#platformgovernance

The metaverse is often imagined as a world apart.

But digital worlds are never immaterial. They depend on cables, servers, energy systems, platforms, laws, and physical infrastructures. They also produce real-world consequences.

In a forthcoming review essay on Mark Findlay’s Governing the Metaverse, I argue that the central challenge is not how to govern a separate virtual realm, but how to govern an increasingly hybrid world where law, code, AI systems, and physical infrastructures continuously interact, generating risks risks for one another.

The Metaverse Is Not a Place Apart: Law, Code, and the Recursive Governance of Digital Space: A Review Essay on Mark Findlay, Governing the Metaverse: Law, Order and Freedom in Digital Space (2025)(May 07, 2026). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6730221 

As Europe rethinks digital sovereignty and platform control, an unlikely solution emerges—shaped in Finland and tested in South Asia—offering a fresh, decentralized approach to who truly owns and governs the digital public square.

Imagine reporting a death threat on Instagram, only to receive an automated reply: “We’re sorry, but this doesn’t go against our guidelines.” Sound familiar? Welcome to the paradox of social media governance, where platforms profit from engagement - even when it’s hate. Let’s dissect how digital citizenship collides with algorithmic apathy.  

1. Networked Harassment: From Gamergate to Gen Z

Gamergate exposed the gendered nature of online abuse and the role of platforms in facilitating harassment (Salter 2018). Fast-forward to 2023: Trans TikToker @RainbowRiotRae’s videos are buried under “community guidelines,” while neo-Nazi memes thrive. The weaponization of platform governance tools, such as mass reporting, has become a significant issue for social media creators, leaving them vulnerable to content takedowns and account bans (Meisner 2023).  

2. Governance or Gaslighting?

Recent research reveals challenges in regulating online hate speech. Australia’s eSafety duty of care aims to address Islamophobia (Butler 2022), while ineffective social media bans in Sri Lanka suggest a need for targeted moderation (Wijeratne 2018). However, global platform governance complicates decisions on free expression and privacy, raising concerns about transparency and accountability (Bloch-Wehba 2019). 

3. Humor as Resistance: Clapbacks Go Viral

When comedian Hannah Gadsby turned trolls misogyny into NFT art, she flipped the script. TikTok’s #TrollBeGone trend sees creators like @LGBTQNation roast bigots with absurdity - a tactic Galan (2016) call “subversive self-defense.” Even brands like Ben & Jerry’s troll back, replying to hate with ice cream puns. But is humor enough when death threats trend?  

4. CSR or PR Stunts?  

After Adidas dropped Kanye, they pledged $1M to anti-hate groups - yet their factory workers in Cambodia face union-busting. However, social media activism often manifests as performative allyship, exemplified by the #BlackOutTuesday campaign on Instagram, which failed to create substantial progress in diversity and inclusion (Wellman 2022). Real change? Pay marginalized creators to design AI moderation tools.  

Should platforms face fines for every unmoderated slur, or is digital citizenship a collective fight? Drop your hottest takes below. 🔥🗯️  

Reference

Salter, M 2017, ‘From geek masculinity to Gamergate: the technological rationality of online abuse’, Crime Media Culture An International Journal, vol. 14, SAGE Publishing, no. 2, pp. 247–264.

‌Meisner, C 2023, ‘The weaponization of platform governance: Mass reporting and algorithmic punishments in the creator economy’, Policy & Internet, vol. 15, Wiley, no. 4, pp. 466–477.

‌Butler, U 2022, ‘Combatting online Islamophobia and racism in Australia: the case for an eSafety duty of care’, SSRN Electronic Journal, Elsevier BV.

‌Wijeratne, Y 2018, ‘The Control of Hate Speech on Social Media: Lessons from Sri Lanka’, SSRN Electronic Journal, Elsevier BV.

‌Wellman, ML 2022, ‘Black Squares for Black Lives? Performative Allyship as Credibility Maintenance for Social Media Influencers on Instagram’, Social Media + Society, vol. 8, no. 1.

‌Galán, S 2016, ‘Beyond the Logic of State Protection: Feminist Self-Defense in Cairo after the January 25 Revolution’, Kohl: A Journal for Body and Gender Research, vol. 2, no. Summer, pp. 71–89.

‌Bloch-Wehba, H 2019, Global Platform Governance: Private Power in the Shadow of the State, Law.

This week’s reading by Haslop, O’Rourke & Southern (2021) challenged me to rethink digital citizenship within spaces where gendered harassment has become normalized. Their research into UK student online culture reveals a concerning pattern: online abuse isn’t just tolerated, it’s expected as part of participating in certain digital environments.

🚩 When Harassment Becomes a Cultural Norm

Haslop et al. (2021) argue that online harassment—particularly targeting women and LGBTQ+ individuals—is often seen as "just part of being online." What stood out to me was how many participants internalized this logic, viewing harassment as inevitable. This creates a gendered digital divide, where masculine-coded behaviors like aggression or trolling are normalized, while those outside dominant groups are pressured to either adapt or withdraw.

Personally, this resonates with my own experience in online spaces like gaming communities, where toxic behaviors are often brushed off as "just jokes." Haslop et al. highlight how platform governance often fails by relying on self-policing instead of taking active responsibility to protect vulnerable users.

GIF by canadianabroadvery

🧩 The Manosphere and Organized Harassment

This normalization connects directly to Ben Rich & Eva Bujalkaj (2023), who explore how Andrew Tate gained popularity by exploiting manosphere rhetoric. Tate thrives in a culture where harassment is reframed as “pushing back” against supposed political correctness. This mirrors the conditions outlined by Haslop et al., where toxic behaviors are rewarded by both social and algorithmic dynamics.

Marwick & Caplan (2018) describe this as networked harassment, where collective online actions target marginalized groups, creating toxic solidarity. The manosphere and cases like Gamergate show how harassment becomes not only accepted but also weaponized.

GIF by vowled

💡 Resistance and Platform Responsibility

While creators and activists resist through satire or community action (e.g., Vitis & Gilmour, 2017), Haslop et al. make it clear that this burden shouldn’t fall solely on individuals. Platforms benefit from high engagement, yet moderation remains reactive and inconsistent.

For me, this raises key questions about what digital citizenship means today. It should move beyond passive participation to include active work in reshaping exclusionary digital cultures. The reading leaves me wondering: is legal reform like the Online Safety Act 2021 (Australia) enough, or must we push platforms harder to enforce structural change?

🔄 Final Reflection

This week reinforced how systemic gendered harassment is—rooted in cultural attitudes, platform design, and profit models. While individual resistance is essential, Haslop et al. challenge us to rethink collective and institutional responsibilities within the digital sphere.

💬 Discussion Prompt: What does meaningful action against online harassment look like—platform reforms, cultural shifts, or both? 💬👇

GIF by jylljylljyll

Reference list

Ben Rich, & Bujalkaj, E. (2023). The draw of the ‘manosphere’: Understanding Andrew Tate’s appeal to lost men. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-draw-of-the-manosphere-understanding-andrew-tates-appeal-to-lost-men-199002

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, 27(5), 1418–1438. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211010683

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/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447334

Slow fashion has become the “ethical” alternative to fast fashion, offering a vision of sustainability, mindful consumption, and resistance to overproduction. But on social media, where activism and aesthetics collide, I keep asking myself: is slow fashion a real disruption, or is it just another trend shaped by algorithms?

The Power—and Limits—of Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship, as Choi and Cristol (2021) put it, is about using digital spaces critically—to call out greenwashing, uplift ethical labor practices, and shift conversations around consumption. And slow fashion influencers and activists are doing that. But here’s the catch: social media isn’t a neutral tool. Carah and Dobson (2016) talk about “algorithmic hotness,” meaning the system favors what looks good over what critiques deeper problems. Fast fashion hauls flood my feed, while critical slow fashion posts barely make it to the surface. Duffy and Meisner (2022) back this up, showing how content that pushes against consumerism often gets algorithmically buried.

It’s frustrating but unsurprising. Platforms are built to prioritize commerce and engagement, not activism. So, while slow fashion is fighting the good fight, it often feels like it’s fighting uphill on platforms designed to sell, not challenge.

Influencers in a Capitalist Machine

Take influencers like Venetia La Manna—they’re raising awareness and calling out industry giants, but as Drenten et al. (2021) explain, their labor is still commodified. Their activism runs on “monetized attention”—dependent on engagement, sponsorships, and brand partnerships. I find it ironic (and a bit disheartening) that influencers working to dismantle fast fashion still need to “play the game” of platform capitalism. As Duffy and Meisner (2022) point out, influencers critiquing consumption often have their voices suppressed by the same algorithms that reward viral haul videos.

(Queenanie N, 2022)

The Aesthetic Trap of Slow Fashion

Even slow fashion spaces can feel exclusionary. Carah and Dobson (2016) remind us that digital platforms reward content aligned with dominant beauty ideals—Eurocentric, thin, minimalist chic. Lane (2016) further argues that fashion and body politics are inseparable, meaning even ethical movements like slow fashion often reproduce the same beauty hierarchies we see in fast fashion. Honestly, scrolling through slow fashion content, I sometimes feel like it’s just a more “conscious” version of the same curated, aspirational feed.

And despite the growing popularity of slow fashion, the industry’s structural issues remain intact. Fast fashion is still thriving, with projections of hitting $3.3 trillion by 2030 (Statista, 2023; McKinsey & Company, 2021). Morozov’s (2011) critique of “clicktivism” hits hard here: are we making real change, or just consuming activism as another aesthetic online?

The Future of Slow Fashion and Digital Citizenship

The slow fashion movement illustrates the tensions between activism, algorithmic control, and influencer capitalism. While digital platforms provide visibility for ethical fashion advocacy, platform governance ultimately dictates whose voices are amplified and whose are silenced (Van Dijck et al., 2018).

For slow fashion activism to drive meaningful change, it must move beyond individual consumer choices and aesthetic branding, toward policy-driven accountability and corporate regulation. If digital citizenship is to be a force for structural transformation, it must engage critically with the very platforms that shape online activism.

📌 What do you think? Can slow fashion activism drive systemic change, or is it just another digital trend? Let’s discuss! 💬👇

References:

Carah, N., & Dobson, A. (2016). Algorithmic Hotness: Young Women’s “Promotion” and “Reconnaissance” Work via Social Media Body Images. Social Media + Society.

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with an intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy-driven digital citizenship education. Theory into Practice, 60(4), 361–370.

Drenten, J., Gurrieri, L., & Tyler, M. (2021). Sexualized labour in digital culture: Instagram influencers, porn chic, and the monetization of attention. Gender, Work and Organization.

Duffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2022). Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility. Media, Culture & Society.

Lane, D. C. (2016). Understanding body modification: A process-based framework. Sociology Compass, 10(9), 824-836.

McKinsey & Company. (2021). The State of Fashion 2021: In Search of Promise in Perilous Times. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/state-of-fashion

Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs.

Queenanie N. (2022, June 22). Hương Ly tỏa sáng tại bán kết Hoa hậu Hoàn Vũ với đầm làm từ... giấm ăn | Harper’s Bazaar. Harper’s Bazaar Việt Nam. https://bazaarvietnam.vn/huong-ly-toa-sang-tai-ban-ket-hoa-hau-hoan-vu-voi-dam-lam-tu-giam-an/

Statista. (2023). Retail sales of the global apparel and footwear market from 2017 to 2030 (in trillion U.S. dollars). Statista Research Department. https://www.statista.com/statistics/875708/global-apparel-and-footwear-market-retail-sales-value/