No abstract

of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

This article analyzes deplatformization as an implied governance strategy by major tech companies to detoxify the platform ecosystem of radical content while consolidating their power as designers, operators, and governors of that same ecosystem. Deplatformization is different from deplatforming: it entails a systemic effort to push back encroaching radical right-wing platforms to the fringes of the ecosystem by denying them the infrastructural services needed to function online. We identify several deplatformization strategies, using Gab as an example of a platform that survived its relegation and which subsequently tried to build an alternative at the edge of the mainstream ecosystem. Evaluating deplatformization in terms of governance, the question that arises is who is responsible for cleansing the ecosystem: corporations, states, civil society actors, or all three combined? Understanding the implied governance of deplatformization is imperative to assess the higher stakes in future debates concerning Internet governability.

No abstract

As ever more data becomes available to work with, the use of digital tools within the humanities and social sciences is becoming increasingly common. These digital tools are often imported from other institutional contexts and were originally developed for other purposes. They may harbour concepts and techniques that stand in tension with traditions in the humanities and social sciences. Moreover, there are many easy-to-use tools for the collection, processing and analysis of data that require no knowledge of their limitations. Problematically, these tools are often assigned such values as reliability and transparency when in fact they are active mediators caught up in the epistemic process. In this paper, we highlight the need for a critical, reflexive attitude toward the tools we use in digital methods. It is a plea for what we call “tool criticism” and an attempt to think through what this mode of criticism would entail in practice for the academic field. The need for tool criticism is contextualised in view of the emerging ideological and methodological critique toward digital methods. Touching on the so-called science wars we explore knowledge as a construction and consider the importance of accounting for knowledge claims. These considerations open up an assessment of the accountability measures that are being discussed and developed in our field by individuals and institutions alike. In conclusion, we underscore the urgency of this endeavour and its vital role for media and communication scholars.