Abstract

In August 2019, a mass shooter in the United States posted a violent manifesto to the anonymous forum 8chan prior to his attack. This was the third such incident that year and afterwards hosting and security services conceded to calls to drop 8chan as a client, pushing 8chan to the margins of the accessible internet. This article examines the deplatforming of 8chan as a public relations crisis, contributing to understanding ‘governance by shock’ (Ananny and Gillespie 2016) by examining who is shocked and their power to turn shock into online regulation. Online platforms and media attention created opportunities to study how the deplatforming was justified, drawing on the theoretical framework of economies of worth (Boltanski and Thevenot 2006) and controversy mapping methods. The examination finds: (1) that this case of deplatforming indicates the openness of infrastructure-as-a-service companies to external challenges over content, rather than hegemonic control. (2) That regulatory gaps, including the broadness of U.S. free speech laws, made these companies, rather than legal processes, the relevant authority. (3) That framing responsibility as following the law – as Cloudflare attempted to do – misunderstands the importance of normative principles, voluntary measures, and contestation in governing online content, underselling the value of policy-making at other levels. The success of the campaign to deplatform 8chan affirms the significance of PR crises in the regulation of online content, rewarding deplatforming as a political tactic for civil society groups and online networks pushing for governance in regulatory gaps. However, the significance of normative enforcement in this case underlines the difficulties of this semi-voluntary style of governance. While normative opposition to violence contributed to 8chan’s deplatforming, other normative oppositions contribute to deplatforming vulnerable users, as in the moral panics that drive the deplatforming of sexual content ( Tiidenberg 2021 ) and feed suspicion over the ideological application of deplatforming. The ambivalence of PR crises as a strategy for influencing platform governance underlines the need for clarity in policy-making at multiple levels.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.