Partial Successes of Policing Internet Speech: Responding to Buchstein's 'Virtual Civil Societies' Skepticism
Buchstein’s ‘Bytes that Bite’ article demonstrates that internet democracy has been a contested subject since the early stages of the technology’s development. Therefore, understanding the notion ‘your rights end where mine begin’ with the addition or layer of such a platform is challenging. In arguing that the internet can be used as a tool for either good or bad, Buchstein emphasizes areas-such as free speech-where this self-prescribed ‘neutralist’ (249) stance may have severe consequences on what internet citizenship. Despite a skepticism surrounding the success of ‘virtual civil societies’ (253), ‘Bytes that Bite’ smacks of foreshadowing twenty years into the future with regards to somewhat successful instances of censorship and the methods internet communities have employed to reign in people’s speech.
Various internet platforms have not just implemented strict posting guidelines, but have come forward on cracking down on hate speech, and it seems to be working. Most notably and recently, Eshwar Chandrasekharan’s study ‘You Can’t Stay Here: The Efficacy of Reddit’s 2015 Ban Examined through Hate Speech’ surveyed the outcome of the 2015 Reddit ban of several subreddits such as r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown. These subreddits were closed for not adhering to Reddit’s harassment policies. What’s significant about Chadrasekharan’s results is is that the ban, and the attempt to police speech, was successful for Reddit. After the closing down of the subreddits, the study saw both usernames of those that frequented r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown abandoned, as well as no increase in hate speech in the ‘displaced activity’ with those accounts that remained on the platform (31:19). This study indicates a surge of the kinds of ‘virtual civil societies’ that Buchstein warned of. With that said, other websites attempt to stay impartial in applying a moral or ethical compass, determining user’s speech as good or bad. In these cases, non-platform and non-moderated purveyors of the internet have employed their own public shaming techniques in their quest for World Wide Web speech policing.
Buchstein’s ‘virtual civil societies’ of today also seem to be blurring the line between virtual and reality by employing strategies that impact the actual person behind the computer screen. ‘Doxxing,’ or the publishing of private information (i.e. addresses, name, phone numbers, or other documents). Although doxxing can be used for any type of online grievance, such a method has been used to publicly shame internet users for disparaging remarks. As anecdotal evidence, I frequently find screenshots of typically racist, homophobic, or sexist comments alongside more screenshots of the person’s Facebook profile. Many of these photo compilations contain a call to action, advocating for others to inform the offender’s workplace or family about such behavior. As an add-on to the doxxing experience, some users go as far as sending a mass of pizza delivery services or armed forces to persons’ house-this is considered ‘swatting.’ Major consequences of the latter have ended in damage being done to the swattee’s house, unnecessary arrests, and the loss of law resources. These examples indicate the lengths with which internet culture will go in order to police and further impact the types of speech prevalent on the internet.
However, these lengths have not been exponentially effective in eradicating hate speech or policing language on the internet per se. Chandrasekharan’s findings are careful to admit that the subreddit ban was useful, for the explicit purposes of Reddit. The study did not cover whether or not unsavory redditors simply found another venue to continue to post on the internet, but rather the effects of the ban on the platform itself. In the same vein, doxxing-especially swatting-is receiving more and more criticism due to online communities’ consideration of the act as simply another form of harassment as well as an act that needs policing itself. When regarding these factors, Buchstein is not far off in assuming a ‘virtual civil society’ for the totality that is the internet-rather than a couple of platforms-is even possible.
Although shady, both website banning and doxxing has shown degrees of success with their attempts at censoring the internet. Studies have indicated that once moderators cull particular spaces dedicated to hate speech, reoffenders’ rhetoric does not migrate to other parts of the same website. As another speech deterrent, offenders have also had their personal information leaked online-sometimes to the police in a quasi-emergency-and suffered humility and public ridicule. With that said, the World Wide Web has yet to seen a lawfully enforced global initiative of objective online speech etiquette distinguishing ‘where my rights begin and yours end.’ Therefore, this craving that internet culture as a whole has clearly shown-a desire to control speech dissemination-is evident, regardless of how ethical their avenues of doing so actually are.