Paper Number
ECIS2026-2790
Paper Type
CRP
Abstract
Companionship-as-a-Service (CaaS) platforms represent a new frontier of digital platformisation, mediating intimacy in a morally contested space that prior research has largely overlooked. This study offers one of the first empirical analyses of CaaS drawing on more than fifty interviews with clients, workers, and platform owners. Our findings reveal that CaaS platforms operate as ‘Leidensdruck machines’, relieving primary suffering (loneliness, sexual frustration, trauma) while reproducing secondary suffering through secrecy, dependency, and exposure to platform power. Core affordances are inherently ambivalent, offering affective safety even as they heighten vulnerability. Emerging power shifts signal early tendencies towards platform capture in the intimate domain. These dynamics move IS theory beyond instrumental views of affordances towards a relational and ethically attuned understanding of how platforms co-produce suffering and relief. For practice, they highlight the need for governance models that treat platforms not as a neutral service market but as a morally charged digital infrastructure.
Recommended Citation
Buzila, Eduard and Ciriello, Raffaele, "Leidensdruck, Affordance Ambiguity, And Power Shifts In Companionship-As-A-Service Platforms" (2026). ECIS 2026 Proceedings. 12.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2026/platforms/platforms/12
Leidensdruck, Affordance Ambiguity, And Power Shifts In Companionship-As-A-Service Platforms
Companionship-as-a-Service (CaaS) platforms represent a new frontier of digital platformisation, mediating intimacy in a morally contested space that prior research has largely overlooked. This study offers one of the first empirical analyses of CaaS drawing on more than fifty interviews with clients, workers, and platform owners. Our findings reveal that CaaS platforms operate as ‘Leidensdruck machines’, relieving primary suffering (loneliness, sexual frustration, trauma) while reproducing secondary suffering through secrecy, dependency, and exposure to platform power. Core affordances are inherently ambivalent, offering affective safety even as they heighten vulnerability. Emerging power shifts signal early tendencies towards platform capture in the intimate domain. These dynamics move IS theory beyond instrumental views of affordances towards a relational and ethically attuned understanding of how platforms co-produce suffering and relief. For practice, they highlight the need for governance models that treat platforms not as a neutral service market but as a morally charged digital infrastructure.