promote discourses that valorize feminist ideals of empowerment through knowledge and the reappropriation of gynecological expertise by women. Such discourses are present both among app founders and among users, whose motivations frequently reflect a desire to challenge conventional gynecological and pharmaceutical narratives surrounding women’s health and fertility. These activist framings are reinforced by the use of MCTA data for women’s health research, a field that is chronically underfunded and increasingly threatened in some countries, including the United States.
At the same time, MCTAs are commercial platforms whose business models rely on algorithmic visibility in app stores, personalized health predictions and guidance through paid subscriptions, as well as on capturing users’ attention within the app ecosystem.
MCTAs are relevant for examining the blurring of boundaries between activism and influencing, and between scientific popularization and commercialized content. Drawing on interviews with designers and scientists (n = 54) and interface analysis, we examine how economic, scientific, and medical stakes shape these applications’ infrastructures and operations.
Paper short abstract
Using a Turkish X Community combating medical misinformation as a single case, this paper examines how expertise is performed through evidence evaluation, professional boundary-work and visibility practices, showing how counter-misinformation also becomes authority work under platform conditions.
Paper long abstract
This paper examines a public X Community in Türkiye organized around combating medical misinformation. Rather than treating counter-misinformation simply as the correction of false or misleading claims, it asks how expertise, authority and legitimacy are produced under platform conditions. The study uses a qualitative single-case design, drawing on 142 posts shared between 1 March and 30 July 2026, together with Community rules and management profiles. Posting was highly centralized, with one founder-administrator producing 124 of the 142 posts.
The analysis identifies three main practices. First, expertise is performed through the evaluation of scientific evidence and research methods, including judgments about what particular studies can and cannot establish. Second, correction functions as professional boundary-work, distinguishing credible speakers from out-of-field, unreliable or pseudo-scientific actors and thereby distributing legitimacy. Third, correction is also visibility work, shaped by quote-posts, replies, videos, audience engagement and platform circulation. These practices show that combating medical misinformation is not only about correcting claims. It also helps define what counts as credible evidence, who may speak credibly, and what becomes visible on X. The paper therefore argues that counter-misinformation is also a form of authority work under platform conditions.
Paper short abstract
Most platforms in health operate in for-profit contexts, promising efficiency, connectivity, and visibility, but this organisational form also holds promise to serve the common good. We examine one such platform to broaden our conceptualisation of platforms and their added value in health.
Paper long abstract
Platformisation is one of this century’s most critical societal trends. The platformisation of health has been studied predominantly in for-profit contexts, giving rise to critiques along the lines of ‘googlisation’. Yet the platform as an organisational form also holds potential to be harnessed for the common good. We offer a broadened conceptualisation of platforms to include those serving the common good, illustrated by an ethnographic study of a publicly-funded drug repurposing platform (REMEDi4ALL), which incentivises the use of ‘old’ medicines for ‘new’ indications. Promising fast and low-cost drug development for all, the REMEDi4ALL platform challenges existing for-profit models of medical innovation, enables exchange of patient and professional expertise, and builds upon public-private partnerships. While riding the same waves of promised efficiency, connectivity, and visibility as most digital platforms in health, we show that platforms for the common good do not centre on individual visibility but foreground patient community and promote commodification rather than assetisation, inclusion over extraction, and diversification over monopolisation. Along with these characteristics, we discuss the precarious position of common good platforms like REMEDi4ALL as they continue to depend on public funding.