Internet control points as LGBT rights mediation

DeNardis, Laura; Hackl, Andrea

doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1153123

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While several scholars have observed that technological affordances shape the display of sexual identity on platforms (Brubaker et al, 2016; Renninger, 2015), fewer studies recount LGBTQ people’s experiences in relation to platform policies and dominant technocultures. DeNardis and Hackl (2016) examine instances where governance policies and technological infrastructure combine to conflict with LGBTQ users’ rights, such as in the case of Facebook’s ‘real name’ policy and the features that support it. However, they do not analyze users’ experiences in relation to these forms of governance.…”

Section: Queer Women’s Digital Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Queer women’s experiences of patchwork platform governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leaked documents, press coverage, and user protests have increasingly drawn attention to social media platforms’ seemingly contradictory governance practices. We investigate the governance approaches of Tinder, Instagram, and Vine through detailed analyses of each platform, using the ‘walkthrough method’ (Light, Burgess, and Duguay, 2016 The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society 20(3).), as well as interviews with their queer female users. Across these three platforms, we identify a common approach we call ‘patchwork platform governance’: one that relies on formal policies and content moderation mechanisms but pays little attention to dominant platform technocultures (including both developer cultures and cultures of use) and their sustaining architectures. Our analysis of these platforms and reported user experiences shows that formal governance measures like Terms of Service and flagging mechanisms did not protect users from harassment, discrimination, and censorship. Key components of the platforms’ architectures, including cross-platform connectivity, hashtag filtering, and algorithmic recommendation systems, reinforced these technocultures. This significantly limited queer women’s ability to participate and be visible on these platforms, as they often self-censored to avoid harassment, reduced the scope of their activities, or left the platform altogether. Based on these findings, we argue that there is a need for platforms to take more systematic approaches to governance that comprehensively consider the role of a platform’s architecture in shaping and sustaining dominant technocultures.

show abstract

Section: Queer Women’s Digital Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Queer women’s experiences of patchwork platform governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, other scholars have criticized the privatization of Internet content control and lament the absence of places on the Internet where free speech is constitutionally protected (Nunziato, 2005;Schesser, 2006). DeNardis has argued that since globalization and technological change have reduced the capacity of sovereign nation states to control information flows, Internet governance has now become the central front of freedom of expression (DeNardis, 2012;DeNardis and Hackl, 2016). In the same vein, Nunziato has noted the compelling private interests to provide public online spaces and advocated for legislatures to faithfully translate First Amendment values in 6 S. Jhaver et al cyberspace in order to make them meaningful in the technological age (Nunziato, 2005).…”

Section: Freedom Of Speech On Internet Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The view from the other side: The border between controversial speech and harassment on Kotaku in Action

Jhaver

Chan

Bruckman³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we use mixed methods to study a controversial Internet site: The Kotaku in Action (KiA) subreddit. Members of KiA are part of GamerGate, a distributed social movement. We present an emic account of what takes place on KiA: who are they, what are their goals and beliefs, and what rules do they follow. Members of GamerGate in general and KiA in particular have often been accused of harassment. However, KiA site policies explicitly prohibit such behavior, and members insist that they have been falsely accused. Underlying the controversy over whether KiA supports harassment is a complex disagreement about what “harassment” is, and where to draw the line between freedom of expression and censorship. We propose a model that characterizes perceptions of controversial speech, dividing it into four categories: criticism, insult, public shaming, and harassment. We also discuss design solutions that address the challenges of moderating harassment without impinging on free speech, and communicating across different ideologies.

show abstract

“…The intersection of standards development and human rights seems to be based on recent scholarly literature asserting that protocols have politics and that Internet architecture embodies human rights, or mediates struggles over rights (Cath & Floridi, 2017;DeNardis, 2010DeNardis, , 2014DeNardis & Hackl, 2016;Musiani, 2012). It also has connections to the literature on "values in design" (Flanagan, Howe, & Nissenbaum, 2008;Nissenbaum, 2001).…”

Section: Theories Of Techno-social Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the “architecture mediates rights” literature, scholars have emphasized the way parts of the technical architecture have been pressed into service by external interest groups (not the original engineers or designers) to effectuate censorship and intellectual property enforcement (DeNardis & Hackl, ). The Protect IP Act (PIPA) and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) are two examples of what Musiani () calls governance by infrastructure.…”

Section: Theories Of Techno‐social Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Requiem for a Dream: On Advancing Human Rights via Internet Architecture

Mueller¹,

Badiei²

2018

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing number of scholars and policymakers are calling attention to the relationship between technology standards, protocols, human rights, ethics, and values—also claiming that human rights can be secured (or violated) via the Internet's standards and architecture. However, this assertion of governance through Internet architecture can oversimplify the complex relationship between technology and society. This article argues that human rights are primarily a political and institutional accomplishment, not a simple matter of technical design. By articulating a challenge to uncritical and imperfectly theorized efforts to link standards‐setting and protocol development to “values” and human rights objectives, we hope to foster a more realistic approach to Internet standardization and governance processes and a more balanced and well‐informed theoretical debate. Situated in the theoretical literature on science, technology, and society, our analysis is also informed by extensive empirical exposure to standardization and Internet governance processes. It includes two short case studies in which standards development and rights issues have intersected in ways that illuminate the relationship between rights and standards, and which can be interpreted to falsify certain claims.

show abstract

Internet control points as LGBT rights mediation

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

Queer women’s experiences of patchwork platform governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine

Queer women’s experiences of patchwork platform governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine

The view from the other side: The border between controversial speech and harassment on Kotaku in Action

Requiem for a Dream: On Advancing Human Rights via Internet Architecture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About