Blogs

It’s an unseasonably rain-free evening in Sheffield, England, which means that I must be at the opening of the 25th Association of Internet Researchers conference. After warm welcomes from the President of AoIR and the Lord Mayor of Sheffield, we begin the conference with a keynote by Seeta Peña Gangadharan, whose focus is on technological refusal. What have we learnt from past pushbacks against socio-technical developments? How have such refusals evolved over time? Where might we be going, for instance with the coming rise of the quantum Internet?

What comes together here are strands of informed consent and refusal; of counter-publics; of other objections against technological and social developments. There is often also a sense of helplessness and coercion, especially for underprivileged groups and communities – yet also a strong sense of defiance and disobedience against top-down pressures. This can be seen as a new form of civil disobedience, directed no longer simply at the state but – since code is law – at the now power-holders in technology and other institutions and companies.

But in supporting such refusal, are we also aligning with populists and angry mobs – e.g. anti-vaxxer communities, and their disobedient and violent attacks against telecommunications technologies and installations? The key difference here is that populism seeks to create division and assert supremacy; this is not necessarily the case in other forms of technological disobedience. We might therefore consider technological refusal as a normative as well as an empirical concept: it can address individual and collective actions, but need not overfit and include problematic and violent groups that seek to resist the status quo.

The final speaker in this ECREA 2024 session is Mette Bengtsson, whose focus is on the relationship between Meta and its network of approved third-party fact-checking organisations. Fact-checking has developed considerably around the world in recent years, and there are several global organisations connecting this network – including the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

The next speaker in this ECREA 2024 session is Paola Palomino-Flores, whose interest is in the intersections of media literacy and misinformation. Misinformation here is defined as false information that is shared unintentionally by users who believe it to be true but have failed to verify its accuracy. This can still disseminate quickly and then cause some very serious harms, of course, confusing people and leading them to poor decision-making.

The third speaker in this session at ECREA 2024 is Margaux Guyot, whose interest is in the evolution of the dynamics between sound and text in social media news videos, examined here for the Wallonie and the French-speaking parts of Switzerland.

My own presentation, on the impact of the 2021 Australian Facebook news ban, was next in this ECREA 2024 session. The slides are available here:

I am presenting our research on the in the Australian Facebook news ban in the post-lunch session at ECREA 2024 this Friday, but we start with a paper by Visa Noronen which examines news organisations’ attempts to understand their audiences in the current media context. This is important for determining editorial direction, and the present study examines such processes for the Nordic countries.

The final speaker in this ECREA 2024 session is João Gonçalves, whose interest is in polarisation in the content recommended by YouTube in the Netherlands. This focusses especially on affective polarisation, on labelling of out-groups as extremist, and on a lack of discursive crossover between polarised opponents.

The next speaker in this ECREA 2024 session is Remzie Shahini-Hoxhaj, whose interest is in visual affective polarisation on Instagram, focussing on political parties that promote extreme or radical right-wing views. Social media algorithms might in fact actively promote and amplify such content, but fostering in-group favouritism and out-group hostility.

The next speaker in this ECREA 2024 session is Petro Tolochko, whose focus is on affective polarisation in climate activism visuals. Such content can be highly affective in climate activist communication, spark audience reactions, and spread online to promote the emergence of like-minded or opposing groups. The analysis here might include aspects of structural polarisation (using network analysis) and reactionary polarisation (using communication analysis).

For the next session at ECREA 2024 I am once again in a session on polarisation, and we start with a double-header presentation by Quirin Ryffel and Nayla Fawzi. They begin with an overview of polarisation patterns in German – here, as in many other European countries, there is no simplistic left/right polarisation as there is in the US, but more usually polarisation on specific issues. One of these is environmental policy.