During the “Take a Walk Through the Platform” workshop, participants worked in groups to analyse apps, social media platforms, or websites, focusing on their sociomaterial dimensions: cultural perspectives, political visions, user personas, and affordances. The walkthrough slows down habitual navigation, making the familiar strange. Participants then created affective cartographies reassembling platforms, giving voice to silenced elements and recognizing the materiality of the digital. Together, these exercises embrace the affirmative dimension inherent in critical platform studies.
As young researchers, the Winter School represented, above all, a moment of encounter and shared intellectual energy—a moment to connect with others who not only move within the academic sphere, but who also actively seek to reshape it. What struck us most was the presence of people who, like us, are passionate about research yet committed to making it less exclusive, more permeable, and open to new generations. In this sense, the experience felt like a collective attempt to imagine an academia that does not close in on itself, but rather expands outward, engaging with broader social realities.
Within our workshop group, the Tinder Group focused on analyzing the platform Tinder, approaching it not simply as a dating app, but as a structured fixed environment governed by implicit rules and power dynamics. For the analysis, we applied the “Walking Through” methodology, which was developed and studied during the winter school. This approach allows us to explore the subject of study not only through objective criteria but also by engaging the senses and perception, making it extremely innovative and useful in forging a concrete link between science and art.
What emerged quite forcefully was the stark asymmetry between masculine and feminine roles embedded in its logic. These differences were not only theoretical observations; they became tangible through our own discussions. Being a diverse group in terms of gender and age allowed us to reflect critically on how these dynamics are experienced differently, and how they shape not only interactions on the platform, but also broader understandings of relationships and identity.
These conversations often moved beyond the platform itself, opening up questions about technology as a whole—its design, its biases, and its potential. Rather than seeing it as a neutral tool, the group began to consider technology as something that can and should be oriented toward human well-being. At the same time, the group were implicitly challenging a society that often encourages passive consumption rather than critical engagement.
What remains with us, after this experience, is a strong sense of community and a renewed commitment to a form of research that is grounded, open, accessible and ultimately socially meaningful.