Week 11: Digital Citizenship and Conflict: Social Media Governance
Do you remember what a good digital citizen is?
A good digital citizen represents someone who protects personal information online, exercises sound judgment, interacts with others respectfully, and avoids spreading harmful content (University of Michigan, 2010). However, in the digital age, technology has become widespread, and many digital citizens use the internet daily. On the other hand, there are malicious users who use social media to disrupt or engage in online harassment and aggression.
Online harassment has become common among social media users (Nur Afiqah & Che, 2023). Online harassment refers to individuals spreading malicious rumors, sending direct messages containing abusive language, and sharing personal information, including sexual images, without the individual's consent (Haslop et al., 2021). People engage in online harassment for their own enjoyment. Online harassment has existed since the 1980s through email, chat relays, forums, and similar activities (Ortiz, 2020). Furthermore, while online harassment is often seen as a problem of abhorrent acts by individuals, harassment acts are often planned and networked within groups (Marwick & Caplan, 2018). Examples of online harassment include trolling and framing. Trolling is perceived as an online activity aimed at eliciting reactions from other users or causing conflict or confusion. Trolls use various means, such as humor, provocation, deception, and aggressive remarks, to stimulate others and enjoy their reactions and the commotion (Ortiz, 2020). On the other hand, framing refers to the use of offensive language, such as insults and hateful comments, through online media, and through these negative acts, the perpetrator finds self-satisfaction (Lingam & Aripin, 2017).
Furthermore, acts of online harassment have shifted from the fringes of the web to the forefront of academic and media discussions on freedom of speech, harassment, racism, and politics (Ortiz, 2020). It is easy to see how trolling in gaming forums can escalate from a single provocative comment into widespread hostility, underscoring how fragile online civility is and how much responsibility platforms carry in shaping the tone of digital spaces.
Case study: GamerGate incident
The GamerGate case in 2014 is an important case for examining gender issues and the structure of online harassment in gaming culture. This incident began with a personal blog post about game developer Zoe Quinn, drawing international attention to issues of sexism and misogyny within the gaming community (Ferguson & Glasgow, 2021). The incident began at a time when the presence of female developers and critics in the gaming industry was gaining attention. While advocating journalistic ethics, it has rapidly evolved into broader discussions about social media platforms' responsibilities to address misogyny, freedom of expression, digital citizenship, and harmful online behavior. In this case, Zoe's personal information was exposed on online forums such as Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan, involving rape, murder threats, and fabricated false conspiracies (Rott, 2019). For example, Zoe slept on her way to the top with game journalists for promotional purposes (Ferguson & Glasgow, 2021). According to research by Ferguson & Glasgow (2021), heterosexual white men were the largest number of GamerGate supporters. Therefore, Gamergate highlights that online harassment is a structural issue rather than an individual one, and that weak platform governance can turn social media into a space that limits rather than supports free expression.
To address these challenges, one possible solution is to introduce a governance and regulatory framework for social media. Social media governance refers to the rules and policies that guide online communication, often intersecting with areas such as corporate law, copyright law, and freedom of expression (Flew, 2015). Scholars identify four main approaches to governance: normative, algorithmic, decentralized, and retaliatory. Normative governance relies on community participation, where users help enforce standards through guidelines and moderation. Algorithmic governance uses technologies like machine learning to automatically detect and remove content that violates platform rules (Schoenebeck & Blackwell, 2021). Decentralized governance depends on user ratings to determine visibility, allowing highly rated posts to spread while limiting poorly rated ones. Retaliatory governance, on the other hand, involves direct actions between users, such as public shaming, accusations, or cancellation campaigns (Schoenebeck & Blackwell, 2021).
In conclusion, online harassment is not a marginal issue but a central challenge in digital citizenship and social media governance. The Gamergate case illustrates how coordinated online abuse can reflect deeper structural problems within digital platforms, rather than being understood as isolated individual behavior. While social media governance mechanisms such as algorithmic moderation and community guidelines aim to reduce harmful content, they are often inconsistent and can be influenced by political or commercial interests. While many assume algorithmic moderation is a neutral solution, it often reflects political or commercial biases, meaning that governance itself can reproduce the very inequalities it seeks to resolve. This raises concerns that current regulatory approaches may be insufficient to address complex forms of online harassment. Therefore, stronger accountability from platforms is necessary, but it is also important to critically consider whether excessive regulation could unintentionally limit freedom of expression and open public discourse. Ultimately, the future of digital citizenship depends on striking a delicate balance — regulating harmful online behavior effectively, while preserving the freedom of expression that makes digital spaces vibrant and democratic.
BBC News. [@BBCNews]. (2014, October 31). GamerGate Zoe Quinn: “I have a folder called those who left.” [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/4nVDjIX7hzw?si=57tjrQLabt57Uz3D
Ferguson, C. J., & Glasgow, B. (2021). Who Are GamerGate? A Descriptive Study of Individuals Involved in the GamerGate Controversy. Psychology of Popular Media, 10(2), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000280
Flew, T. (2015). Social Media Governance. Social Media + Society, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115578136
Haslop, C., O’Rourke, F., & Southern, R. (2021). NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide, in a UK student online culture. Convergence (London, England), 27(5), 1418–1438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521989270
Lingam, R. A., & Aripin, N. (2017). Comments on Fire! Classifying Flaming Comments on YouTube Videos in Malaysia. Jurnal Komunikasi, Malaysian Journal of Communication, 33(4), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.17576/jkmjc-2017-3304-07
Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568
Nur Afiqah Ab. Latif, & Che Nooryohana Zulkifli. (2023). The normalisation of trolling on social media. Voice of Academia.
Ortiz, S. M. (2020). Trolling as a Collective Form of Harassment: An Inductive Study of How Online Users Understand Trolling. Social Media + Society, 6(2), 205630512092851. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120928512
Rott, N. (2019). NPR Choice page. Npr.org. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/24/349835297/-gamergate-controversy-fuels-debate-on-women-and-video-games
Schoenebeck, S., & Blackwell, L. (2021). Reimagining Social Media Governance: Harm, Accountability, and Repair. SSRN Electronic Journal, 23. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3895779
University of Michigan. (2010). Are You a Good Digital Citizen? | Social Integrity. Umich.edu. https://socialintegrity.umich.edu/a-good-digital-citizen/
