‘It’s Twitter,a bear pit,not a debating society’: A qualitative analysis of contrasting attitudes towards social media blocklists

Abstract

This study of tweets (n = 2247) explores discussions about a pro-choice blocklist (@Repeal_Shield) used during the 2018 Irish abortion referendum campaign, capturing conflicting interpretations of engagement and political participation. Although qualitative Twitter studies bring methodological challenges, deep readings were needed to analyse arguments in favour and against the blocklist, and to consider what we can learn about users’ expectations of Twitter. Through deductive and inductive coding, opposing perspectives emerge on whether such lists are useful, democratic or regressive, but both sides share normative aspirations for Twitter to serve as a space for healthy debate, even if there is clear tension in how that is best achieved. Blocklists are traditionally cited as a harassment solution, facilitating participation from otherwise-excluded counterpublics. However, @Repeal_Shield demonstrates how this affordance has evolved towards omitting broad spectrums of undesired content, while using blocklists – and being listed – can be a bold political statement in itself.

Keywords

Blockbots blocklists counterpublics harassment rhetoric social media Twitter

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Auerbach

(2015) Beware the blocklists. Available at: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/08/twitter_blocklists_they_can_stop_harassment_and_they_can_create_entirely.html?via=gdpr-consent (accessed 24 July 2018).

Bakshy

Messing

Adamic

(2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348(6239): 1130–1132.

Barnes

(2018) Lessons from #Gamergate. In: Barnes

(ed.) Uncovering Online Commenting Culture: Trolls, Fanboys and Lurkers. Cham: Springer, pp. 93–111.

Benesch

(2017) Civil society puts a hand on the wheel: diverse responses to harmful speech. In: Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online: A Collection of Essays, pp. 42–43. Available at: https://cyber.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.harvard.edu/files/2017-08_harmfulspeech.pdf

Bennett

Segerberg

(2013) The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

BlockTogether.org (2018) Block Together: A web app intended to help cope with harassment and abuse on Twitter. Available at: https://blocktogether.org/ (accessed 26 July 2018).

boyd

Crawford

(2012) Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 662–679.

Caplan

boyd

(2016) Who controls the public sphere in an era of algorithms: case studies. Data & Society: 10. Available at: https://datasociety.net/pubs/ap/CaseStudies_PublicSphere_2016.pdf

Castells

(2010) The Rise of the Network Society (The information age), vol. 1. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

10.

Clark-Parsons

(2018) Building a digital girl army: the cultivation of feminist safe spaces online. New Media & Society 20(6): 2125–2144.

11.

Couldry

(2015) The myth of ‘us’: digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication & Society 18(6): 608–626.

12.

Djohari

Pyndiah

Arnone

(2018) Rethinking ‘safe spaces’ in children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies 16(4): 351–355.

13.

Dorsey

(2018) @Jack, 1 March. Available at: https://twitter.com/jack/status/969234275420655616 (accessed 30 March 2018).

14.

Dubois

Blank

(2018) The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society 21(5): 729–745.

15.

Fox

(2014) Is it time to update the definition of political participation? Political participation in Britain: the decline and revival of civic culture. Parliamentary Affairs 67(2): 495–505.

16.

Fraser

(1990) Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text 25–26: 56–80.

17.

Geiger

(2016) Bot-based collective blocklists in Twitter: the counterpublic moderation of harassment in a networked public space. Information, Communication & Society 19: 787–803.

18.

Golbeck

Gnanasekaran

Gunasekaran

, et al. (2017) A large labeled corpus for online harassment research. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on web science conference – WebSci ’17, Troy, NY, 25–28 June, pp. 229–233. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

19.

Gosse

O’Meara

(2018) ‘Blockbotting dissent’: publics, counterpublics, and algorithmic public sphere(s). Stream: Inspiring Critical Thought 10(1): 3–11.

20.

Government of Ireland (1983) Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act. Available at: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1983/ca/8/enacted/en/print (accessed 24 November 2018).

21.

Harvey

Gasca

(2018) Serving healthy conversation. Available at: https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/product/2018/Serving_Healthy_Conversation.html (accessed 14 August 2018).

22.

Heatherly

Lee

(2017) Filtering out the other side? Cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites. New Media & Society 19(8): 1271–1289.

23.

Hickey

(2016) ‘Safe space’ now a tool of liberal censorship. Irish Examiner, 22 September. Available at: https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/safe-space-now-a-tool-of-liberal-censorship-422170.html (accessed 6 March 2019).

24.

Jhaver

Ghoshal

Bruckman

, et al. (2018) Online harassment and content moderation: the case of blocklists. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 25(2): 1–33.

25.

Lanier

(2014) Harms of reduction and repression. In: Arrigo

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 416–417.

26.

Lukianoff

Haidt

(2018) The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. London: Allen Lane.

27.

Maliepaard

(2017) Bisexual safe space(s) on the Internet: analysis of an online forum for bisexuals. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 108(3): 318–330.

28.

Mantilla

(2013) Gendertrolling: misogyny adapts to new media. Feminist Studies 39(2): 563–570.

29.

Maréchal

(2016) When bots tweet : toward a normative framework for bots on social networking sites. International Journal of Communication 10: 5022–5031.

30.

Marwick

(2014) Ethnographic and qualitative research on Twitter. In: Weller

Bruns

Puschmann

, et al (eds) Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 109–122.

31.

Milovanovic

(2006) Legalistic definition of crime and an alternative view. Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade 54: 78–86.

32.

Murthy

(2017) The ontology of tweets: mixed methods approaches to the study of Twitter. In: Sloan

Quan-Haase

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. London: SAGE, pp. 559–572.

33.

Nicholson

(2016) ‘Poor little snowflake’ – the defining insult of 2016. The Guardian, 26 November. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/28/snowflake-insult-disdain-young-people (accessed 7 March 2019).

34.

Nolan

(2017) Free speech under threat on our college campuses. The Irish Times, 18 April. Available at: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/free-speech-under-threat-on-our-college-campuses-1.3045149 (accessed 6 March 2019).

35.

Papacharissi

(2010) A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

36.

Papacharissi

(2012) Without you, I’m nothing: performances of the self on Twitter. International Journal of Communication 6: 1989–2006.

37.

Power

(2018) Conservatives on campus: ‘we’re imprisoned by liberals’. The Irish Times, 23 October. Available at: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/conservatives-on-campus-we-re-imprisoned-by-liberals-1.3666673 (accessed 6 March 2019).

38.

Rainie

Wellman

(2012) Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

39.

Repeal_Shield (2018) @Repeal_Shield, 31 January. Available at: https://twitter.com/repeal_shield/status/958726860573159424?lang=en (accessed 26 March 2018).

40.

Shaw

(2017) Encoding and decoding affordances: Stuart Hall and interactive media technologies. Media, Culture & Society 39: 592–602.

41.

Sunstein

(2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

42.

Tandoc

Ling

Westlund

, et al. (2018) Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New Media & Society 20(8): 2745–2763.

43.

The Roestone Collective (2014) Safe space: towards a reconceptualization. Antipode 46(5): 1346–1365.

44.

Twitter (2018) How to control your Twitter experience. Available at: https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and-security/control-your-twitter-experience (accessed 13 November 2018).

45.

van Deth

(2014) A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica 49(3): 349–367.

46.

van Dijck

(2006) The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

47.

Vis

(2013) Twitter as a reporting tool for breaking news: journalists tweeting the 2011 UK riots. Digital Journalism 1(1): 27–47.

48.

Woffard

(2014) One woman’s new tool to stop Gamergate harassment on Twitter, 29 November. Available at: https://www.newsweek.com/one-womans-new-tool-stop-gamergate-harassment-twitter-288008 (accessed 20 August 2018).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.39 MB