Public Shaming on Instagram: A Case Study on User-to-User Monitoring and Public Exposition, Lecture notes of Communication

Download Public Shaming on Instagram: A Case Study on User-to-User Monitoring and Public Exposition and more Lecture notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity!

#Cancelled:

User-to-user public exposition and public shaming on

Instagram

MA Thesis Ashley Snoei 12292559 New Media & Digital Culture June 2019

• Abstract
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Theoretical framework
  • 2.1 Public shaming 2.0
  • 2.2 Participatory culture & participatory surveillance
  • 2.3 User ‘feedback’
  • 2.4 The platform
  • 2.5 Norm enforcement & cybermobs
  • 2.6 Public shaming gone wrong
• 3. Methodology
  • 3.1 Retrieving data
    • 3.1.1 the Instagram Scraper
    • 3.1.2 Choosing the sample
    • 3.1.3 Performance
  • 3.2. Content-analysis: the comment section
    • 3.2.1. Comments
  • 3.3 Co-hashtag analysis
    • 3.3.1 Analysis of the (co-)hashtag scrape
    • 3.3.2 Analysis of the (co-)hashtag network
• 4. Findings
  • 4.1 Engagement metrics: likes and comments
  • 4.2 Comment analysis
  • 4.3 Hashtag analysis
    • 4.3.1 Hashtag frequency
    • 4.3.2 Hashtag network
• 5. Discussion
  • 5.1 Identifying the ‘norm enforcer’ and the ‘norm violator’
  • 5.2 Public shaming and exposure through platform affordances
  • 5.3 The formation of publics
• 6. Conclusion
• References
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Appendix C
• Appendix D

1. Introduction I think our natural disposition as humans is to plod along until we get old and stop. But with social media, we’ve created a stage for constant artificial high drama. Every day a new person emerges as a magnificent hero or a sickening villain. (Ronson 78) Human beings are inherently social, communicative beings - inventive and adoptive of means that enhance our capacity to interact with one another. This, insofar, is apparent from the way that communicative technologies have developed over time to make interaction easier, faster, more readily accessible, to transcend physical and geographical boundaries, and thereby feeding our desire for ‘communal’ bonds (Picard 32). The fragment above from the book So You’ve Been Published is a point of departure for this thesis in the way that it illustrates that not only means of communication have changed - particularly with social media - but also that the emerging tools for communication have clear, transformative social implications, such as on norms and expectations, interpersonal relations, and the overall functioning of society. That is, as society increasingly opts for interaction online, we are inclined to share more of ourselves within this space, too. And with each online interaction, netizens leave a digital trail of their online practices, from online ‘friendships’ to interactions with content through likes or comments (Albrechtslund 3). The transforming “economy of visibility” (Schwarz 1) encompasses that our lives are increasingly transcending into the digital realm, available for monitoring by those within and even beyond our online social networks. This kind of user-to-user monitoring that is also referred to as participatory (Albrechtslund 1) or social (Marwick 379) surveillance have become “part of a whole way of life” (Lyon 825). This is particularly so as Web 2.0 and social media have fostered supposedly dehierarchized and democratized communication channels through which users are granted means to easily and readily create, collect and disseminate information, while simultaneously scanning others undergoing these same processes (Langlois 94; Marwick 384). Because of this increased visibility and “unprecedented surveillance culture” (Trottier 824) netizens’ publication of bits

and pieces of their lives, whether genuine or not, are also instantaneously subjected to close examination, evaluation, and possibly scrutiny, by their audience. This thesis focuses particularly on how participatory surveillance culture and amplified opportunities for self-expression have created an environment in which individuals can openly comment on one another; whether in the form of approval or disapproval. In the case of the latter, netizens may take on roles of what Kristine Gallardo refers to as ‘norm enforcers’, through which they seek to “correct behavior that does not comply with the perceived norm, or rule of conduct in society” (726). The specific means that are employed are important in terms of how norm violations are addressed by users and with which severity, but also how they may subsequently be studied by researchers. The topic of public exposition and shaming, however, has been subjected to very limited, if any, examination with regards to social media platform Instagram. The overall lack of research on Instagram is peculiar, as the platform has surpassed one billion active users as of June 2018 (Instagram: Active Users 2018), and therefore evidently poses as socially significant. Not to mention that the visual aspect of Instagram introduces a whole new graphic and personalized dimension to information dissemination, leaving such content all the more vulnerable for ‘feedback’ by fellow users (Lyon 831). Therefore, it may be of no surprise that this very ‘feedback’ has been of interest for this thesis, in the form of public exposition and shaming practices. In order to examine the role of users in providing such ‘feedback’, it is hypothesized that the employment of affordances will illustrate various ways in which users take this role of supposed ‘norm enforcer’ upon themselves - highlighting strategies on Instagram such as likes, comments and hashtags. As the theoretical framework of this thesis will illustrate, surveillance and public shaming are not new phenomena, and have known varying severities over history, ranging from fatal repercussions to complete communal condemnation. The “digital mark of shame” (Hess and Waller 102) that is often referred to as the contemporary Scarlet Letter, introduces a new dimension to public shaming. Namely, it is said to leave a lasting (symbolic) scar, as online interactions are indefinitely stored on the Web and carried by those upon which it is branded

applicable to its online counterparts, such as the ‘cybermob’ (Petley 91). Hypothesizing that norm enforcement would be most effective when done collectively, and thus synthesizing this with literature on public formation, certain questions arise concerning the role of these ‘enforcers’. Namely, how are ‘issues’ or alleged norm violations recognized by users? How does this issue-making potentially reflect public formation? How are these issues addressed? And what means are used to ensure its visibility? The main motivation behind choosing the topic of public shaming, Instagram and the ‘D&G Loves China’ case study is that public exposition and shaming is a very delicate and relevant topic in today’s society, particularly with regards to the civility or ‘safe space’ that Instagram and other platforms claim to strive for. 1 The responsibility that is partly passed on to users can be rather complex. On the one hand, individuals wanting to enforce norms and create awareness on socially offensive behavior could be beneficial for educating those around them and the targeted ‘violator’. On the other hand, the latter statement may be too optimistic, as the ‘feedback’ itself or its delivery may, in turn, be socially offensive - possibly based on ‘malicious objectives’ or motives to misinform (Kasra 173). While this thesis’ purpose is not to measure repercussions, or examine whether the negative sides of ‘norm enforcement’ outweigh the positive (or vice versa), it attempts to shed light on online reprimanding among users by answering the following question: How do practices of user-to-user public exposition and public shaming take shape on Instagram? As the areas under examination within this thesis are so multi-faceted, the research will be further guided by the following sub-questions: (^1) Official Instagram Community Guidelines - https://help.instagram.com/

1. _How do users take roles as ‘norm enforcers’ to reprimand ‘norm violators’?
2. How do users of Instagram use platform affordances to publicly expose and shame other users? 3)_ How does public formation play a part in user-to-user public exposition and shaming practices? Ultimately, the aim is to get a grasp of how users move around and utilise the ‘issue space’ (Rogers, Otherwise Engaged 456). Firstly, the theoretical framework will synthesize relevant literature that addresses concepts and areas of study such as public shaming, public formation, platforms and affordances, surveillance culture, and social media. Then, the methodology will, based on works by Richard Rogers, Noortje Marres, and Tim Highfield and Tama Leaver, outline how digital methods are repurposed for studying the above-mentioned concepts by applying it to a case study. The findings and discussion will ultimately reflect upon the issue space of the chosen controversy and how users have situated themselves within this space by deploying the affordances provided by Instagram - both in anticipated and unanticipated ways.

“serve purposes of supporting social norms and moral behaviour” against the ways in which social media could pose “as a weapon to damage or destroy others” (38). Whichever perception one may side with, the possibilities provided by social media for interaction and surveillance are increasingly utilized by users for reprimanding. As a consequence, “online public shaming [...] has increased and changed in nature” (Gallardo 723). It should be noted, however, that the act of public shaming is not a new practice, as it has existed in various forms and severities for centuries as a means for punishment of misconduct. In an article by the New Yorker, Ariel Levy compared the Internet - as a venue for public shaming - to a town square that is “big enough to put all the world’s sinners in the stocks”. Seemingly without intentionality, this imagery of public punishment bears similarities to Foucault’s description of the public executions of 18th century Europe, along with the later shaming practices of colonial America (Goldman 418). In Discipline and Punish , Foucault explains the spectacle that surrounded the public execution in 18th and early 19th century Europe, which refers to the punishment as a ceremony “by which power is manifested” (47), and a way of “exacting retribution that is both personal and public [...] carried out in such a way to give a spectacle not of measure, but of imbalance and excess” (49). A bridge can be made more specifically to the notion of the ‘theatre of terror’ (49), as the public executions were a spectacle in and of itself. They were well-attended ceremonial displays of torture that demonstrated “public sanction” (Kasra 177) for those that committed the crime, and the “reactivated power” of the sovereign (Foucault 49). In the example of social media, the public sanctioning is carried out by fellow users, rather than a sovereign, but the ceremonial display can nonetheless be compared to the mass audience in front of which users may be ‘persecuted’ online. Other more recent and milder forms of punishment, too, can be taken from history and literature to explain the public shaming of the present. In Goldman’s example of the historical novel The Scarlet Letter , the protagonist’s adulterous behaviour resulted in the individual being forced to wear a scarlet letter ‘A’ on her chest as a sign of her misbehaviour (418). Another fictional example - said to be inspired by the ‘walk of shame’ by King Edward IV’s mistress Elizabeth

‘Jane’ Shore - could be the walk of ‘atonement’ in Game of Thrones’ episode ‘Mother’s Mercy’ (Petković 37). As public penance for her sinful behaviour, character Cersei Lannister is sentenced by a religious order to walk naked through the streets accompanied by a religious representative chanting “shame”, all the while being physically and verbally assaulted by spectators (Petković 37). Similarly to the fear that is likely instilled in the crowd following a public execution in 18th century Europe, the latter examples demonstrate the prospect of condemnation that coincides with public shaming, particularly in a communal sense. Goldman stresses, however, that in order for such humiliation to be effective and control ‘deviant behaviour’ (419), the community must be familiar with the offender, through which the “community members would be aware of the offender's crime, spread this information to others, and criminals would thus feel the sting of shame” (419). Like Goldman, Gallardo refers back to public shaming in colonial America, emphasizing that while the use of stockades are indeed in the past, the use of public shaming tactics have made its return in the digital age. That is, increased visibility and ability to watch one another contributes to a heightened sense of vulnerability to scrutiny by our surroundings. Whether the ‘sentence’ for a ‘crime’ is in the form of a Scarlet Letter, or a “digital mark of shame” (Hess and Waller 102), both demonstrate ways in which an ‘offender’ may be publicly branded. 2.2 Participatory culture & participatory surveillance According to Duffy and Chan, awareness or fear of public scrutiny in our increasingly connected environment is “indicative of a pervasive cultural anxiety about online surveillance and the potential implications of internet use - or maybe more aptly, misuse ” (120). Here, Duffy and Chan address the implications that our online visibility may have on our lives because of the omnipresent surveillance practices that take place on social media - by platform regulators, state, but also by fellow users. It should be kept in mind that surveillance in and of itself is not the focus of this thesis, but is hereby acknowledged as a societal condition of which “potential implications” (Duffy and Chan 120) - online public exposition and shaming - are examined.

‘subjectivity building’ that Albrechtslund refers to herein seemingly suggests a somewhat optimistic consideration by highlighting freedom in creating, exploring and interacting online. Alice Marwick’s similar-sounding conceptualization of surveillance, social surveillance, which is described as the domestication of surveillance practices in our daily lives, while simultaneously referring to power as “intrinsic to every social relationship, as micro-level and de-centralized” (379). Herein each individual is described as sharing information to be consumed by others, while simultaneously consuming information shared by those very same users. In other words: “users can choose to watch others as well as make themselves visible” (Trottier, Interpersonal Surveillance 320), which, according to Trottier, empowers the practice of surveillance on social media. Additionally, Marwick identifies contemporary [social] surveillance through three components; power, hierarchy and reciprocity (382-384). As aforementioned, power and interaction have become decentralised, however this does not mean that power relations have vanished. Rather, it signals a shift in the ‘locus’ of power (Langlois 99). This runs parallel to the idea that power and surveillance are no longer solely “conceptually linked to top-down impositions” (Trottier, Digital Vigilantism 57). Rather, Marwick establishes that an indirect form of power has emerged that enables for self-monitoring and the “internalization of the surveilled gaze” (381), in which the awareness of our visibility has resulted in our own behavioral modification and practices of “self-conscious identity construction” (381). Presumably, however, this behavioural modification would be in line with one’s own perception of what is acceptable. The second component is hierarchy, which is straightforward in the sense that individuals are given to ability to watch one another, through peer-to-peer monitoring. This seemingly does not correspond to the origins of the term surveillance, which essentially implies a top-down relationship of overseeing (Brown 1118). Hierarchy in social surveillance is shaped by social power differentials, rather than structural, meaning that hierarchy among individuals may be derived from elements such as social status, cultural background, or gender (Marwick 384). Lastly, social surveillance can be characterized by its reciprocity, which suggests that “people who engage in social surveillance also produce online content that is surveilled by others” (382); a mutual sharing practice

(Albrechstlund 7). In other words, when joining a social media site, one enters a networked audience in which information is exchanged and online behaviour is observed between its members, through online interaction that encompasses both sharing and consumption. 2.3 User ‘feedback’ Essentially, participating in online social networks encompasses sharing information about one’s own identity, or, at least, one’s constructed identity, as part of the mutual sharing practice that constitutes participatory culture (Albrechtslund 7). The user, or ‘sharing subject’, is, according to Deborah Lupton, one that “seeks to recirculate content as part of their identity” (qtd. in Lyon 831), in which subsequent ‘feedback’ of others is said to be beneficial to the user (Lyon 831). Although this fragment from Lyon’s literature may be a rather positive simplification of the extent of user interactions, the mutuality in sharing and monitoring seems to demonstrate that self-awareness and self-monitoring coincide with our conscious perception of others. That is, the development of perceptions may ultimately express itself as ‘feedback’, in the form of public evaluation, judgment and exposition of other users’ social media activities. Moreover, Lyon points out that there is an emergence of an “unprecedented surveillance culture” (824), in which user participation can be seen as an attempt to coordinate monitoring; of themselves and of others. As Trottier brings to light: Interpersonal social media surveillance renders users visible to one another in a way that warrants a care of the virtual self [...] including both self-scrutiny, and watching over what peers upload, as this may reflect poorly on oneself. ( Interpersonal Surveillance on Social Media 319) This preludes to the concepts of criticism and repercussions - potentially in the form of exposing or being exposed - as part of the aforementioned ‘feedback’ that may be generated through user-to-user monitoring.

assume that scrutiny may still come in unanticipated ways and for unanticipated reasons, even when users carefully curate their social media presence. After all, knowing that the ‘imaginaries’ exist does not mean that there is a mutual understanding of social norms. While user-generated content empowers citizens to self-regulate, and generally creates a space for self-expression and sharing opinions, user-generated content may “also misinform or advance malicious objectives” (Kasra 173). That is, similarly to how one may judge certain social media practices as inappropriate or unacceptable, the interaction that takes place to expose and reprimand behaviour may equally vary in its nature and degree, along with its repercussions. In whichever way surveillance and acting upon the observed takes place, it seems to demonstrate the vulnerability of one’s online behaviour to close examination by other users. 2.4 The platform In order to understand how the aforementioned user-to-user ‘feedback’ takes place, it seems necessary to briefly touch upon how social media platforms and its networked conditions provide the means for such interactions. While later parts of the theoretical framework will more specifically outline the role and use of affordances, the following will refer to the basis of how platforms carry functions that condition the circulation of information and our communication processes online. According to Brown, the “rapid development of computing technologies, and the social, political and economic practices that have shaped and been shaped by this development, is one of the most significant enablers of social media surveillance” (1118). Therefore, one should not ignore the significance of platform affordances in the creation and transmission of content, as well as users’ employment of such. In this light, Langlois introduces the notion of the participatory media paradox, which considers both the freedom of communication and how networking information is controlled. The paradox is based on two supposedly fundamental paradigms: the user-centric paradigm, which consider the “link between empowering users and fostering more democratic communication” (94), and the network paradigm, which focuses more on the “networked conditions and regulations within which information can circulate” (94) and thus the technical elements of information transmission. Van Dijck and Poell, add to this that social media affordances play a fundamental part in the ‘logic of

connectivity’ by which social media is governed (5, 8). That is ‘platform apparatus’ are said to play a large role in mediating activities carried out by users and in defining “how connections are taking shape, even if users themselves can exert considerable influence over the contribution of content” (8). In terms of the topic of this thesis, the latter notions have created further intrigue concerning the examination of how platforms and its functions mediate communicative processes when utilized for user-to-user public exposition and shaming. It has thus been touched upon how platforms provide the means to interact, and through its workings and supposed ‘logic’ are able to determine ways of interacting. When talking about the power of the user, one should not completely undermine the role that platforms play in information dissemination, or, rather, platforms’ ability to mediate it. It should also be noted that, platforms often have terms of service, such as Instagram’s Community Guidelines , and thus do^2 apply some forms of censorship, such as nudity or violence, upon which the platform is able to eliminate the content presenting misconduct. The focus of this thesis is, however, what roles users could play throughout all such processes in terms of exposing or policing one another , and which other latent, unanticipated uses of affordances may be unveiled. 2.5 Norm enforcement & cybermobs The final two sections of the theoretical framework will return to the aforementioned concepts, such as user-to-user monitoring, public exposition and shaming, platform affordances, and so forth, but closer look will be taken at how users evaluate one another’s behaviour online. More specifically, the following will contextualize such interactions with preceding notions of public shaming. In their literature, Hess and Waller outline the ‘disciplinary power’ manifested in new media, based on Foucault's identification of the concept, to explain the dynamics of user-generated content. Disciplinary power is said to encompasses systems of surveillance and assessment that “no longer required force or violence, as people felt compelled to discipline themselves and to behave in expected ways” (Hess and Waller 104). In a way, this runs parallel (^2) Instagram’s official Commmunity Guidlines (https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119)

be constructed and strengthened online with regards to ideologies, interests or shared concerns (174). Referring back to platform affordances, one may, for instance, employ hashtags in resistance or promotion of certain topics, or reach out to comment sections on Instagram posts to share sentiments. It still remains unclear how the formation of such a cybermob, counterpublics, or more generally a group of collective identities takes place. After all, I intend to get an understanding of how users are using the possibility of user-to-user monitoring and platform affordances to identify and respond to issues. However it should once again be stressed that this looks beyond individual actions. Rather, within a networked space, how does collective response to and problematization of an issue, content or a particular user, take place? In No Issue, No Publics , Marres addresses what appears to be an important, fundamental component of collective action: the formation of ‘publics’ (61). In construing this formation of publics, Marres approaches the conceptualisation of this practice with different argumentations and theorizations by John Dewey and Walter Lippmann. In doing so, she sheds light on a definition of the term as derived from Dewey’s account on the formation of a public in political issues ( No Issue, No Publics 48), however the idea of an ‘issue’ calling publics into being could perhaps also be perceived in a greater context. To define, a public is: A group of actors who are affected by actions or events but do not have direct influence on them. Lacking such influence, these indirectly affected actors must organize into a public if they are to address the problems ensuing form these actions and events. (Marres, No Issue, No Public 48) The publics are, in this sense, described as ‘caretakers’ of certain issues that are not addressed by actors such as institutions, without having direct influence on the affair in question (Marres, No Issue, No Public 47). In other words, while the public may not be able to carry out the ‘executive act’ of rectifying problematic incidents or issues, they play a role in the bringing to light of such. That is, an issue is not shaped until publicized, problematized, protested or, essentially, made

into an issue by individuals - all of which is made possible by communication and interaction ( No Issue, No Public 49). Relating this to the supposed disciplinary power of (social) media, an avenue for exploration may be the role of the publics in establishing social control by calling out that which is inappropriate behaviour or content. This is particularly interesting when certain publics take responsibility of addressing issues that platform regulators or other users fail to (or simply choose not to address), thereby impersonating as ‘care takers’ of the issue (Hess and Waller 104). In addressing the now somewhat dated blogosphere, Gillin describes such platforms as a social space for self expression in which “millions of writers of all ages, interests and motivations are together forming a set of shared principles, operating standards and behaviors without any kind of central coordination” (15). This seems to resonate with social media in that Gillin illustrates an environment with fewer formal rules, room for self-expression and opinions, yet one that is governed by shared, uncodified values. Granted that social media platforms have shown to be able to enforce some rigidity in certain problematic areas, such as nudity or violence, many ‘rules’ remain more loosely defined, and rely, in the example of Instagram, on users to “help foster the community”.^3 This seems to suggest that the civility of social media platforms to some extent relies on the efforts of the user, or publics, to evaluate the content they create and/or consume. This includes the recognition of ‘issues’, with the expectation that there is a sense of shared social norms. Relating this back to concepts of disciplinary power and the formation of publics, it thus far seems to suggest that much of the ‘regulation’ that takes place on social media is increasingly made, or taken up as, a responsibility of the user. Building upon this, Gallardo makes an noteworthy statement with regards to platform affordances and their role of “enforcing social norms” (727). Namely, the enforcement of online norms does not necessarily take place as a straightforward telling-off, or informing others on what is right or wrong. In fact, Gallardo explains that the ability to enforce online norms through the interface and affordances of the platforms, such as liking or commenting, has resulted in an (^3) Official Instagram Community Guidelines - https://help.instagram.com/