Denunciation and doxing: towards a conceptual model of digital vigilantism

Abstract

Individuals rely on digital media to denounce and shame other individuals. This may serve to seek justice in response to perceived offences, while often reproducing categorical forms of discrimination. Both offence taking and its response are expressed online by gathering and distributing information about targeted individuals. By seeking their own form of social and/or criminal justice, participants may supersede institutions and formal procedures. Yet digital vigilantism includes shaming and other forms of cultural violence that are not as clearly regulated. They may feed from state or press-led initiatives to shame targets, or simply to gather information about them. Digital vigilantism remains a contested practice: Terms of appropriate use are unclear, and public discourse may vary based on the severity of the offence, the severity of response, and on participants' identities and affiliations. This paper advances a conceptually informed model of digital vigilantism, in recognition of its coordinated, moral and communicative components. Drawing upon literature on embodied vigilantism as well as concurrent forms of online coordination and harassment, it considers recent cases in a global context in order to direct subsequent analysis of how digital vigilantism is rendered meaningful.

Taking Justice Into Their Own Hands: Predictors of Netilantism Among Cyber Citizens in Hong Kong

“…The results show that those who have less confidence in the criminal justice system are the ones with a higher intention to contribute to HFS and become netilantes. This is aligned with the result of existing research such as Chang and Poon (2017) , Chia (2019b) , and the concept model developed by Trottier (2019) . These are the groups of people who do not have trust in judges and police and believe that people should take justice into their own hands if the legal system cannot protect them.…”

“… Chia (2019a) , using similar methods, reviewed cases in the same region in 2006–2015, through the lens of media studies. Trottier (2017 , 2019) argued that weaponized visibility has become a norm in our digital era and proposed a conceptual model of digital vigilantism.…”

Online scrutiny of people with nice cars: A comparative analysis of Chinese, Russian, and Anglo-American outrage

“…Such offence-taking and denunciation can be conditioned by participants’ moral concerns, social identity, and their confidence in the institutions on relevant issues (Trottier, 2019). Establishing moral grounds to frame an offence is typically based on pre-existing concerns already in public discourse.…”

“…Participants also frame DV incidents in ways that reflect or appeal to social groups they identify with. They may associate a place, a tradition, or an abstract value with the community which they believe they belong to and need to defend (Trottier, 2019). By framing the offence as a threat to these elements, DV participants are able to mobilise citizens who share the same social identity to denounce the target.…”

“…How participants view the state's role in relation to offences also shapes their framing of incidents. DV activities can be framed or implied to be caused by the unwillingness, ineffectiveness, or ineligibility of the police to deal with the offence (Trottier, 2019). In cases targeting nice cars, the framing of the police's role in incidents is especially important since such cases usually involve traffic laws and regulations, which differs from cases focusing more on morality where the police may have no function, such as marital affairs or vitriolic speech.…”