This article explores “soft launching,” a digital phenomenon predominantly associated with female users that involves deploying deliberately “askew” photographs to subtly reveal one’s romantic partner on their Instagram profile. I use soft launching as a case study to interrogate the relationship between intimate publics and platformization, especially as it concerns feminized cultural production. I argue that intimate publics are platform-specific, and I recenter cultural production as a tool for studying intimate public spheres. Following this, I analyze the cross-platform existence of soft launching by applying discursive and textual methods. Examining the cultural products that surround and constitute soft launching reveals how platform-specificity contours both intimate publics and what I call meta-intimate publics, defined as intimate publics that reflexively and ambivalently repackage others. I offer meta-intimate publics as a framework for identifying and understanding how users (in particular, women and historically disenfranchised users) construct and present themselves across hypercommodified platform ecologies amid the “impasses” of contemporary digital life.
BaymNK (2018) Playing to the Crowd: Musicians, Audiences, and the Intimate Work of Connection. New York: New York University Press.
4.
BerlantL (1997) The Queen of America Goes to Washington City: Essays on Sex and Citizenship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
BerlantL (1998) Intimacy: a special issue. Critical Issue24(2): 281–288.
6.
BerlantL (2008) The Female Complaint: The Unfinished Business of Sentimentality in American Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
7.
BerlantL (2011) Cruel Optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
8.
BishopS (2023) Influencer creep: how artists strategically navigate the platformisation of art worlds. new media & society27(4): 2109–2126.
9.
BolerMAzharA (2023) Cruel, convenient, and intimate publics: Berlant’s lessons for loneliness and digital media commons. Media Theory7(2): 353–372.
10.
BrunsA (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From Production to Produsage. Berlin: Peter Lang Inc.
11.
BucherTHelmondA (2018) The affordances of social media platforms. In: BurgessJMarwickAPoellT (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. New York: Sage, pp. 233–253.
12.
BurgessJ (2021) Platform studies. In: CunninghamSCraigD (ed.) Creator Culture: An Introduction to Global Social Media Entertainment. New York: New York University Press, pp. 21–38.
13.
CaldeiraSPDe RidderSVan BauwelS (2020) Between the mundane and the political: women’s self-representations on Instagram. Social Media + Society6(3): 40802.
14.
CaldwellJ (2009) Cultures of production: studying industry’s deep texts, reflexive rituals, and managed self-disclosures. In: HoltJPerrenA (eds) Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 199–212.
15.
DeanJ (2009) Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
16.
DobsonASRobardsBCarahN, et al. (2018) Digital Intimate Publics and Social Media. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
DoctorowC (2025) Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do about It. New York: McD.
18.
DuffyBE (2017) (Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
DuffyBEPoellTNieborgDB (2019) Platform practices in the cultural industries: creativity, labor, and citizenship. Social Media + Society5(4): 9672.
20.
DuguayS (2022) Personal but Not Private: Queer Women, Sexuality, and Identity Modulation on Digital Platforms. Oxford: Oxford Academic.
21.
GillespieT (2010) The politics of “platforms.”new media & society12(3): 347–364.
22.
GoffmanE (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
23.
HallS (2001) Encoding/decoding. In: DurhamMGKellnerDM (eds) Media and Cultural Studies Keyworks. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwall Publishers, pp. 166–176.
HoganB (2010) The presentation of self in the age of social media: distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society30(6): 377–386.
26.
HumphreysL (2018) The Qualified Self: Social Media and the Accounting of Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
IllouzE (1997) Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
MoghadamABRafsanjaniMKBalasVE (2022) PCG/PCGML evaluations: introducing panda evaluation using the soft launch. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems43(2): 2191–2210.
33.
MulveyL (1975) Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen16(3): 6–18.
34.
MunozIKimPO’NeilC, et al. (2024) Platformization of inequality: gender and race in digital labor platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction8: CSCW11–CSCW22.
NagyPNeffG (2015) Imagined affordance: reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society1(2): 3385.
37.
NottinghamJ (2019) The 96% commercialization solution. Technology & Innovation20(4): 367–370.
38.
PitcanMMarwickAEboydd (2018) Performing a vanilla self: respectability politics, social class, and the digital world. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23(3): 163–179.
RambukkanaMMatthewsS (2024) Platform intimacies: reckoning with the digital as intimate relation. TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies48: 1–9.
42.
RettbergJW (2014) Seeing Ourselves through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
ScolereLPruchniewskaUDuffyBE (2018) Constructing the platform-specific self-brand: the labor of social media promotion. Social Media + Society4(3): 4768.
44.
SenftT (2008) Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks. Berlin: Peter Lang Inc.
ZulliDZulliDJ (2022) Extending the internet memes: conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. new media & society24: 1872–1890.
