Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements
Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements
复制标题
社交媒体和激进主义者工具包：用户协议、企业利益和现代社会运动的信息基础设施
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jillian C. York
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Youmans;Jillian C. York
突尼斯、埃及和其他地方的起义部分归功于Facebook和Twitter等社交媒体平台的创造性使用。然而，社交媒体背后的公司的信息政策可以抑制活动家并赋予专制政权权力。分析Facebook对埃及“我们都是哈立德·赛义德”组织的回应，YouTube对来自叙利亚的视频的政策豁免，摩洛哥忠诚者对无神论者在线存在的回应，以及叙利亚电子军的活动，说明了禁止匿名，社区警务实践，政权忠诚者的运动以及反叛乱策略如何对民主倡导者起作用。这些问题来自于寻求收入的大型社交媒体企业所面临的设计和治理挑战。社交媒体平台被各种政治制度中的活动家广泛使用。它们在“阿拉伯之春”期间事件演变中的作用已被广泛讨论，但同样重要的是要认识到社交媒体被用来服务于改革者、革命者和独裁政权的政治目标。与此同时，Facebook、谷歌、Twitter和其他公司必须从商业角度将社交媒体视为与客户和用户的产品和服务。在这篇文章中，我们研究了四个案例，在这些案例中，社交媒体的设计和政策在活动家的社会政治用途和平台所有者的商业利益之间造成了紧张关系。信息技术已经成为改革者、革命者和当代民主运动不可或缺的工具。它们是共同表达不同意见、传播信息和采取集体行动的场所。在
The uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere have been credited in part to the creative use of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Yet the information policies of the firms behind social media can inhibit activists and empower authoritarian regimes. Analysis of Facebook’s response to Egypt’s ‘‘We Are All Khaled Said’’ group, YouTube’s policy exemption for videos coming from Syria, Moroccan loyalist response to the online presence of atheists, and the activities of the Syrian Electronic Army illustrate how prohibitions on anonymity, community policing practices, campaigns from regime loyalists, and counterinsurgency tactics work against democracy advocates. These problems arise from the design and governance challenges facing large-scale, revenue-seeking social media enterprises. Social media platforms are utilized extensively by activists in a variety of political systems. Their role in the evolution of events during the ‘‘Arab Spring’’ has been widely discussed, but it is also important to recognize that social media are used to serve the political goals of reformers, revolutionaries, and authoritarian regimes alike. At the same time, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and the other firms must view social media in commercial terms as products and services with customers and users. In this article we examine four cases in which social media design and policies created tensions between the sociopolitical uses by activists and the commercial interests of the platform owners. Information technologies have become indispensable to reformers, revolutionaries, and contemporary democracy movements. They serve as venues for the shared expression of dissent, dissemination of information, and collective action. In the