Although there have been many studies of the different ways regimes censor the use of social media by their citizens, shutting off social media altogether is something that rarely happens. However, it happens at the most politically sensitive times and has widespread-if not global-consequences for political, economic and cultural life. When do states disconnect their digital networks, and why? To answer this question, the authors build an event history database of incidents in which a regime went beyond mere censorship of particular websites or users. The authors draw from multiple sources, including major news media, specialized news services, and international experts, to construct an event log database of 566 incidents. This rich, original dataset allows for a nuanced analysis of the conditions for state action, and the authors offer some assessment of the effect of such desperate action. Comparative analysis indicates that both democratic and authoritarian regimes disable social media networks for citing concerns about national security, protecting authority figures, and preserving cultural and religious morals. Whereas democracies disable social media with the goal of protecting children, authoritarian regimes also attempt to eliminate what they perceive as propaganda on social media. The authors cover the period 1995-2011 and build a grounded typology on the basis of regime type, what states actually did to interfere with digital networks, why they did it, and who was affected.
As online publications increasingly serve as professional entry points into journalism, online journalists are being trained in a professional environment markedly different from traditional publications. Through in-depth interviews with online journalists, this study investigates the professional identities of this new cohort of media workers. We find they respect some established norms but participate in a mutual shaping of the processes of creating news as new technologies are adapted into existing newsroom practices and environments. They are also forming new norms, emphasizing transparency, individualism and risk taking. Overall, a “new normal” appears to be coalescing.
Power dynamics shape, and are shaped by, the tools used by participants in social movements. In this study we explore the values, attitudes, and beliefs of Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street stakeholders as they relate to their use of technology. This multi-method study applies the lens of value sensitive design [VSD; Friedman, B. (Ed.) (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology (vol. 72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] to examine stakeholder values and sites of value tension. We contextualize our findings with qualitative observation of how these values are reflected in each organization's online spaces, including Facebook, Twitter, and key organizational websites, as well as private spaces such as email.We found liberty, the value most mentioned by Tea Party members, was not reflected in the movement's organizational websites and Facebook pages, where user autonomy is frequently undermined. However, the Occupy value of equality is supported in the movement's web presence. We also found a set of shared central values -privacy and security, inclusion, and consensus -underlying both Tea Party and Occupy's approach to organization and participation. Value tensions around privacy and inclusion emerged for both groups, as some members opted not to use these tools due to security concerns and leaders struggled to adapt their communication strategies accordingly.This study provides insight into the adoption and contestation of different technological tools within grassroots social movements, how those decisions are shaped by core values, and how conflicts over the use of digital tools can result from tension between how different stakeholders prioritize those values.
Although there have been many studies of the different ways regimes censor the use of social media by their citizens, shutting off social media altogether is something that rarely happens. However, it happens at the most politically sensitive times and has widespread-if not global-consequences for political, economic and cultural life. When do states disconnect their digital networks, and why? To answer this question, the authors build an event history database of incidents in which a regime went beyond mere censorship of particular websites or users. The authors draw from multiple sources, including major news media, specialized news services, and international experts, to construct an event log database of 566 incidents. This rich, original dataset allows for a nuanced analysis of the conditions for state action, and the authors offer some assessment of the effect of such desperate action. Comparative analysis indicates that both democratic and authoritarian regimes disable social media networks for citing concerns about national security, protecting authority figures, and preserving cultural and religious morals. Whereas democracies disable social media with the goal of protecting children, authoritarian regimes also attempt to eliminate what they perceive as propaganda on social media. The authors cover the period 1995-2011 and build a grounded typology on the basis of regime type, what states actually did to interfere with digital networks, why they did it, and who was affected.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.