Social media, free speech and public interest

2020 ◽  
pp. 21-21
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Interest

Demographics, Design, and Free Speech

2019 ◽  
pp. 150-169
Author(s):  
Soraya Chemaly
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Male Dominance ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Interactions ◽  
Media Companies ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Harmful Effects

The toxicity of online interactions presents unprecedented challenges to traditional free speech norms. The scope and amplification properties of the internet give new dimension and power to hate speech, rape and death threats, and denigrating and reputation-destroying commentary. Social media companies and internet platforms, all of which regulate speech through moderation processes every day, walk the fine line between censorship and free speech with every decision they make, and they make millions a day. This chapter will explore how a lack of diversity in the tech industry affects the design and regulation of products and, in so doing, disproportionately negatively affects the free speech of traditionally marginalized people. During the past year there has been an explosion of research about, and public interest in, the tech industry’s persistent diversity problems. At the same time, the pervasiveness of online hate, harassment, and abuse has become evident. These problems come together on social media platforms that have institutionalized and automated the perspectives of privileged male experiences of speech and violence. The tech sector’s male dominance and the sex segregation and hierarchies of its workforce result in serious and harmful effects globally on women’s safety and free expression.

Competitive framing, emotion and heterogeneity: framing effects on Twitter in the case of an alt-right rally

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Porismita Borah
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Framing Effects ◽  
Emotional Reaction ◽  
Emotional Reactions ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Moderating Effects ◽  
News Frames ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Theoretical Concepts

PurposeThe current study has three main purposes: (1) replicate results from prior framing effects studies on social media. To do so, the study examines the influence of news frames (free speech vs. public order) on participants' attitudes toward an alt-right rally (2) expand prior research by examining the emotional reaction of participants to these frames and (3) probe the moderating effects of face-to-face heterogenous talk and heterogenous social media feeds.Design/methodology/approachDrawing from theoretical concepts such as competitive framing, emotions and heterogeneity, the study uses a randomized online experiment. The study examines a conversation in a Twitter thread that includes both free speech and public order frames in the comments to the thread. The total number of participants was 275.FindingsThe results show that free speech versus public order frame did not impact attitudes of the participants toward the alt-right rally. Findings also show the significant main effects of free speech and public order frames and the interaction of exposure to heterogeneity on emotional reactions of outrage and anger toward the alt-right rally. These findings suggest that framing research needs to take social media features into consideration for a complete picture of framing effects on social media.Originality/valueUsing a classic framing effects experiment, the study includes variables relevant to social media discussions on Twitter and examined the moderating effects of heterogeneity on emotional reactions. In addition, one of the important methodological contributions of the current study are the framing manipulations for an externally valid experimental design.

Citizen Journalism

2013 ◽  
pp. 82-92
Author(s):  
Olubunmi P. Aborisade ◽  
Caroline Howard ◽  
Debra Beasley ◽  
Richard Livingood
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Communication Networks ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Online News ◽  
Discussion Groups ◽  
Citizen Journalism ◽  
Informal Networks ◽  
Political Struggle ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Media Channels

Recent national and international developments are demonstrating the power of technology to transform communication channels, media sources, events, and the fundamental nature of journalism. Technological advances now allow citizens to record and instantly publicize information and images for immediate distribution on ubiquitous communication networks using social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube. These technologies are enabling non-journalists to become “citizen reporters” (also known as “citizen journalists”), who record and report information over informal networks or via traditional mass media channels. Against the background of media repression in Nigeria, the article reports on a study that examined the impacts of technology on the journalism business as a way of understanding how citizen-reporters impact the journalism business in Nigeria. Specifically, the focus of the study was on Nigerian citizen-reporters (bloggers, social media, online news, and online discussion groups), their roles, and the impacts on Nigeria’s political struggle, free press, and free speech.

The Digital Turn

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-36
Author(s):  
Sarah Esther Lageson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Competing Values ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Criminal Records ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Justice Processing

Recent decades have witnessed a digital turn in criminal justice processing that has contributed to the creation and dissemination of millions of criminal records per year, impacting both criminal justice workers and those processed by the system. Current US law has allowed for the public dissemination of these records, emphasizing free speech and transparency over other competing values, such as due process, privacy, or liberty. The turn toward digital disclosure of criminal justice information has outpaced thoughtful discussions about balancing privacy rights and the notion of public interest that the courts have developed during the past century. It is certainly in the public interest to have access to the workings of the police, courts, and prisons—it is a fundamental way that citizens can keep an eye on these powerful institutions. However, these core transparency values are being used for a different, entrepreneurial purpose since criminal records have become a commodified good.

Press Subsidies

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mart Ots ◽  
Robert G. Picard
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Policy Initiative ◽  
State Support ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Fourth Estate ◽  
The World ◽  
Production And Distribution ◽  
Social Media Platforms

Due to its function as a watchdog or fourth estate in democratic societies and a variety of commercial challenges, policy-makers have undertaken initiatives to support the production and distribution of news. Press subsidies are one such policy initiative that particularly aims to provide support to private news producers. Paid as direct cash handouts or indirect reduced taxes and fees, they exist in some form in almost every country in the world. Subsidies are not uncontroversial, their effectiveness is unclear, and their magnitude, designs, and areas of application, differ across nations and their unique economic, cultural, and political contexts. After periods of declining political and public interest in media subsidies, the recent economic crisis of journalism, and the rising influence of various forms of click-bait, fake, native, or biased news on social media platforms, has brought state support of original journalism back on the agenda.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document