{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02622950819672131, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012459016393442624, 'mean_word_length': 5.577586206896552, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Total Affect Control

Through the emergence of affectand psychotechnologies, especially with the advent of affective computing, the recognition, regulation and production of affects have been automatised to an unforeseeable degree. The roots of this algorithmic automation can be seen in the propagation of cybernetic models in the field of psychology from the 1950s onwards. A direct genealogical line leads from Silvan Tomkins’ affect system via Paul Ekman’s facial emotion recognition to Rosalind Picard’s conception and co-development of affectsensitive computer systems. Nevertheless, the implicated aspects of surveillance and collection of affective information have yet to be assessed critically. Such an assessment is outlined here. The Tip of the Iceberg of Digital Control: Affective Computing As discussed in many recent publications, the regulation of affects and emotions is dependent on historical, cultural, socio-political and not least media-technological developments.1 How affects and emotions are coded and expressed, whether they are fostered and actively supported or whether they are ignored or even denied, depends on a wealth of factors that are dealt with individually by many scholars in the fields of history and cultural studies.2 Today, however, a fundamental shift is taking place in the conditions of media technology (a shift whose socio-political impact is still entirely unclear) as affectivity is technicised 1 See for example: Angerer/Bösel/Ott (2014); Goldberg (2012); Wetherell (2012);