The many shades of digital vigilantism. A typology of online self-justice

Abstract

The many shades of digital vigilantism.

Whose agenda is it anyway: an exploration of cancel culture and political affiliation in the United States

“…Some of this hate can fall under the umbrella of 'digital vigilantism', where ordinary netizens take to social media in order to "name and shame" (Dunsby and Howes 2019, p. 41) real or perceived offenders (Trottier 2020). This vigilantism can be performed by organized groups or individuals (Favarel-Garrigues et al 2020) and has the goal of establishing justice when people feel that the authorities have failed to do so (Huang 2021;Loveluck 2020;Tanner and Campana 2019). Although the content of their message is hateful, expressing anger or fear toward a person or persons, digital vigilantes believe they have the moral high ground (Chiou 2020;Favarel-Garrigues et al 2020).…”

“…Cancel culture is also called call-out culture (Matei 2019) or 'being dragged' (Tucker 2018). All of these terms can be connected back to digital vigilantism: grassroots movements aimed at perceived justice (Dunsby and Howes 2019;Favarel-Garrigues et al 2020;Loveluck 2020). Unlike digital vigilantism, however, which can involve a single vigilante or a mob (Udupa et al 2020), one cannot cancel alone; evidence would suggest it takes a mob to cancel or deplatform a public figure (Beer 2020;Bluestone 2017;Dodgson 2020;Frazer-Carroll 2020).…”

“…This can be seen in digital vigilantism escalating into the mob-like cancel culture: seeking the removal of human beings or ideas from cyberspace (e.g., Rogers 2020) instead of the proportionate punishment of a person or warning others of the dangers of a perceived criminal (e.g., Dunsby and Howes 2019). Because of the anonymity of the internet and the lack of real-world consequences for online actions, people seem to feel equally empowered to express both normative and dissenting viewpoints (Dunsby and Howes 2019;Huang 2021;Loveluck 2020). Despite the small number of voices-both trolls and vigilantes (Kumar et al 2018)-they represent the symbiotic extremes of internet culture, and media would suggest that they are impacting people offline (Dodgson 2020;Dozier 2018).…”

You Don’t Fool Me: On Scams, Scambaiting, Deception, and Epistemological Ambiguity at R/scambait on Reddit

“…The prevalence of online scams has given rise to scambaiting , a form of digital vigilantism (Loveluck, 2020; Trottier, 2017)—also known as “digilantism” (Sorell, 2019), “cyber-vigilantism” (Chia, 2020; Smallridge et al, 2016), “internet vigilantism” or “netilantism” (Chang et al, 2018)—an offshoot of standard offline vigilantism, that is, “a social movement giving rise to premeditated acts of force—or threatened force—by autonomous citizens” (Johnston, 1996, p. 232) that comes into being in response to legal norm violation by others. Digital vigilantism is best defined as “direct online actions of targeted surveillance, dissuasion or punishment which tend to rely on public denunciation or an excess of unsolicited attention, and are carried out in the name of justice, order or safety” (Loveluck, 2020, p. 4). Therefore, it is punishment through online exposure of what one recognizes as wrongdoing in front of an online audience, whose members are expected to share the same critical moral judgment (Sorell, 2019).…”

“…Based on a diachronic study, Byrne (2013) reports that scambaiting has been employed since the late 1990s as a countermeasure to scams, notably to the 419 scam and other activities not amenable to standard law enforcement (see also Loveluck, 2020; Smallridge et al, 2016). Scambaiters attempt to outwit scammers (Loveluck, 2020) and waste their time (Smallridge et al, 2016) when involving them in prolonged interactions (e.g., via email or chats).…”