samantha burgess

How do memes reflect cultural values, norms, or stereotypes, and what ethical responsibilities exist when meme creators circulate humor that may reinforce dominant ideologies or marginalize certain identities?

Memes often mirror the cultural values and assumptions of the people who create and share them. That means they can spread community humor, but they can also reinforce harmful stereotypes without users thinking twice. When a meme relies on race, gender, or class-based punchlines, it can normalize the discriminatory ideas by framing them as harmless jokes. Ruha Benjamin reminds us that digital tools are never neutral, technology can reproduce racist logics even when users don’t intend harm (Benjamin, Race After Technology, Introduction). That insight applies to memes too: the humor can hide the ideology embedded in them. So there’s an ethical responsibility for meme creators and sharers to think critically about who is being represented, who becomes the punchline, and whose cultural narratives are being reproduced. In digital culture where memes spread fast, uncritical sharing risks amplifying dominant, oppressive worldviews rather than challenging them.

2. In what ways do meme cultures reproduce systems of domination and how do corporate platforms profit from the circulation of memes built on exploited labor, user data, or unpaid creative work?

Memes can reproduce domination and exploitation by drawing on harmful cultural narratives, especially when they target marginalized groups for humor or ridicule. Corporate platforms such as Barstool Sports, a large TikTok account infamous for stealing user's content without providing compensation, amplifies this dynamic by profiting from user-generated content, memes circulate freely, yet the labor, creativity, and emotional investment of users remain uncompensated. Meanwhile, the algorithms prioritize engagement above all, often boosting sensational or divisive memes that reinforce existing structures rather than challenge them for clicks. Benjamin argues that digital systems can encode and reproduce racial and social inequities, even when they appear playful or neutral (Benjamin, Race After Technology, Introduction). Memes participate in that logic: they may seem harmless, but they can normalize racist, sexist, or classist ideas and reward content that upholds dominant ideologies. As users create and share memes within these profit-driven platforms, unpaid labor and oppressive narratives become commercialized, showing how meme culture intersects with exploitation and larger political-economic systems.

3. How can memes resist and reproduce cultural power structures at the same time, and what contradictions emerge when disruptive messages are packaged within formats shaped by mainstream digital culture?

Memes can work in contradictory ways: they can challenge power structures while also reinforcing them. A meme might mock racist policing or call out sexism, giving users a quick and accessible form of resistance. But the same format can easily reproduce the very ideologies it tries to critique, especially when the humor oversimplifies complex issues or relies on harmful stereotypes. Benjamin notes that digital systems often embed dominant racial logics beneath seemingly neutral surfaces (Benjamin, Race After Technology, Introduction). Memes operate similarly: they can expose injustice, but still circulate within platforms shaped by the same oppressive structures. So even subversive memes risk being absorbed into mainstream digital culture, losing their critical edge. Understanding these contradictions helps us see memes not just as jokes, but as cultural texts negotiating power.

4. How have memes been used as tools for collective struggle, political mobilization, or social critique?

Memes have become tools for collective struggle and political mobilization by spreading critiques quickly and accessibly. Their visual and funny format makes political messages easier to share, which helps movements reach wider audiences without relying on traditional media gatekeepers. Anna Everett argues that digital networks enable new forms of activism and collective resistance by transforming how information circulates and how people organize politically (The Revolution Will Be Digitized). Memes function within these digital networks as small, repeatable messages that can rally support, expose injustice, or call out oppressive systems. During social movements, memes help build shared language and identity, strengthening solidarity among participants. They can also disrupt dominant narratives by reframing political issues in ways that are relatable and emotionally resonant. In this sense, memes are not just entertainment but operate as cultural tools that enable the everyday user to participate in digital forms of resistance and critique.

Sources:

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity Press.

Everett, A. (2002). The revolution will be digitized: Afrocentricity and the digital public sphere. Social Text, 20(2), 125–146.

1.To what extent do social media platforms function as safe spaces for marginalized communities, and how do moderation practices algorithmic biases shape that safety?

Social media platforms can act as safe spaces for marginalized communities, but how effectively they do so really depends on how each platform is built and managed. On the positive side, many marginalized users find connection and community online in ways they might not experience in their offline environments. Hashtags and group pages can help people share stories, organize around social issues, and feel less isolated. For example, digital communities for LGBTQ+ youth, Black feminists, or people with disabilities often serve as crucial networks of support, visibility, and shared knowledge. However, the extent to which these platforms truly function as safe spaces is limited by the platforms themselves. Most major social media companies are driven by profit and engagement metrics, not user well-being. Their content moderation systems, which are often a mix of algorithms and underpaid human moderators, regularly miss hate speech and harassment directed at marginalized users while over-policing posts that discuss oppression or identity. This creates a pattern where harmful content slips through, but conversations about that harm get flagged or removed, which undermines the sense of safety. Algorithmic bias also plays a major role. Recommendation systems often boost sensational or controversial content because it drives engagement, which can elevate harmful narratives or discriminatory language. For marginalized users, this means more exposure to harassment or targeted abuse.

2. How do marginalized users navigate digital harassment, surveillance, and censorship online, and what strategies do they develop to preserve community, identity, and political expression in these spaces?

Marginalized users often navigate harassment, surveillance, and censorship online by combining caution with community support. Many rely on tools like blocking, muting, or using private accounts and group chats to create safer spaces away from constant scrutiny. Because platform moderation can be inconsistent, users sometimes adapt their language or use coded terms to avoid unfair takedowns when discussing identity or oppression. Community strategies play a big role too. People boost each other’s posts, share safety tips, document abuse, and create guides on privacy and secure communication. These collective practices help maintain support networks and protect political expression. Even when platforms fail to keep them safe, marginalized users preserve connection and visibility through mutual care and creative workarounds.

3. In what ways do digital communities enable knowledge-sharing and activism among marginalized groups, and how might corporate platform design simultaneously limit these efforts?

Digital communities help marginalized groups build solidarity by connecting people who share similar identities or struggles, creating networks of support that validate their experiences. These spaces enable rich knowledge-sharing, where users exchange resources, personal narratives, and community-based expertise that may be overlooked in mainstream institutions. They also make activism more accessible: hashtags, livestreams, and group chats allow rapid mobilization, more visibility, and the amplification of grassroots movements. At the same time, corporate platform design can limit or co-opt these efforts through algorithms which often prioritize sensational content, pushing marginalized voices to the side, while inconsistent or intentionally harmful moderation can silence discussions about oppression more quickly than actual harassment. Platforms may even adopt movement language for branding, diluting or commercializing grassroots messages.

4. How does the visibility afforded by social media both empower and endanger marginalized people, particularly when participating in discussions around identity, justice, or resistance movements?

How do large tech corporations exploit its users who are minorities through their data?

When considering the prompt, I remembered the article that my group was given in class yesterday and thought it was such a perfect example of surveillance online. "Google told to pay $425m in privacy lawsuit" (Hoskins & Jamali, 2025). Basically, Google had been breeching user's privacy by continuing to collect data on thousands of other apps even after users turned off the tracking feature. Many users have not made the conscious decision to turn off the tracking feature in the first place, meaning Google has access to what posts you look at on Meta apps (Instagram, Facebook) and where you go through rideshare apps. Now how do minorities tie into this? Given the recent ICE raids across the country, and especially in LA, Hispanic people could potentially have their race uncovered based on what they look at online. If a user consistently looks at Mexican-owned brands and takes a rideshare to traditionally Mexican restaurants or grocery stores, that data could be sold and used by ICE to deport them. The same could be said for any other minority group. In all honesty, the idea is quite scary, but it's a good reminder for all of us to watch what we allow sites and apps to have access to.

2. How can automated calls be a good and a bad thing for consumers and providers?

Most clearly, automated calls for companies can be a massive help to reduce the workload on the people who take the calls, and have the automation only redirect to a real person if the caller needs to solve a more specific problem. This, in itself can be an issue however because an automation may have trouble understanding a caller's needs. In addition, automations may just be flat out wrong sometimes. "Big Brother is not watching you, he's watching us" (Eubanks, 2018). This quote is from Automating Inequality's first chapter, where Eubanks explains how she was flagged for insurance fraud when her partner was jumped and had severe injuries as a result. Insurance companies have all kinds of information about their consumers, including their race. Certain marginalized groups are already denied claims or the proper care they need because of their skin color or sexuality. Automations get data from their respective companies and then reinforce those same stereotypes, even though it's supposed to be a robot that doesn't have prejudice like humans do.

3. How has access to the internet been able to push back against constant surveillance against marginalized groups?

Daniels mentions "internetworked global feminism" (Daniels, 2009), which "[opens] a whole new terrain for activism that addresses gender and racial inequality." The internet gave us the ability to connect people from around the globe in seconds, including their words and ideas. I think the reason why feminism has risen as an ideology in the last 20 years is because of this. Minority groups are able to share their experiences on social media, on blogs, and in articles to let people know about their lived experiences. As a Black woman myself, many times I've been in a store by myself dressed in casual or baggy clothes and became was aware that an employee was following me from a distance or that the cameras suddenly moved in my direction. This kind of thing happens everyday, and being able to share these experiences online where people will see them is the reason why we as a society are more aware of the issues in the first place, and can continue to fight against them.

4. In what ways does the surveillance of marginalized groups reflect dominant ideologies that justify inequality?

People often equate social difference with an increased risk of criminality. As an example, racialized communities are disproportionately targeted by policing technology, specifically in Chicago, where "law enforcement [uses] algorithms to try and predict gun violence" (Brown, 2020). A risk score is attached to every person in this system, and people of color are more likely to have a higher number. The police have this score when they pull you over, and may act in accordance to its value. These types of practices are often defended with stories that paint marginalized people as dangerous to society or as a drain on the state, which ends up reinforcing stereotypes about them being violent or risky. Surveillance technologies embody political choices about who is watched and why, when again (similar to question 2), technology should not have the same prejudice humans have ingrained in them.

Jamali, P. H. & L. (2025, September 4). Google told to pay $425m in privacy lawsuit. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3dr91z0g4zo

Eubanks, V. (2019). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. Picador, St. Martin’s Press.

Daniels, J. (2009). Rethinking cyberfeminism(s): Race, gender, and embodiment. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, 37(1–2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.0.0158

Brown, N. (2020, September 18). Race and Technology. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8uiAjigKy8&ab_channel=NicoleBrown