Contemporary research on social media looks different than it did in the late 2010s, with users facing a high-choice social media environment as new platforms emerge. Subsequently, alt-right sites have experienced a rise in users—sometimes those who have experienced content moderation by traditional social media sites. As such, scholars have investigated the impact of this content moderation (e.g. de-platforming) on users and the content posted on new alt-right platforms. This work seeks to expand extant research through analyzing a survey of Gab, Parler (now defunct), Truth Social, and Rumble users (N = 427) who have experienced content moderation on other social media sites. While we find that those temporarily or permanently banned from traditional sites are unlikely to leave the platform altogether for a right-wing alternative social media (RWASM) site, there are active users on these sites worth studying.
AreCBriggsP (2023) The emotional and financial impact of de-platforming on creators at the margins. Social Media + Society9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231155103
3.
BakerSAWadeMWalshMJ (2020) The challenges of responding to misinformation during a pandemic: Content moderation and the limitations of the concept of harm. Media International Australia177(1): 103–107.
BrightJMarchalNGaneshB, et al. (2022) How do individuals in a radical echo chamber react to opposing views? Evidence from a content analysis of Stormfront. Human Communication Research48(1): 116–145.
CinelliMMoralesGDFGaleazziA, et al. (2021) The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118(9): e2023301118.
8.
CohenS (1985) Visions of social control. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9.
CookTDCampbellDTShadishW (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
10.
EckerUKHButletLHHambyA (2020) You don’t have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications64(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00266-x
FieldA (2017) Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS. 5th ed.London: Sage.
13.
GaneshBBrightJ (2020) Countering extremists on social media: challenges for strategic communication and content moderation. Policy & Internet12(1): 46–65.
14.
GarrettRK (2009) Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(2): 265–285.
GerardPBotzerNWeningerT (2023) Truth social dataset. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media17(1): 1034–1040.
17.
Gil de ZúñigaH (2015) Toward a European public sphere? The promise and perils of modern democracy in the age of digital and social media. International Journal of Communication9: 3152–3160.
18.
GreenhalghSKrutkaDGOltmannSM (2021) Gab, Parler, and (mis)educational technologies: reconsidering informal learning on social media platforms. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design10(3): 10.51869.
19.
GrimmelmannJ (2015) The virtues of moderation. Yale Journal of Law and Technology17: 42–109.
20.
HoltK (2019) Right-Wing Alternative Media. London: Routledge.
21.
HornseyMJ (2008) Social Identity Theory and self-categorization theory: a historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass2(1): 204–222.
22.
InnesHInnesM (2023) De-platforming disinformation: conspiracy theories and their control. Information, Communication & Society26(6): 1262–1280.
23.
IqbalWHaseeb ArshadMTysonG, et al. (2022) Exploring crowdsourced content moderation through lens of Reddit during COVID-19. In: Proceedings of the 17th Asian internet engineering conference, pp. 26–36. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3570748.3570753
24.
JhaverSBoylstonCYangD, et al. (2021) Evaluating the effectiveness of deplatforming as a moderation strategy on Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW2): 1–30.
25.
KarlsenR (2015) Followers are opinion leaders: The role of people in the flow of political communication on and beyond social networking sites. European Journal of Communication30(3): 301–318.
26.
KozyrevaAHerzogSLewandowskyS, et al. (2023) Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(7): e2210666120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210666120
27.
MekacherAFalkenbergMBaronchelliA (2023) The systemic impact of deplatforming on social media. Social and Information Networks, Cornell University. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11147
MorrowGSwire-ThompsonBMontgomery PolnyJ, et al. (2022) The emerging science of content labeling: contextualizing social media content moderation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology73(10): 1365–1386.
30.
Myers WestS (2018) Censored, suspended, shadowbanned: user interpretations of content moderation on social media platforms. New Media & Society20(11): 4366–4383.
31.
NiXShaoXGengY, et al. (2020) Development of the social media engagement scale for adolescents. Foundations in Psychology11: 701.
PaudelPBlackburnJDe CristofaroE, et al. (2022) A longitudinal study of the Gettr social network. In: Proceedings of the 2022 international workshop on cyber social threats. Available at: https://workshop-proceedings.icwsm.org/pdf/2022_62.pdf
34.
RibeiroMHHosseinmardiHWestR, et al. (2023) Deplatforming did not decrease Parler users’ activity on fringe social media. PNAS Nexus2(5): pgad035.
35.
RiemerKPeterS (2021) Algorithmic audiencing: why we need to rethink free speech on social media. Journal of Information Technology36(4): 409–426.
36.
RobertsST (2014) Behind the screen: the hidden digital labor of commercial content moderation. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.
StrömbäckJ (2023) Political alternative media as a democratic challenge. Digital Journalism11(5): 880–887.
39.
SuzorNPMyers WestSQuodlingA, et al. (2019) What do we mean when we talk about transparency. International Journal of Communication13(2019): 1526–1543.
40.
ThorsonKBattocchioAF (2023) “I use social media as an escape from all that”: personal platform architecture and the labor of avoiding news. Digital Journalism. Epub ahead of print 22 August. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2023.2244993.
41.
TrepteSLoyLS (2017) Social identity theory and self-categorization theory. In: RösslerP (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–13.
42.
TurnerJCHoggMAOakesPJ, et al. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. New York: Blackwell.
43.
UrmanAKatzS (2020) What they do in the shadows: Examining the far-right networks on Telegram. Information, Communication & Society25(7): 904–923.
44.
U.S. Census Bureau (2021) 2021 American Community Survey. Available at: www.census.gov
WuSFangH (2023) Social media suspensions as dignity takings: users’ personal loss in “account bombing.”New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 8 September. DOI: 10.1177/14614448231197370.
47.
ZannettouSBradlynBD e CristofaroE, et al. (2018) What is Gab: a bastion of free speech or an alt-right echo chamber. In: WWW ’18: companion proceedings of the web conference 2018, pp. 1007–1014. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3184558.3191531
48.
ZhuQSkoricMM (2022) Political implications of disconnection on social media: a study of politically motivated unfriending. New Media & Society24(12): 2659–2679.
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.
