Despite how ubiquitous it is in daily life, there has been little criminological theory developed which accounts for the unique conditions of cyberspace, and how the online environment informs or shapes deviant behavior. Building on Goldsmith and Brewer’s digital drift theory, this article proposes the Canute paradox, which contends that despite our expectations that online platforms have great power to act against cyberdeviance and choose not to, the reality is that—for all their power—there is little that can be done to comprehensively combat online harms. It is argued that the strong pull of online deviance comes from various environmental factors that converge online, creating significant barriers to effective responses. It does not argue against responding to cyberdeviance, but rather highlights the scale of the issue, and the need for collaborative whole-system responses rather than reliance on industry-centric solutions alone.
AfinaYBuchserMKrasodomskiA, et al. (2024) Towards a Global Approach to Digital Platform Regulation. Report, Digital Society Initiative, Chatham House, United Kingdom, January.
2.
AghaeiSNematbakhshMAFarsaniHK (2012) Evolution of the world wide web: From Web 1.0 to Web 4.0. International Journal of Web and Semantic Technology3(1): 1–10.
BesenSMVerveerPL (2021) Section 230 and the problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Policy30(1): 68–120.
5.
BleakleyPMartellozzoESpenceR, et al. (2023) Moderating online child sexual abuse material (CSAM): Does self-regulation work, or is greater state regulation needed?European Journal of Criminology21(2): 231–250.
6.
BoltonT (2017) Cnut the Great. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
BradburyPBleakleyPMartellozzoE (2024) “I had no choice”: Adult neutralization of online sexual engagement with children. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-024-09645-2
8.
BrewerRWhittenTSayerM, et al. (2020) Identifying Risk Factors Associated with Adolescent Cyber-deviance in Australia. Report, Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre, Australia, June.
9.
Caceres ZapateroMDBrandleGRuiz San-RomanJA (2013) Interpersonal communication in the Web 2.0: The relations of young people with strangers. Revista Latina De Communicacion Social 68: 436–456.
10.
Canadian Centre for Child Protection (2021) Project Arachnid: Online Availability of Child Sexual Abuse Material (Summary Document). Report, Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Winnipeg, Canada.
11.
CernikovaMDedkovaLSmahelD (2018) Youth interaction with online strangers: Experiences and reactions to unknown people on the Internet. Information, Communication and Society21(1): 94–110.
12.
ClaessonA (2023) Twitter: A necessary evil? Journalistic responses to Elon Musk and the denormalization of social media. Journalism. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231221616
13.
ColiEPacielloMLamponiE, et al. (2023) Adolescents and trust in online social interactions: A qualitative exploratory study. Children10(8): 1408.
14.
EnockFJohanssonPBrightJ, et al. (2023) Tracking Experiences of Online Harms and Attitudes Towards Online Safety Interventions. Report, The Alan Turing Institute, UK, March.
15.
eSafety Commissioner (2021) The Digital Lives of Aussie Teens. Report. Office of the eSafety Commissioner, Australia, February.
GerrardY (2022) Social media moderation: The best kept secret in tech. In: RosenD (ed) The Social Media Debate: Unpacking the Social, Psychological and Cultural Effects of Social Media. New York: Routledge, pp. 77–95.
18.
GoffmanE (1963) Behavior in Public Places. New York City: The Free Press.
19.
GoldsmithABrewerR (2015) Digital drift and the criminal interaction order. Theoretical Criminology19(1): 112–130.
20.
GoldsmithAWallDS (2022) The seductions of cybercrime: Adolescence and the thrills of digital transgression. European Journal of Criminology19(1): 98–117.
21.
GoldsmithJL (1998) Against cyberanarchy. The University of Chicago Law Review65(4): 1199–1250.
22.
HayC (2009) King Canute and the “problem” of structure and agency: On times, tides and heresthetics. Political Studies57(2): 260–279.
23.
HirschfieldPJPiqueroAR (2010) Normalization and legitimization: Modelling stigmatizing attitudes.
24.
HoltTJBosslerAM (2008) Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior30(1): 1–25.
25.
HughesJHutchingsA (2023)July. Digital drift and the evolution of a large cybercrime forum. In: 2023 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (Euros&pw), pp. 183–193: IEEE.
26.
HuntingdonH (1853) The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon: Comprising the History of England, from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Accession of Henry II. London: Henry G. Bohn.
27.
JohnsonDRPostD (1996) Law and borders: The rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Review48(5): 1367–1402.
KrishnaA (2021) Internet.gov: Tech companies as government agents and the future of the fight against child abuse. California Law Review109(4): 1581.
31.
LangvardtK (2018) Regulating online content moderation. The Georgetown Law Journal106(5): 1353–1388.
32.
LavorgnaAUgwudikePCarrL, et al. (2021) To app or not to app?: Understanding public resistance to COVID-19 digital contact tracing and its criminological relevance. Law, Technology and Humans3(2): 28–45.
MartellozzoEBleakleyPBradburyP, et al. (2024) Supporting digital key workers: Addressing the challenges faced by content moderators during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management24(2): 212–228.
37.
MatzaD (1964) Delinquency and Drift. New York: Wiley.
38.
MilosavljevicMMicovaSB (2016) Banning, blocking and boosting: Twitter’s solo-regulation of expression. Media Studies7(13): 43–58.
39.
Mizrahi-WernerJDiederichsenMBIlsøeBS, et al. (2024) Pathways to school shooting subculture: Re-thinking theory across strain, imitation and digital mediation. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research30(1): 21–38.
40.
NgoFTPaternosterR (2011) Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology6: 773–793.
41.
NgoFTPiqueroARLaPradeJ, et al. (2020) Victimization in cyberspace: Is it how long we spend online, what we do online, or what we post online?Criminal Justice Review45(4): 430–351.
42.
PanaitCAshrafC (2021) AI algorithms – (re)shaping public opinions through interfering with access to information in the online environment?Europuls Policy Journal1(1): 46–64.
43.
Paquet-CloustonMVincendonL (2025) Extending drift theory to cybercrime forum participation: The case of digital workers. Global Crime, 1–25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2025.2517027
44.
Perloff-GilesA (2018) Transnational cyber offenses: Overcoming jurisdictional challenges. Yale Journal of International Law43(1): 191–228.
45.
PophamJ (2018) Microdeviation: Observations on the significance of lesser harms in shaping the nature of cyberspace. Deviant Behavior39(2): 159–169.
46.
QuinnJForsythC (2005) Describing sexual behavior in the era of the Internet: A typology for empirical research. Deviant Behavior26(3): 191–207.
47.
ReynsBWHensonBFisherBS (2011) Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle-routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior38(11): 1149–1169.
48.
RobertsS (2014) Behind the Screen: The Hidden Digital Labor of Online Content Moderators. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois, Urban-Champaign, IL.
49.
RobertsS (2016) Digital refuse: Canadian garbage, commercial content moderation and the global circulation of social media’s waste. WI: Journal of Mobile Media10(1): 1–11.
50.
SalterMHansonE (2021) “I need you all to understand how pervasive this issue is”: User efforts to regulate child sexual offending on social media. In: BaileyJFlynnAHenryN (eds) The Emerald International Handbook of Technology-facilitated Violence and Abuse. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 729–748.
51.
SalterMSokolovS (2024) “Talk to strangers!” Omegle and the political economy of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation. Journal of Criminology57(1): 121–137.
52.
ShawF (2018) Beyond “report, block, ignore”. In: MeikleG (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism. London: Routledge, pp. 395–403.
53.
ShellerM (2004) Mobile publics: Beyond the network perspective. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space22: 39–52.
54.
SpenceRHarrisonABradburyP, et al. (2023) Content moderators’ strategies for coping with the stress of moderating content online. Journal of Online Trust and Safety1(5): 1–18.
55.
SteigerM (2020) Building a Resilient Workforce: Programming for Commercial Content Moderation Staff. PhD Thesis, St Mary’s University, San Antonio, TX.
56.
SulerJ (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–326.
57.
SutherlandEH (1947) Principles of Criminology, 4th edn.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
58.
SuzorNGillettR (2022) Self-regulation and discretion. In: FlewTMartinFR (eds) Digital Platform Regulation: Global Perspectives on Internet Governance. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 259–280.
59.
THORN (2021) Responding to Online Threats: Minors’ Perspectives on Disclosing, Reporting and Blocking. Report, THORN, USA, May.
60.
van BavelM (2019) Active Guardianship: Its Agents and the Effects on Offender Behavior. PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
61.
YarM (2005) The novelty of “cybercrime”: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology2(4): 407–427.
62.
ZohnA (2024) Crime and deviance in esports: A routine activities theory approach. In: Conference Proceedings of DiGRA 2024 Conference: Playgrounds, September, pp. 1–18.
