Online Shaming

Norlock, Kathryn J.

doi:10.5840/socphiltoday201762343

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Women are disproportionately the victims of online sexual threats now categorized as “technology‐facilitated sexual violence” (Henry and Powell , 759). And although it may be true that many of these threats are idle, or arise from varied social motives that have little to do with actually enacting violence (Norlock , 6), someone on the receiving end of a torrent of threatening messages has no way of making such a discernment. This would be particularly true for Richards in the aftermath of her home address being publicized.…”

Section: Disciplinary Damagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, online shaming is often a largely anonymous venture, and what Jacquet clearly imagines as a kind of online citizens’ brigade can be a dangerously unpredictable tool because of this anonymity. Kathryn Norlock suggests that one of the dangers of this anonymity is that it renders the object of the shaming almost beside the point; shamers, she contends, are in “imaginal relationship” with one another and thus are seeking recognition and approval from their fellow shamers (Norlock , 4). This relationship, Norlock suggests, makes it easier for shamers to see themselves as a disempowered group taking down the unjustly powerful; thus, they shame more viciously than justified, with no regard for the effect of their words or actions (6–7).…”

Section: The Role Of Online Anonymitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholarship on shaming often focuses on its negative effects (Norlock ), but some recent scholarship defends the social and political uses of shame in ways that would seem constructive for feminists. Jennifer Jacquet's recent argument that effective shaming stigmatizes bad practices and challenges inconsistent or hypocritical norms fits effectively with some feminist political analysis and advocacy (2015, 174).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

When Shaming Is Shameful: Double Standards in Online Shame Backlashes

Adkins¹

2019

Hypatia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent defenses of shaming as an effective tool for identifying bad practice and provoking social change appear compatible with feminism. I complicate this picture by examining two instances of online feminist shaming that resulted in shame backlashes. Shaming requires the assertion of social and epistemic authority on behalf of a larger community, and is dependent upon an audience that will be receptive to the shaming testimony. In cases where marginally situated knowers attempt to “shame up,” it presents challenges for feminist uses.

show abstract

Section: Disciplinary Damagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Role Of Online Anonymitymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When Shaming Is Shameful: Double Standards in Online Shame Backlashes

Adkins¹

2019

Hypatia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The question of “what if a shaming took place and nobody came” arises as the number and variety of shaming attempts to expand in kind and extent. Pogue (, p. 28) states that online Internet shaming has “become so common that it might soon begin to lose its impact.” The lack of attention to shame‐related side effects may in part be due to “the gap between the experiences of those shamed and the shamers’ appreciation of the magnitude of what they do when they shame” (Norlock, , p. 187). Other researchers are also raising alarms about these trends: for instance, decrying the “systematic humiliation” of certain groups of individuals in the United States (Rothbart, , p. 1).…”

Section: The Future Of Shaming: Ubiquitous Shaming or Shame Fatigue?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Social Shaming and the Moralistic Imagination: The Emergence of Internet‐Based Performative Shaming

Oravec¹

2019

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online social shaming involves the intentional collection and dissemination of data that are potentially stigmatizing in modes that are widely accessible and in which observers (including members of the public) can often add input. This article examines changes in shaming following the advent of the widespread use of computer networking, focusing in particular on administrative systems. Many of the Internet platforms, in which such shaming‐related information is made available is either controlled by or used in governmental and agency units to perform various stated administrative or evaluatory purposes. Although many shaming contexts are inadvertent (a function of public records release), others are developed with the use of “moralistic imaginations,” with implementers and other participants inventively linking specific activities with perceived moral deficiencies within particular settings. The article outlines an assortment of “performative shaming” approaches using these platforms, with digital vigilantism (sometimes labeled as “digilantism” or “netilantism”) often involved or even fostered in some online shaming initiatives. It highlights the cases of shamings related to commonplace contexts such as school lunch money deficits and reported teacher productivity dysfunctions, as well as tax and child support delinquencies, opening questions of how everyday life activities are construed and reframed in the process.

show abstract

“…None of this is to say that there is no philosophical work at all on internet communication, however. The field is growing, with work on retweeting (Marsili, forthcoming); online echo chambers (Nguyen, 2020a); pseudonymous online speech (Brennan & Pettit, 2004b); fake news (Rini, 2017; Mukerji, 2018; Habgood-Coote, 2019; Pepp, Michaelson, and Sterken, 2019); online hate speech (Brison and Gelber, 2019); memes (Evnine, 2018); and online shaming (Norlock, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Please Like This Paper

McDonald¹

2021

Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I offer a philosophical analysis of the act of ‘liking’ a post on social media. First, I consider what it means to ‘like’ something. I argue that ‘liking’ is best understood as a phatic gesture; it signals uptake and anoints the poster’s positive face. Next, I consider how best to theorise the power that comes with amassing many ‘likes’. I suggest that ‘like’ tallies alongside posts institute and record a form of digital social capital. Finally, I consider whether ‘likes’ have ultimately improved online discourse. I argue that while the ‘liking’ function itself is relatively innocuous, public ‘like’ tallies introduce a corrosive motivation to online communication. By making the prospect of increased social capital perpetually salient to us, they encourage us to prioritise high levels of engagement over meaningful engagement.

show abstract

Online Shaming

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

When Shaming Is Shameful: Double Standards in Online Shame Backlashes

When Shaming Is Shameful: Double Standards in Online Shame Backlashes

Online Social Shaming and the Moralistic Imagination: The Emergence of Internet‐Based Performative Shaming

Please Like This Paper

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About