Politics of Deliberate Inaction: The disconnect between platform justifications and user imaginaries on content moderation in a ‘free speech’ online forum

Mathilda Åkerlund
{"title":"Politics of Deliberate Inaction: The disconnect between platform justifications and user imaginaries on content moderation in a ‘free speech’ online forum","authors":"Mathilda Åkerlund","doi":"10.1177/14614448231190905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the ‘free speech’ online forum Flashback, which adheres to a strict non-interference policy when it comes to user-generated content, but beyond this also forbids users from deleting their own content or accounts. Through a qualitative content analysis, this article sought to understand the relationship between the platform and its users with respect to this unconventional approach to moderation and content removal. This article discusses both the position(s) taken by Flashback as it pertains to its policy of minimal moderation, and the expectations as expressed by users navigating Flashbacks rules and their practical implementations. The article shows a discrepancy between how Flashback (incoherently) justifies minimal moderation and how users had imagined the platform operating. The article also discusses how Flashback maintains these policies through its community’s active encouragement via supportive posting and silencing of non-conformers, and the consequences that Flashback’s inaction has in terms of residual hate.","PeriodicalId":443328,"journal":{"name":"New Media & Society","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Media & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231190905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article analyses the ‘free speech’ online forum Flashback, which adheres to a strict non-interference policy when it comes to user-generated content, but beyond this also forbids users from deleting their own content or accounts. Through a qualitative content analysis, this article sought to understand the relationship between the platform and its users with respect to this unconventional approach to moderation and content removal. This article discusses both the position(s) taken by Flashback as it pertains to its policy of minimal moderation, and the expectations as expressed by users navigating Flashbacks rules and their practical implementations. The article shows a discrepancy between how Flashback (incoherently) justifies minimal moderation and how users had imagined the platform operating. The article also discusses how Flashback maintains these policies through its community’s active encouragement via supportive posting and silencing of non-conformers, and the consequences that Flashback’s inaction has in terms of residual hate.
故意不作为的政治:在一个“言论自由”的在线论坛上,平台的理由和用户对内容审核的想象之间的脱节
本文分析了“言论自由”的在线论坛Flashback,该论坛在用户生成内容时遵循严格的不干涉政策,但除此之外,它还禁止用户删除自己的内容或账户。通过定性内容分析,本文试图了解平台与其用户之间的关系,以及这种非常规的审核和内容删除方法。本文讨论了Flashback所采取的立场,因为它与它的最小节制政策有关,以及用户在浏览Flashback规则及其实际实现时所表达的期望。这篇文章显示了Flashback(不连贯地)如何证明最低限度的节制与用户想象的平台运行方式之间的差异。文章还讨论了Flashback如何通过社区的积极鼓励,通过支持性发帖和压制异类来维持这些政策,以及Flashback的不作为对残余仇恨造成的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信