Paper:
Trottier, D. (2017). Digital vigilantism as weaponisation of visibility. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 55-72.
Discussion leader: Lee Lisle
Summary:
This paper explores a new era in vigilantism, where “criminals” are shamed and harassed through digital platforms. These offenders may have parked poorly or planted a bomb, but there is no real verification process. They are harassed through the process known as “doxing,” which is where their personal information is shared publically. The authors term this as “weaponised visibility,” and it can lead to other users on the Internet to harass or threaten the accused in person.
The authors define digital vigilantism and compare it to the more traditional vigilantes before the Internet lowered thresholds. In particular, they use Les Johnston’s six elements of vigilantism and define how digital vigilantism embodies each element. These elements and how they are enacted are in Table 1.
With the link to more traditional vigilantism established, the authors then make the argument that the lowered thresholds of the Internet increase the response to the offender’s acts. Once an idea or movement is released on the Internet, the person who started it is no longer in full control. This lack of a singular leader means the response to the offense is uncontrolled, which further means that the digital campaign can vastly exceed boundaries and have a nonproportional response to the offense. As a corollary, the authors point out that the people who start these campaigns would not be aware of how far the response will go. In fact, in the early stages of the Internet, it was considered a separate place from the real world. As time has gone on, the barriers between the digital and real worlds have decreased in scope and context. The authors point out parallels of cyber-bullying and digital vigilantism, but make the distinction that digital vigilantism occurs when citizens are collectively offended by other citizens.
The authors then point out the differences between state actors and these digital vigilantes. They state that a lowered confidence in state actors such as police is responsible for these coordinated efforts online, which then, in turn, results in less cooperation with state actors. Cyber-bullying and revenge porn are used as examples where the vigilantes are taking action since law-enforcement agencies aren’t.
Next, the authors make a comparison of how state actors and these vigilantes perform surveillance. Digital tools have made surveillance significantly easier, and the public has been shown various results of this, such as the Snowden revelations on government actions. Furthermore, the efforts of digital vigilantism can increase surveillance on private citizens when state actors look at the citizens and see that there’s a DV campaign against them. Also, users can over-share their daily lives over social media, such as detailing their exercise routines or other forms of life-logging. The authors make the point that this can even be used against the users in a DV campaign, since the visibility can lead to more doxing. The authors also write about the concept of “sousveillance,” where a less powerful actor or citizen monitors more powerful actors, such as the state. This can be seen in recordings of police responses. Lastly, the authors point out that pop-culture is likely encouraging occurences of DV. Reality-TV shows often encourage the contestants to try to catch each other engaging in “dishonest or immoral behavior.” This form of entertainment normalizes the concept of surveillance and leads to further efforts in digital vigilantism.
Reflections:
This article makes some interesting points about how digital vigilantism is an extension of traditional vigilante efforts. Since the Internet lowers the bar for the creation of what is essentially a mob armed with either facts or pseudo-facts, retaliation happens more easily and is less controlled. However, as this kind of reaction happens more and more frequently, the creators of these mobs should understand their actions more. The statement that DV participants “may not be aware of the actual impact of their actions” seems like less of an excuse as more of these examples come out.
Digital Vigilantism doesn’t always create poor outcomes. In some of their examples, the people targeted by the vigilantes were performing actions that should be illegal. There are now cases where cyber-bullying is a criminal act. Revenge porn is now illegal in 26 states. The digital vigilantism against these actions may have helped create the laws to make them illegal.
Questions:
- This article, written in 2015, makes the point that white nationalism and the KKK are linked to digital vigilantism. Considering recent events, do you agree that DV has caused (or helped cause) the resurgence of these groups?
- How do you think reality-TV shows influence the public? Do you agree with the authors statement that it encourages digital vigilantism?
- In this class, we have gone over several cases where DV’s response has been extremely disproportionate. Are there examples where DV has helped society?
- The authors point out that law-enforcement can easily see DV campaigns against individuals. Should state actors ignore DV campaigns? Should they try to contain them?
- The authors point out the concept of “sousveillance,” where less powerful actors monitor more powerful actors. This can explicitly be seen in the movements to monitor police officers and their interactions with people. What do you think about this kind of DV?
