A funa, a public denouncement aimed at raising moral condemnation of a person accused of perpetrating a crime or injustice, has become a major digital activism instrument in Latin America, particularly in Chile. Originated in the human rights movement in the 1990s, funas re-emerged as a new form of online activism that hybridized with a Latin American and historical form of protest to exert informal justice through social media. Drawing on a face-to-face survey of Chilean youth aged 18–29 years, we examine the factors that explain young people’s attitudes and behaviors regarding funas. We find that funas are gendered, with issues like sexual harassment and misconduct being the primary subject of funas. We also show that women hold more positive views about funas and are more likely to engage in online funas. Finally, our findings indicate that individuals who trust the judicial system are less likely to share funas on social media.
AjzenIFishbeinMLohmannS, et al (2018) The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: AlbarracínDJohnsonBT (eds) The Handbook of Attitudes, Volume 1: Basic Principles. New York: Routledge, 2nd ed., pp. 197–255.
2.
AllcottHGentzkowMYuC (2019) Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics6(2): 1–8.
3.
BaekK (2018) The geographic dimension of citizenship in digital activism: analysis of the relationships among local and global citizenship, the use of social networking sites, and participation in the occupy movement. American Behavioral Scientist62(8): 1138–1156.
4.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
BennettWLSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action: digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768.
6.
BoulianneSTheocharisY (2020) Young people, digital media, and engagement: a meta-analysis of research. Social Science Computer Review38(2): 111–127.
7.
BrändleGLatorreM (2020) Prácticas alternativas de consumo en la era digital. Teknokultura. Revista de Cultura Digital y Movimientos Sociales17(1): 1–2.
8.
BroughMLiteratIIkinA (2020) “Good social media?”: underrepresented youth perspectives on the ethical and equitable design of social media platforms. Social Media + Society6(2): 1–11.
9.
BurnsNSchlozmanKLVerbaS (2021) The Private Roots of Public Action. Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
ChengSLongJS (2007) Testing for IIA in the multinomial logit model. Sociological Methods & Research35(4): 583–600.
11.
ChenouJ-MCepeda-MásmelaC (2019) #NiUnaMenos: data activism from the global South. Television & New Media20(4): 396–411.
12.
ChonM-GParkH (2020) Social media activism in the digital age: testing an integrative model of activism on contentious issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly97(1): 72–97.
13.
ClarkM (2020) Drag them: a brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture.”Communication and the Public5(3–4): 88–92.
14.
ClarkR (2016) “Hope in a hashtag”: the discursive activism of #WhyIStayed. Feminist Media Studies16(5): 788–804.
15.
CollinsC (2010) Human rights trials in Chile during and after the “pinochet years..”International Journal of Transitional Justice4(1): 67–86.
16.
ContrerasPLoveraD (2021) Redes sociales, funas, honor y libertad de expresión: Análisis crítico de los estándares de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema chilena. Derecho PUCP87: 345–371.
17.
CorreaTValenzuelaSPavezI (2024) For better and for worse: a panel survey of how mobile-only and hybrid Internet use affects digital skills over time. New Media & Society26(2): 995–1017.
18.
EkströmMÖstmanJ (2015) Information, interaction, and creative production: the effects of three forms of internet use on youth democratic engagement. Communication Research42(6): 796–818.
19.
ErrázurizV (2021) A digital room of their own: Chilean students struggling against patriarchy in digital sites. Feminist Media Studies21(2): 281–297.
20.
FlesherCMontañésJ (2014) Transnational diffusion across time: the adoption of the Argentinian dirty war “escrache” in the context of Spain’s housing crisis. In: della PortaDMattoniA (eds) Spreading Protest: Social Movements in Times of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: ECPR Press, pp. 19–41.
21.
Fontanella-KhanA (2013) Pink Sari Revolution: A Tale Of Women And Power In India. London: Oneworld Publications.
22.
FoxJCruzCLeeJY (2015) Perpetuating online sexism offline: anonymity, interactivity, and the effects of sexist hashtags on social media. Computers in Human Behavior52: 436–442.
23.
García CancliniN (2005) Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
24.
Gil de ZúñigaHMolyneuxLZhengP (2014) Social media, political expression, and political participation: panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication64(4): 612–634.
25.
GiugniMG (2002) Explaining cross-national similarities among social movements. In: SmithJJohnstonH (eds) Globalization and Resistance: Transnational Dimensions of Social Movements. Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 13–29.
26.
HarrisBA (2020) Technology and violence against women. In: WalklateSFitz-GibbonKMaherJMcCullochJ (eds) The Emerald Handbook of Feminism, Criminology and Social Change. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 317–336.
27.
HatemiPKMcDermottR (2016) Give me attitudes. Annual Review of Political Science19(1): 331–350.
28.
HegerKHoffmannCP (2021) Feminism! what is it good for? the role of feminism and political self-efficacy in women’s online political participation. Social Science Computer Review39(2): 226–244.
29.
HoffmanBWareJShapiroE (2020) Assessing the threat of incel violence. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism43(7): 565–587.
30.
InguanzoIZhangBGil de ZúñigaH (2021) Online cultural backlash? sexism and political user-generated content. Information, Communication & Society24(14): 2133–2152.
31.
JamesGWittenDHastieT, et al (2013) An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in R. Secaucus, New Jersey: Springer Science & Business Media.
32.
KaurWBalakrishnanVRanaO, et al (2019) Liking, sharing, commenting and reacting on Facebook: user behaviors’ impact on sentiment intensity. Telematics and Informatics39: 25–36.
33.
KimCYangS-U (2017) Like, comment, and share on Facebook: how each behavior differs from the other. Public Relations Review43(2): 441–449.
34.
KraidyM (2002) Hybridity in cultural globalization. Communication Theory12(3): 316–339.
35.
KumarRThapaD (2015) Social media as a catalyst for civil society movements in India: a study in Dehradun city. New Media & Society17(8): 1299–1316.
36.
KümpelASKarnowskiVKeylingT (2015) News sharing in social media: a review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media + Society1(2): 1–14.
37.
LaneDSDoKMolina-RogersN (2022) What is political expression on social media anyway? a systematic review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics19(3): 331–345.
38.
LillekerDKoc-MichalskaKBimberB (2021) Women learn while men talk? revisiting gender differences in political engagement in online environments. Information, Communication & Society24(14): 2037–2053.
39.
LiteratIKligler-VilenchikN (2019) Youth collective political expression on social media: the role of affordances and memetic dimensions for voicing political views. New Media & Society21(9): 1988–2009.
40.
MatosC (2017) New Brazilian feminisms and online networks: cyberfeminism, protest and the female “Arab Spring..”International Sociology32(3): 417–434.
41.
MeyerDS (2004) Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology30(1): 125–145.
42.
MillerGHMarquez-VelardeGWilliamsAA, et al (2021) Discrimination and black social media use: sites of oppression and expression. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity7(2): 247–263.
43.
NgE (2020) No grand pronouncements here. . .: reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television & New Media21(6): 621–627.
44.
PapacharissiZ (2015) Affective Publics. Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
ParkCS (2015) Pathways to expressive and collective participation: usage patterns, political efficacy, and political participation in social networking sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media59(4): 698–716.
46.
PowellA (2015a) Seeking rape justice: formal and informal responses to sexual violence through technosocial counter-publics. Theoretical Criminology19(4): 571–588.
47.
PowellA (2015b) Seeking informal justice online. In: PowellAHenryNFlynnA (eds) Rape Justice: Beyond the Criminal Law. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 218–237.
48.
RadschCCKhamisS (2013) In their own voice: technologically mediated empowerment and transformation among young Arab women. Feminist Media Studies13(5): 881–890.
49.
Red Chilena contra la Violencia hacia las Mujeres (2023) Dossier informativo 2022-2023: violencia contra mujeres en Chile. Fundación Heinrich Boll.
50.
RichardsMS (2016) The Gulabi Gang, violence, and the articulation of counterpublicity. Communication, Culture & Critique9(4): 558–576.
51.
SaxtonGDNiyiroraJGuoC, et al. (2015) #AdvocatingForChange: the strategic use of hashtags in social media advocacy. Advances in Social Work16(1): 154–169.
52.
ShahDVCulverKBHannaA, et al (2015) Computational approaches to online political expression: rediscovering a “science of the social.” In: ColemanSFreelonD (eds) Handbook of Digital Politics, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 281–305. Available at: https://www.elgaronline.com/display/edcoll/9781782548751/9781782548751.00026.xml
53.
ShahinSNakaharaJSánchezM (2024) Black lives matter goes global: connective action meets cultural hybridity in Brazil, India, and Japan. New Media & Society26(1): 216–235.
54.
ShenFXiaCSkoricM (2020) Examining the roles of social media and alternative media in social movement participation: a study of Hong Kong’s umbrella movement. Telematics and Informatics47: 101303.
55.
SmithJJohnstonH (2002) Globalization and resistance: an introduction. In: SmithJJohnstonJ (eds) Globalization and Resistance: Transnational Dimensions of Social Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 1–10.
56.
StraubhaarJD (2007) World Television: From Global to Local. Washington DC: Sage.
57.
SukJAbhishekAZhangY, et al (2021) #MeToo, networked acknowledgment, and connective action: how “empowerment through empathy” launched a social movement. Social Science Computer Review39(2): 276–294.
58.
SukJSunYSunL, et al (2023) ‘Think global, act local’: How# MeToo hybridized across borders and platforms for contextual relevance. Information, Communication & Society27(3): 498–519.
59.
SumnerEMRuge-JonesLAlcornD (2018) A functional approach to the Facebook like button: an exploration of meaning, interpersonal functionality, and potential alternative response buttons. New Media & Society20(4): 1451–1469.
60.
TandocECTan Hui RuBLee HueiG, et al. (2024) #CancelCulture: examining definitions and motivations. New Media & Society26(4): 1944–1962. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221077977
61.
TillyCTarrowSG (2015) Contentious Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62.
TrainKE (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
Vera GajardoS (2022) Herida rebelde y activación de la víctima. El marco contra la violencia en las movilizaciones feministas chilenas del 2018. La Ventana. Revista de Estudios de Género6(55): 156–187.
64.
WillemCTortajadaI (2021) Gender, voice and online space: expressions of feminism on social media in Spain. Media and Communication9(2): 62–71.
65.
XenosMVromenALoaderBD (2014) The great equalizer? patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. Information, Communication & Society17(2): 151–167.
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.
