Advertisement

Online Content Control, Memory and Community Isolation

  • Artur de Matos Alves
Chapter

Abstract

Artur Alves discusses a 2011 defamation case against a Portuguese online community and association of precarious workers (Precários Inflexíveis). He argues that prospects for a strengthening of community cannot overlook the facts of contemporary life at the margins—connectivity without leisure, work without security, presence without sense of belonging. If community-building and identity-sharing move online to overcome these dilemmas, socio-technological systems should be revised so as to not hinder the prospects of a more open and plural public life.

Keywords

Online Community Social Networking Service Precarious Worker Content Control Transparency Report 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the representatives of the Precários Inflexíveis association for their answers to queries.

References

  1. Abah, A. L. (2008). Trends in international internet defamation suits targeting a solution? International Communication Gazette, 70(6), 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barney, D. (2004). The vanishing table, or community in a world that is no world. In A. Feenberg & D. D. Barney (Eds.), Community in the digital age: Philosophy and practice (pp. 31–52). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, W. (2003). Communicating global activism. Information, Communication, & Society, 6(2), 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkley, D. S. (2006). Recent developments in internet defamation law. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 5(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castells, M. (2004). The power of identity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Castells, M. (2009a). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Castells, M. (2009b). The rise of the network society (Vol. 1–3, 2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan, G. K. (2013). Corporate defamation: Reputation, rights and remedies. Legal Studies, 33(2), 264–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, S. (2004). The network-empowered citizen. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Costello, P. R. (2014). Toward a phenomenology of community: Stein and Nancy. Emotion, Space and Society. doi: 10.1016/j.emospa.2013.12.005.Google Scholar
  12. Couldry, N. (2014). The myth of ‘us’: digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication, & Society, 1–19.Google Scholar
  13. Deibert, R. J. (2003). Black code: Censorship, surveillance, and the militarisation of cyberspace. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 32(3), 501–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deibert, R. J., Palfrey, J. G., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (Eds.) (2008). Access denied: The practice and policy of global internet filtering. Cambridge MA/London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deibert, R. J., Palfrey, J. G., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (Eds.) (2010). Access controlled: The shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace. Cambridge MA/London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. DeNardis, L. (2012). Hidden levers of internet control: An infrastructure-based theory of Internet governance. Information, Communication, & Society, 15(5), 720–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donk, W. B. H. J. V. D., Loader, B. D., Nixon, P. G., & Rucht, D. (Eds.) (2004). Cyberprotest: New media, citizens, and social movements. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Dutton, W., Dopatka, A., Hills, M., Law, G., & Nash, V. (2011). Freedom of connection-freedom of expression: The changing legal and regulatory ecology shaping the internet. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved March 11, 2013, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1654464
  19. Dutton, W. H. (2013). The internet and democrat accountability: The rise of the fifth estate. In F. L. F. Lee, L. Leung, J. L. Qiu, & D. S. C. Chu (Eds.), Frontiers in new media research (pp. 39–51). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change activism in the internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elgesem, D. (2008). Search engines and the public use of reason. Ethics and Information Technology, 10(4), 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Etzioni, A. (2004). On virtual, democratic communities. In A. Feenberg & D. D. Barney (Eds.), Community in the digital age: Philosophy and practice (pp. 225–238). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  23. European Digital Rights. (2012, November 21). Portuguese blog taken down by Google for unknown reasons. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.edri.org/book/export/html/3142
  24. European Union Court of Justice. (2014, May 13). ARRÊT DE LA COUR (grande chambre) Dans l’affaire C-131/12. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=FR&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=152065&occ=first&dir=&cid=411047
  25. Faria, N. (2012, May 22). Tribunal determina suspensão de comentários no blogue dos Precários Inflexíveis. Público Online. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.publico.pt/n1547182
  26. Feenberg, A., & Bakardjieva, M. (2004). Consumers or citizens? The online community debate. In A. Feenberg & D. Barney (Eds.), Community in the digital age: Philosophy and practice (pp. 1–28). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  27. Flichy, P. (2004). L’individualisme connecté entre la technique numérique et la société. Réseaux, 124(2), 17–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Google (2014). Google transparency report. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/
  29. Greenslade, R. (2014, October 20). 23% increase in defamation actions as social media claims rise. The Guardian. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/oct/20/medialaw-social-media?CMP=twt_gu
  30. Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  31. Gutman, Y., Brown, A. D., & Sodaro, A. (Eds.) (2010). Memory and the future: Transnational politics, ethics and society. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Hands, J. (2011). @ is for activism dissent, resistance and rebellion in a digital culture. London and New York, NY: Pluto.Google Scholar
  33. Hick, S., Halpin, E. F., & Hoskins, E. (Eds.) (2000). Human rights and the internet. Basingstoke/London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hofmann, M., Reitman, R., & John, C. (2012). 2012: When the government comes knocking, who has your back?—The electronic frontier foundation’s second annual report on online service providers’ privacy and transparency practices regarding government access to user data (p. 15). Electronic Frontier Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. Hoskins, A. (2009). The mediatisation of memory. In J. Garde-Hansen, A. Hoskins, & A. Reading (Eds.), Save as… digital memories (pp. 27–43). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joyce, M. (Ed.) (2010a). Digital activism decoded the new mechanics of change. New York: International Debate Education Association.Google Scholar
  39. Joyce, M. (2010b). Introduction: How to think about digital activism. In Digital activism decoded: The new mechanics of change (pp. 1–14). New York: International Debate Education Association.Google Scholar
  40. Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2004). New media and internet activism: From the ‘battle of Seattle’ to blogging. New Media & Society, 6(1), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karatzogianni, A., & Gak, M. (2015). Hack or be hacked: The quasi-totalitarianism of global trusted networks. New Formations (84/85).Google Scholar
  42. Klang, M. (2006). Virtual censorship: Controlling the public sphere. In J. Berleur, M. I. Nurminen, & J. Impagliazzo (Eds.), Social informatics: An information society for all? In remembrance of Rob Kling. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing (pp. 185–194). Springer US.Google Scholar
  43. Kohl, U. (2012). The rise and rise of online intermediaries in the governance of the Internet and beyond—Connectivity intermediaries. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 26(2–3), 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kohl, U. (2013). Google: The rise and rise of online intermediaries in the governance of the Internet and beyond (Part 2). International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 21(2), 187–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liebman, J. M. (2006). Defamed by a blogger: Legal protections, self-regulation and other failures. U. Ill. JL Tech. & Pol’y, 343.Google Scholar
  46. Martins, C. F. (2012, November 15). Blogue dos Precários Inflexíveis bloqueado desde quarta-feira. Público Online. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.publico.pt/n1572616
  47. Matos, P. (2012). Call center labor and the injured precariat: Shame, stigma, and downward social mobility in contemporary Portugal. Dialectical Anthropology, 36(3–4), 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCaughey, M., & Ayers, M. D. (Eds.) (2003). Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Mendel, T. (2011). Mapping digital media: Online media and defamation. Reference Series. Cambridge: Open Society Foundation.Google Scholar
  50. Mendel, T., Puddephatt, A., Wagner, B., Hawtin, D., & Torres, N. (2012). Global survey on internet privacy and freedom of expression. UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  51. Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we blog. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Precários Inflexíveis. (2011, May 10). Testemunho: AXES Market. Precários Inflexíveis. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from http://www.precariosinflexiveis.org/2011/05/testemunho-axes-market.html
  53. Precários Inflexíveis. (2012, December 1). Blog dos Precários Reabre—defenderemos sempre os trabalhadores e não aceitamos que nos censurem! Precários Inflexíveis. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.precariosinflexiveis.org/?p=4048
  54. Precários Inflexíveis. (2013, March 26). Testemunhos. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.precariosinflexiveis.org/?cat=13
  55. Precários Inflexíveis. (n.d.). Estatutos da Associação de Combate à Precariedade—Precários Inflexíveis. Retrieved November 19, 2014, from https://doc-08-28-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/hu5o7d5vf3klcblii6uf3880cof7o73g/1416427200000/09708517329687333748/*/0B4rUxvOVeEgxVzM0aTgyVHNKTG8?e=download
  56. Reporters Without Borders (2012). Internet enemies report 2012. Paris: Reporters Without Borders.Google Scholar
  57. Reporters Without Borders (2013). Enemies of the Internet 2013 report—Special edition: Surveillance. Paris: Reporters Without Borders.Google Scholar
  58. Reporters Without Borders (2014). Enemies of the Internet 2014 report. Paris: Reporters Without Borders.Google Scholar
  59. Salter, L. (2003). Democracy, new social movements, and the internet. In Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice (pp. 117–144). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Soares, M. (2012, November 6). Tribunal anula decisão de ocultar comentários no blogue dos Precários Inflexíveis. Público Online. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.publico.pt/n1570325
  61. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  62. Townend, J. (2014). Online chilling effects in England and Wales. Internet Policy Review, 3(2). doi: 10.14763/2014.2.252.
  63. Travis, A., & Arthur, C. (2014, May 13). EU court backs ‘right to be forgotten’: Google must amend results on request. The Guardian. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/13/right-to-be-forgotten-eu-court-google-search-results
  64. UNESCO (2014). World trends in freedom of expression and media development. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  65. Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., de Diaz, I. I., & Miyata, K. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3).Google Scholar
  66. Zuckerman, E. (2010). Intermediary censorship. In R. J. Deibert, J. Palfrey, R. Rohozinski, & J. Zittrain (Eds.), Access controlled (pp. 71–85). Cambridge MA/London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Artur de Matos Alves
    • 1
  1. 1.Concordia UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations