Women Are Like That’

‘All Women Are Like That’

Men Going Their Own Way: Understanding the Interplay Between Online Platforms and Counterpublic Dynamics Emma Aler

Master’s Thesis, 30 Credits

Master’s Programme in Political Science, Autumn Term 2020

Uppsala University, Department of Government

Supervisor: Malin Holm

Word count: 19 961

Abstract

This thesis examines the role of online platforms in relation to anti-progressive counterpublic dynamics. Counterpublics are understood as alternative discursive arenas that form in response to exclusion from the wider public sphere. The relevance of counterpublics derives both from their ability to influence mainstream political discourse and from how anti-progressive counterpublics have been found to contribute to real-life violence. As the internet becomes an increasingly important venue for political discussion and contestation, the public sphere is extended online. This study explores how platforms can be seen as enabling (or constraining) the dual function of online counterpublics, i.e. as both inward and outward-oriented in relation to opposing publics, by examining the anti-feminist online community known as “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW). The role of platforms is understood in terms of platform affordances, and netnographic methods were used to study these in relation to two online platforms. The results show that the two platforms presented different opportunities for the MGTOW counterpublic to some extent, suggesting that this counterpublic is able to utilise platforms for different purposes. Twitter was found to be particularly suitable for the outward- oriented function, i.e. for interacting with and opposing other publics, while mgtow.com was shown to be fertile ground for the inward-oriented function, and in that sense enabled contact between members in a way that contributed to the development of anti-progressive counterdiscourse.

Key words: counterpublics, online platforms, platform affordances, netnography, public sphere, anti-feminism

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Introduction ...... 1 Aim and Research Question ...... 3 Thesis Outline ...... 4 Previous Research...... 5 The Internet as a Public Sphere? ...... 5 The Manosphere ...... 6 Men Going Their Own Way ...... 9 Theory ...... 11 (Non-)Subaltern Counterpublics: Anti-Progressive Struggles ...... 11 Platform Affordances ...... 14 The Affordances of Association, Anonymity and Extreme Public Expression ...... 16 Analytical Framework ...... 19 First Function ...... 20 Counterdiscourse Formation ...... 20 Second Function ...... 22 Targeting Opposing Publics ...... 22 Counterdiscourse Formation in Relation to Opposing Publics ...... 23 Netnography ...... 26 Material ...... 27 Case Selection ...... 29 Ethical Considerations ...... 31 Analysis ...... 33 The First Function: Inward-Oriented Activities ...... 34 Counterdiscourse Formation ...... 34 The Second Function: Outward-Oriented Activities ...... 40 Targeting Opposing Publics ...... 40 Counterdiscourse Formation in Relation to Opposing Publics ...... 43 Concluding Discussion ...... 47 References ...... 51

iii

Introduction

The struggle between feminists and anti-feminists, or Men’s Rights Activists (MRA’s), has drawn a lot of attention in recent years. With the emergence of social media platforms, this “culture war” has spread to most corners of the internet. Online MRA communities are often associated with online harassment, usually directed towards women and feminists (Van Valkenburg 2018). However, there have also been instances of “real-life” violence derived from anti-feminist mobilisation, as exemplified by “Gamergate” and the “Isla Vista-shootings” (Gray et al. 2017; Rodger 2014; Van Valkenburg 2018, p. 2). Together, these communities are often referred to as the “Manosphere”. The Manosphere contains several different communities that all have their roots in the MRA movement, despite otherwise having somewhat different philosophies and goals. It can be found all across the internet and on an array of different platforms. Importantly, previous studies of online-based movements have highlighted how the internet as a platform for social mobilisation presents new opportunities for equal participation in political discourse (Lindgren 2017). However, certain platforms have been shown to instead enable the development of anti-progressive communities, such as the ones found in the Manosphere (see Holm 2019; Massanari 2017). As more political discourse takes place online, we need to understand the workings of anti-progressive communities which otherwise risk becoming a hotbed for extremism.

A way of understanding these online social communities is as counterpublics; as social and discursive entities competing for power and influence in the online sphere. Counterpublics are understood in relation to the wider concept of the public sphere (as described by Habermas, 1989), as important spaces for the formation of alternative political discourse1 (Fraser 1990). It is used to describe how new discursive entities have developed within the public sphere, as a response to exclusion from “mainstream” publics (Asen 2000, p. 424). With the internet and online platforms becoming increasingly important political venues, the public sphere has been extended online. The function of counterpublics is twofold: As venues for formulating counterdiscourses, and as spaces from which other publics can be targeted. Studies of counterpublics have up until recently been focused on marginalised or oppressed groups, that strive for progression and equality. In this sense, progressive counterpublics have functioned

1 Discourse is here understood as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world” (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002, p. 9).

1 as spaces for political innovation and mobilisation. Although online platforms have given new opportunities for open discussion and inclusion, we also see how anti-progressive communities such as the Manosphere become more influential in these spaces. We therefore need to explore both how anti-progressive groups are targeting mainstream discourse in online spaces, and how online platforms affect anti-progressive discourses and thus possibly provide the opportunities for these to grow and be sustained.

There are thus both empirical and theoretical justifications for studying different parts of the Manosphere as counterpublics. The Manosphere is, despite its relative size and importance, fairly understudied. The increasingly hostile and violent misogynistic discourse of the Manosphere has been shown to not only shape the beliefs of its members, but to have had very real consequences for women who have been targets of threats, harassment and acts of violence both online and offline (see e.g. Gray et al. 2017). These developments call for the need to study the Manosphere further. Similarly, it has been instrumental for discourses of men’s rights, anti-feminism and masculinity, which has been developing as a response to the progression of gender equality and changing gender roles and norms in recent years (see Alani et al. 2019; Ging 2019; Marwick and Caplan 2018; Van Valkenburgh 2018).

This thesis is hence interested in how the dual function of counterpublics is affected by online platforms, specifically exploring how platforms can be said to enable or constrain dynamics within counterpublics. The aim is to provide novel perspectives in relation to previous research, by studying these dynamics within one community and comparing its presence on two different online platforms. This relation is usually understood through the concept of platform affordances (see Holm 2019, Hutchby 2001, Massanari 2017). Platform affordances either enable or constrain certain behaviour in relation to a specific platform. As previous research has shown that certain platforms are favourable environments for anti-progressive counterpublics (see e.g. Massanari 2017), this should be investigated further. However, studies of counterpublics have mostly been focused on subaltern or marginalised groups, which form in response to exclusion from the wider public sphere. The focus for this thesis is however on how counterpublics might form as a consequence of perceived exclusion rather than an actual subaltern position in relation to dominant publics (Asen 2000)2. There is a small but growing number of studies concerned with counterpublics in online environments, mostly focused on

2 Understood as non-subaltern counterpublics (Holm 2019).

2 progressive communities (e.g. boyd 2010; Salter 2018; Travers 2003), while only a few have studied anti-progressive counterpublics (see Holm 2019; Törnberg & Wahlström 2018). Studies of the Manosphere have mostly focused on understanding how masculinities are constructed in this context (see e.g. Banet-Weiser & Miltner 2016; Ging 2019; Marwick & Caplan 2018; Van Valkenburgh 2018), as well as how different communities within the wider Manosphere have formed a common identity (see e.g. Burgess & Matamoros-Fernández 2018; Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020). However, we need to learn more how platform affordances affect counterpublic dynamics, if we are to understand how these publics increase their influence on online platforms.

The analysis will be focused on a specific Manosphere counterpublic with an anti-progressive and anti-feminist agenda, namely “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW). MGTOW is a group dedicated to avoiding all relationships (or even general contact) with women as a reaction to what they believe is the “gynocentric” world order. The group is understood as privileged3 in relation to the publics that they oppose. This is motivated by how members describe their own situation and status, which is usually as heterosexual, well-educated and with material and monetary resources (which will be elaborated upon below). While there have been a few studies that have specifically studied the MGTOW community, these have been focused on either mapping the content of discussions through quantitative methods or using textual analysis to look more closely at a single platform, rather than how it functions as a counterpublic. This study can therefore hopefully contribute with a small piece to the puzzle of how online environments affect non-equitable discourses, and how we can see counterpublics as spaces for anti-progressive discursive formation as well as progressive.

Aim and Research Question

The aim of this thesis is to explore the role of platforms in mediating counterpublic dynamics. This thesis does not seek to make causal claims, but to study behaviour and actions in relation to, and in the context of the platforms. The analysis will be focused on the MGTOW community, understood as a part of the so-called “Manosphere”. The relevance of this case stems primarily from links between the Manosphere and real-life violence, and the importance

3 Privilege is understood as having “social, economic, cultural, and political advantages” which others are denied, as a consequence of social structures shaping norms and ideals in terms of social grouping (Sparks 2020).

3 of online political discourse for the public sphere (see Dahlgren 2005; Paparacharissi 2002). The study is further motivated by how certain online platforms have been shown to provide support for already privileged groups, such as different Manosphere communities, as a consequence of their design (see Holm 2019; Massanari 2017). The overarching research question is therefore: How do platform affordances enable (or constrain) the dual function of online counterpublics with anti-progressive agendas?

The emerging field concerned with anti-progressive counterpublics has so far been dominated by in-depth case studies. Subsequently, comparisons across platforms have been few. MGTOW will therefore be studied in relation to two different online platforms. The purpose of this is to further explore how platform affordances affect the dual function of counterpublics, i.e. as both outward- and inward-oriented discursive spaces. Two different platforms have been selected for analysis: Twitter and the “official” MGTOW website (mgtow.com). Finally, the analysis will be conducted using netnography (Kozinets 2010), which can provide us with novel perspectives of the relationship between online platforms and political discourse, considering that this is not a method that is commonly used in political science. Thematic analysis is then used to sort and categorise the material in accordance with the analytical framework, which will be presented below.

Thesis Outline

The structure of this thesis is as follows: Firstly, previous research of relevance to this study is presented and discussed, focusing on studies of the Manosphere. A theoretical overview is then presented, where the concepts of the public sphere, counterpublic theory and platform affordances are introduced. This section is concluded with an analytical framework, which serves as the basis for the analysis. This is followed by a section devoted to research design, with a discussion on method, material, case selection and ethical considerations. The analysis is then presented, where each counterpublic function is examined in relation to theoretically and empirically relevant platform affordances. Finally, there will be a concluding discussion where the findings are reflected upon in terms of how they contribute to the field.

Previous Research

This section provides an overview of previous research concerning the Manosphere as a whole, and MGTOW in particular. We have enough knowledge about how the internet can facilitate social movements, to say that digital tools such as platforms can contribute to political change (Lindgren 2017, p. 182). Research on online movements have thus become more common and generally accepted (Kozinets 2010, pp. 1-3). Studies of online counterpublics have been focused on marginalised and progressive groups, who utilise online platforms to forward their agenda and formulate counterdiscourses (see e.g. Kuo 2018; Salter 2013; Travers 2003). Anti- progressive and extreme right movements, such as the ”alt-right” movement, have also been shown to successfully mobilise on these platforms (see e.g. Hawley 2017; Nagle 2017; Törnberg and Wahlström 2018). However, specifically anti-feminist counterpublics need to be researched further. We can see from events such as “Gamergate” and the Isla Vista shootings that what happens within the online anti-feminist community can have great implications for the political discourse outside of it, as well as contributing to real-life violence. Therefore, this section will begin with a discussion of the internet as a venue for political discussion. A description of the Manosphere will follow, which provides the context for understanding MGTOW as a community. This section will also discuss how previous research has dealt with studying different parts of the Manosphere.

The Internet as a Public Sphere?

When it was first introduced, the internet had the potential to “revolutionize most areas of social life”, (ibid., p. 46) and evidence suggests that this in many ways came true. The internet would enable free political discussion, by facilitating connections and inclusive discussion (Daniels 2009, p. 46). Optimists even hypothesized that since online communication would lower thresholds for political participation, this would facilitate the development of a “global democracy” of sorts (Papacharissi 2002, p. 10). Nonetheless, the prospects for the internet to become an inclusive and democratic arena for discussion now looks somewhat different (Lindgren 2017, p. 46). Papacharissi (2002, p. 10) points to the number of political groups and activists online, showing that the internet undoubtedly is a very political space. Easy access to information and possibilities to engage with people on the other side of the globe have certainly enabled political discussion. However, the fact that these opportunities exist does not necessarily ensure greater, or more equitable, political activity (ibid., p. 15). We can now see

5 that cyberspace is becoming increasingly fragmented, resulting in more interconnected, but not necessarily more diverse, communities. Others have questioned how genuine online political activism really is, compared to more traditional forms of engagement (ibid., p. 17). Nonetheless, Dahlgren (2005) points to the role of the internet in facilitating and reinforcing offline political engagement.

Lindgren (2017) further argues that although digital spaces were initially thought of as something separate from everyday life, they have now become embedded with our lives, to the extent that we can fully understand them only when seen in the context of “offline” realities. Importantly, digital platforms will also signify different things depending on the people, groups or social movements that uses them (p. 266). In that sense, it is of great interest to political science, as well as other fields, to explore the ways in which the internet functions as a public sphere. We have seen that the internet has become a place for non-egalitarian groups as well as progressive ones to contest dominant discourses, making it crucial to understand how online environments affect counterpublics. The Manosphere is particularly relevant in relation to the development of anti-progressive online communities, which will be discussed further in the next section.

The Manosphere

When looking at the loosely connected community that constitutes online anti-feminism, the Manosphere seems to be the epicentre. The Manosphere is therefore of interest for this analysis, or rather, the MGTOW counterpublic as part of this larger community. This corner of the internet contains a number of online anti-feminist communities with some important ideological similarities (see e.g. Alani et al. 2019; Marwick and Caplan 2018). MRAs, Incels, gamergaters, pickup artists and MGTOW are all groups who have found commonality within this space. Although there are now a growing number of studies focusing on the Manosphere, our understanding of it is still relatively limited. Nevertheless, the Manosphere is important to understand both from a theoretical and an empirical standpoint. Most of the ideas behind the “philosophies” and ideas found in the Manosphere originate from the MRA community or the “Men’s Liberation” movement. Initially a continuation of the feminist movement, scholars in this field pointed to how men also could be negatively affected by a patriarchal society. The focus was on drafting requirements, unequal child support legislation and the dangers of traditional masculinity norms (Marwick and Caplan 2018, p. 546). While these ideas are still

6 central to the movement today, most contemporary MRA’s are both anti-feminist and pro- men’s liberation and have therefore abandoned some of these ideas (Alani et al. 2019). This movement is described by Marwick and Caplan (ibid.) as “a reaction to diminishing social status of cisgender white men, and the emergence of feminist and multicultural activism as a mainstream political force”. “The Red Pill” (TRP) is an idea shared by most communities in the Manosphere, but also a movement in itself – “Taking the red pill” signifies waking up to the evils of society, which is an idea borrowed from the film “The Matrix”. Saying that someone is “Blue Pilled” on the other hand means that you are unaware of this “truth”. In the Manosphere, this often means realising how feminism has given women power over men, and that women are not in fact discriminated against in modern society (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020).

Recent studies have shown that misogyny, violence and hostility against women are prevalent throughout the Manosphere. Alani et al. (2019) studied patterns of language and ideas across several communities on Reddit that are considered a part of the Manosphere. Their study shows an increase in misogynistic attitudes and that hostility and violence are directed towards women to an increasing extent. Their findings further suggest that violent rhetoric often appears together with expressions of misogyny. Certain elements of the Manosphere have been connected to instances of real-life violence. The misogynistic jargon within this community has been shown to normalise anti-women sentiments and even serve to radicalise some of its members, why it is important to understand the community better. An example that is often mentioned is that of Isla Vista mass-shooter Elliot Rodger, who accredited his radicalisation and misogynist beliefs to Manosphere websites. According to his manifesto, the killings were motivated by his own disappointment in his sexual endeavours and his hatred towards women (Rodger 2014; Van Valkenburg 2018, p. 2). Kimmel (2013) describes the anger that can be felt by groups in a privileged position, when they experience external threats to that position, with the term aggrieved entitlement. This can be understood as something which is fuelling toxicity in certain contexts. Kimmel describes the sense of anger that is felt when something thought of as a “God-given right” is taken away. His study is focused on the American context, in which many men today feel threatened by the successes of feminism and equality, in the sense that they are seeing their own privileges disappearing. This in turn fuels a “politically motivated anger”, the results of which can be seen in the growing men’s rights movement, and in politically motivated shootings and violence (ibid., p. 26). Kimmel writes: “the game has changed, but instead of questioning the rules, they want to eliminate the other players” (p. 15).

He describes men’s violence against women as restorative, or as a way of expressing power. This violence seems to be fuelled by a sense of loss and vulnerability. If it is a man’s right to have a relationship with a woman, using violence as a way of protecting that right might seem legitimate (pp. 169-177). The Manosphere can be interpreted as a result of how this violence is legitimised within anti-feminist communities.

There are a few groups within the Manosphere that have been studied before. The Gamergate controversy has been studied as an example of how online discourse can have an impact on “offline” realities. For example, Gray et al. (2017, pp. 1-2) focuses on the real-life violence that women and other marginalised groups experience in the gaming community, and how it has been normalised through a structural and institutional “culture of inequality” with its most notable peak in the events of Gamergate in 2014. Gamergate has been described as a hate campaign against women in the gaming industry. The movement that developed from the Gamergate controversy represents how for a long time, this male-dominated space has fostered a normalisation of different kinds of violence against women in games, to such an extent that it has triggered violence against women in real life. Specifically, Gray et al. points to the symbolic violence that women in gaming are frequently exposed to, for example in the form of doxing (having personal information published online without one’s consent), rape and death threats, and threats of violence. Gamergate is an example of how online anti-feminist discourse can have “real-life” consequences, and other communities and groups have been studied in similar ways. Massanari (2017, p. 330) poses the question of how the affordances of a specific platform, i.e. Reddit, enable anti-feminist activism, arguing that the ways in which it is designed and managed support already privileged groups (usually white, young, cis-gendered, heterosexual men). Using two cases of “toxic technocultures”, Gamergate and “The Fappening”, Massanari shows through ethnographic study and observation how these communities could grow and be sustained on Reddit as a result of the platform’s specific affordances. Reddit’s design, the logic behind its algorithm, the way it is governed and administered to ensure that it is a “neutral” platform for discussion, and the lack of intervention by administrators is shown to have been instrumental in the development of these publics (ibid., pp. 341-342). Furthermore, Ging (2019, p. 644) looks specifically at constructions of masculinities across the Manosphere. Her results suggest a prevalence of hybrid masculinities, that are united in a dissatisfaction with the successes of feminism. Next, Van Valkenburg (2018) uses critical textual analysis to study the r/TRP subreddit, which has become a central part of the Manosphere, and finds that this community favours a “scientific rationality”.

Women’s (and men’s) sexual behaviour is understood through biology or genetic determinism, explaining why some men are favoured as partners over others. Men are thought of as either “alpha” or “beta”-male. A central idea is that women are only interested in having sexual relations with alpha males, while beta males are the ones chosen for procreation and marriage. As we can see, misogyny and sexism are prevalent themes within the Manosphere. We have seen that this can have an impact on “real-life” events and that these communities can be expected to influence the general political discussion online, making it particularly relevant to study Manosphere communities as counterpublics to understand how they contest mainstream discourses. Next, the MGTOW counterpublic, which is the focus of this study, will be more closely examined.

Men Going Their Own Way

This thesis will be focused on a particular community within the Manosphere, namely “Men Going Their Own Way”. Understood by most as a more recent phenomenon that emerged from online MRA and TRP contexts, MGTOW presents itself as a movement which can be traced back far in history: “Way back to Schopenhauer, Tesla, Beethoven, Galileo, or even Jesus Christ” according to the website mgtow.com, which has become a central platform. The act of “going your own way” is described as something that successful men have done for centuries, making its current form but a continuation of this. Interestingly, this website is very different from Reddit and other similar platforms where Manosphere communities are active. The colour scheme is dark and the “home page” contains images of famous men that supposedly represent the MGTOW movement. MGTOW is a group dedicated to avoiding all relationships (or even general contact) with women as a reaction to what they believe is the “gynocentric” world order. Their beliefs are based on the idea that modern society is constructed to the unfair advantage of women, resulting in men rather than women being oppressed as a group (O’Donnell 2020, p. 655). This movement has been understood as a backlash against the successes of feminism (Gotell and Dutton 2016). According to this philosophy, men and masculinity are under attack from the left and its political correctness, in a way that threatens Western society as a whole (O’Donnell 2020, p. 655). Visitors to mgtow.com are greeted by the following message: “There has been an awakening. Changing the world. One man at a time”, as to signify waking up to “the truth” about how society is constructed. This message seems to lie at the heart of the community.

A few studies have focused solely on the MGTOW community, mostly investigating their discursive practices and processes of identity-building. Jones, Trott, and Wright (2019) conducted a content and thematic analysis of a large number of posts by three “key users” on Twitter. They find that MGTOW relies on a jargon and belief system that is to a large extent based on “toxic masculinity” and misogyny (ibid., p. 1917). A majority of posts that mention women are hateful, often describing women as gold diggers, sluts or liars, suggesting a misogynistic ideology with ties to “toxic masculinity”. Most of these posts are examples of passive harassment, which serves to create a sense of commonality between members of the group through the normalisation of misogyny and sexism. The study by Jones, Trott, and Wright from 2020 (p. 908) focuses on communitarian behaviour in the forum on the MGTOW- website. They find that most discussions are focused on either women or the nature of the group itself. Most users have adopted an openly misogynist rhetoric. Focus was hence on defining their ideology and rationalising it on both an individual and group level, through discussions of how to properly “go your own way”, or stories of how women have betrayed or cheated members of the community. This storytelling is used to convey how or why one has become “red pilled” and decided to join the community. Femininity is usually framed as a threat to masculinity, and these are seen as opposing one another. Gender is furthermore discussed in essentialist terms, and this view is often rationalised by references to science, technology, philosophy or religion (ibid., p. 920).

From other studies, we understand the concept of “alpha” and “beta” males, which also can be found in the MGTOW community. This is the idea that since women only are sexually interested in “alpha” men, a marriage with a “beta” man will more often than not result in a divorce where he is stripped of his financial assets (Ging 2019, p. 650). The concept of alpha and beta men seems to have originated from the PUA community but has now been widely adopted throughout the Manosphere. Interestingly, in the MGTOW community, Incels and MRA’s are often referred to as beta male while MGTOWs are rather seen as “normal” men. Nevertheless, their experiences with women have led them to subsequently become “red pilled” (ibid.). While undoubtedly similar, MGTOW seems to have developed a distinct understanding of masculinity which separates them from other groups in the Manosphere (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020, p. 1904-5).

Apart from the studies described above, we know very little about MGTOW and how it can be understood as a counterpublic. The studies above have been focused on ideology and rhetoric,

10 but we have limited knowledge about how they use different platforms, or what role different platforms have in terms of discourse. With these studies as a starting point, this analysis will therefore explore this further. In previous studies, some future areas for research are mentioned, such as cross-platform comparison, and further studies of ideology and motivations behind MGTOW. It is specifically mentioned by Jones, Trott and Wright (2020, p. 922) that future research could benefit from studying interactions between this and different publics on other platforms. The aim of this research has therefore been formulated with this perspective as a starting point.

Theory

The following section is devoted to a theoretical overview, representing a framework which will be used to guide and structure the analysis, as well as putting it in relation to central issues in the field of publics and affordances. Firstly, there will be a review of counterpublic theory. Following this, there will be a discussion of the role of platform affordances in relation to online communities.

(Non-)Subaltern Counterpublics: Anti-Progressive Struggles

The concept of the public sphere was introduced by Jürgen Habermas in his seminal work from 1989, to explain the workings of public opinion in Western representative democracy. Habermas described the public sphere as “private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state” (p. 176). The function of the public sphere was scrutinising political decision-making and ensuring that public opinion was heard by politicians and the like. Habermas’ public sphere was that of the 18th century bourgeoisie, but what constitutes a public in modern society has been widely debated, and scholars have since both criticized and developed his ideas. Warner (2002, pp. 49-50) suggests three options: A public can either be seen as a “social totality”, meaning a specific group belonging to some kind of community, such as the population of a state or a city. A public can also be understood as a concrete and visible audience or crowd. Finally, a public can exist purely in relation to a text, as a space of discourse. When looking at online behaviour, Warner’s categories become somewhat tricky to distinguish between. With new technologies, we gain tools and information that can change the ways in which we engage in political conversation (Papacharissi 2002, p.

10). However, understanding an online public as either a “social totality” or as a space of discourse might be helpful. As new modes of communication develop, we must consider the concept of the public sphere in novel contexts.

One of those criticising Habermas’ public sphere was Nancy Fraser, who expanded on the idea by claiming that there in fact are multiple public spheres, rather than just one. She coined the term subaltern counterpublic to explain how there are non-liberal spheres in conflict with the liberal public sphere, something which was not considered by Habermas (1990, p. 62). Asen (2000, pp. 425-427) also calls for a recognition of social complexity in our theorising of the public sphere, building on Foucauldian ideas of discourse as a mediator of power. Members of counterpublics would seek alternative discursive practices, in response to exclusion from “wider” public spheres. Fraser (1990, pp. 61-62) stated that counterpublics have developed as a result of the exclusionary nature of the liberal public sphere. For example, how women who have been excluded from the public sphere, on the basis of their gender, instead have resorted to “spheres of domesticity and motherhood” as a discursive arena. Other historically marginalised groups have similarly resorted to other “private” arenas. Because these alternative publics are constituted by marginalised groups, Fraser proposed to label them subaltern counterpublics (ibid., p. 67). She argued that there not only are many competing public spheres, with a plethora of competing interests, but that this is desirable in an egalitarian society (ibid., pp. 69-70). Subaltern counterpublics can hence function as a place for subordinated groups to mobilise and contest dominant discourses or power structures (Holm 2019, p. 19). As a venue of contestation, their function is usually twofold. By using outward-oriented activities, they can attempt to target or influence dominant publics, to compete with dominant discourses and try to contest them (Fraser 1990, p. 68), often in public spaces where there is possibility for interaction across publics (Holm 2019, p. 19). Inward-oriented aspects of the counterpublic are on the other hand used as “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (Fraser 1990, p. 67). We will return to the twofold function of counterpublics in the analytical framework.

Recent studies have suggested that the concept of subaltern counterpublic is too narrow, in that it does not fully encompass the variety of counterpublics. Holm (2019, p. 39) states that focus has mostly been on studying “progressive” counterpublics, constituted by historically marginalised groups, and their struggle in relation to dominant publics. Holm and others are

12 now putting focus on privileged groups and how they work to maintain power. Specifically, her study shows how an anti-progressive counterpublic utilises online platforms, to forward a political agenda which supports their already privileged position. The concept of non-subaltern counterpublic has been proposed by Holm (ibid.) as useful for understanding these dynamics. By doing this, we focus more on how counterpublics can perceive subordination in relation to dominant publics, as Asen (2000, p. 427) has argued, allowing for analysis of non-subaltern and anti-progressive publics which will be the focus for this thesis. Nonetheless, the term non- subaltern does not merely suggest that a specific group experiences subordination when they in fact are not in such a position relative to other groups, but it is used to describe a public which is in actuality in a position of privilege.

Non-subaltern, anti-progressive counterpublics might however be excluded from dominant or mainstream publics due to political incompatibilities. Holm argues that the relevance of including and studying these as counterpublics lies in how privilege is reproduced and thus used to target or challenge dominant publics (2019, p. 13). Although counterpublics associated with MRA and the Manosphere would rather state that women (and feminists) are the ones in power in modern society (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020, p. 1918), it is still relevant for this analysis to consider their structural privilege as men in a patriarchal society. From previous research we also know that certain online environments support a specific kind of toxic masculinity, meaning that male privilege is specifically reproduced in this context (Massanari 2017).

This study aims to contribute to our understanding of how privileged groups act in relation to dominant discourses that they perceive as threatening to their position. In this way, our interest lies in how anti-progressive counterpublics are contesting mainstream discourses as a way of maintaining or defending their privilege. We understand their process of contestation as having two sides, consisting of actions that are either inward - or outward-oriented. How anti- progressive counterpublics dynamics function in an online environment is of special interest, as shown in how online environments are becoming increasingly important as public, political venues. The following section is devoted to the concept of platform affordances, which is useful for understanding how online publics relate to online platforms.

Platform Affordances

Online discourses are inevitably mediated by different online platforms. In order to understand them, we therefore need to look at how they are affected by these platforms. Gillespie (2010) writes about “platform politics”, suggesting that the term platform bears a certain significance for how online communication is moderated. Rather than simply being an open and neutral space for communication, Gillespie urges us to consider the political and economic reasoning behind calling something a “platform”. He uses the example of YouTube to explain how companies behind such platforms use the term strategically, stating that rebranding the site as a platform allowed the company to be positioned “between user-generated and commercially- produced content, between cultivating community and serving up advertising, between intervening in the delivery of content and remaining neutral” (p. 348). Gillespie points to how platforms have the potential to shape how users interact with a website, which brings us to the concept of affordances.

Hutchby (2001, p. 444) argues that “affordances are functional and relational aspects which frame, while not determining, the possibilities for agentic action in relation to an object.” Affordances thus shape user behaviour in relation to artifacts (Bucher and Helmond 2018, p. 3). It has been conceptualised as “the range of functions and constraints that an object provides for, and places upon, structurally situated subjects” (Chouinard and Davis 2016, p. 241). Technological affordances are hence understood as the possibilities and restrictions that emerge from interaction with a certain technology, in this case certain platforms (Azad and Faraj 2013, p. 5). Considering how developments in technology always restructure how we utilise it, this is not so different from using other types of media or structures to communicate. Neither is our behaviour determined by affordances per se, but they can provide the structure for how we engage with it (boyd 2010, p. 15). Hutchby (2001, p. 448; 2014, p. 2) argued that affordances both have functional and relational aspects. They are functional in that they enable or constrain certain actions (Hutchby 2001, p. 448), which in the case of platforms is a result of design and governance (Holm 2019, p. 57). They are however relational in the sense that they are given meaning in relation to the user, seen in how affordances are perceived as enabling or constraining, but also in how they were designed with specific intentions (Hutchby 2001, p. 448).

Recent studies of online communities suggest that we look closely at the role of affordances, particularly in contexts where a culture of toxicity has been established. Massanari’s (2015, 2017) studies of communities on Reddit show that some aspects of Reddit’s affordances have enabled a misogynistic culture. She uses the phrase “toxic technocultures” to refer to the typically harsh and male-centred culture seen on for example Reddit, 4chan and Twitter (2017, p. 333). In the case of the Gamergate controversy, lack of accountability is pointed out as a contributing factor to the continued harassment of women in the gaming industry. As Gamergate was a “leaderless” community, and because they used platforms that allowed for use of pseudonyms or complete anonymity, this hindered anyone from being held accountable for their harassment campaigns. An important difference between for example Reddit and 8chan, is Reddit’s system of moderators within each smaller community, or subreddit, and that Reddit users have pseudonyms rather than being fully anonymous. This should suggest that discussions on Reddit are somewhat more controlled by the moderators, but this does not seem to always have the effect that was wished for (pp. 334 - 335). This is an example how both functional and relational affordances provide restraints and opportunities for a community.

In the case of the subreddit called /r/thefappening, centred on sharing and discussing leaked nude photos of female celebrities, Massanari points to Reddit’s algorithm. When new photos were shared and then upvoted by users, these ended up on the Reddit “homepage” (/r/all) which could be seen by everyone visiting the site. Thus, the community grew quickly, and the images were widely spread around the internet (p. 335). In a more general analysis of Reddit’s so- called “platform politics”, i.e. the combination of a platforms design, norms and policies, Massanari concludes that a lack of moderation in combination with Reddit’s karma system for upvoting posts, have created a sense of a democratic and free community. However, while remaining “neutral” in relation to the site’s more controversial content, Reddit has instead fostered a culture of toxicity. The ways in which for example Reddit has been shown to indirectly support anti-progressive and anti-egalitarian groups, displays the importance of understanding how online based counterpublics are shaped by platform affordances. Much like Massanari demonstrates that certain platform affordances had an impact on discursive formation within the Reddit community, we can expect that other platforms will affect online communities by either enabling or constraining certain behaviour.

Because we have seen that platform affordances affect discourse within online publics, affordances should in turn affect the dual function of counterpublics, i.e. as both outward- and

15 inward-oriented discursive spaces (Asen 2000; Fraser 1990). The inward-oriented function of counterpublics is, as described above, focused on formulating counterdiscourses within the community. Both Twitter and mgtow.com could potentially be used by the MGTOW counterpublic for inward-oriented activities, as both provide tools for communicating within the counterpublic. The second, outward-oriented function, differs in that the focus is on communication and interaction with other publics. We might expect that Twitter allows for communication with other publics in a way that the MGTOW-forum does not. Since it has been shown that Twitter’s inclusive design can enable a reproduction of existing privilege (Holm and Castro, 2018), it is especially interesting to explore whether Twitter as a platform enables counterpublics’ this outward-oriented function.

The Affordances of Association, Anonymity and Extreme Public Expression

There are three affordances derived from previous research, that are deemed central specifically for how online platforms affect anti-progressive counterpublics. These are association, anonymity and extreme public expression. Firstly, Treem and Leonardi (2013) describe the affordance of association as either consisting of social ties between individuals, or as ties between a user and the content that they post (p. 143). Social connections are at the very centre of online platforms and will therefore have implications for both users and other visitors to a particular website. This will affect how “socialization, knowledge sharing, and power processes” take place on the platform (Treem & Leonardi 2013, p. 143). As shown above, Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) suggest that discussions within the MGTOW counterpublic are primarily focused on identity-building, in line with how the exchanging of ideas is seen as a central function of counterpublics. Association is additionally made possible through online platforms despite individuals being geographically distant from each other (Holm 2019, p. 59). The Manosphere has been described as a partly organised and “networked” community, in which individuals are able to find a sense of commonality in shared experiences (Marwick and Caplan 2018, p. 543). Other studies show how men interested in MRA ideologies are able to connect with like-minded people through online communities with very specific, normative structures (Banet-Weiser and Miltner 2016, p. 173). Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) have further shown that MGTOW rely on storytelling for creating a sense of community, why the affordance of association will be relevant to study in relation to this particular counterpublic.

On both Twitter and the MGTOW website there are several possible ways of communicating and connecting with other users. On Twitter (twitter.com), posting ‘tweets’ is the primary way of communicating a message, which can be ‘liked’ and commented on by your followers. When it comes to connecting directly with other users, there is the option of direct messages, but there is also the possibility to ‘retweet’ another user and thereby connect with them through their own post. Another possibility is to quote parts of a tweet and include this in one’s own tweet. Users can also utilise the hashtag function in order to connect their own post to others that are addressing similar subjects. There are hence multiple ways in which Twitter as a platform allows for association. On the MGTOW website on the other hand, you can primarily engage with other users by posting in a thread on a particular subject, either by starting a thread of your own or by replying to an existing one. Much like on Twitter, users can also connect with others by ‘following’ another profile or by sending a direct message. Users also have the option to upvote a post, most likely as a way of communicating approval of the post in question. In sum, the affordance of association is arguably central for both of these platforms.

Secondly, the affordance of anonymity has been found to play an important role for the development of different kinds of anti-progressive groups online. Anonymity reduces the risk for individuals in participating in anti-progressive discourse, and enables confrontation with opponents (Holm 2019, p. 164). It has also been found that anonymity can stand in the way of accountability within a community, because it prevents personal responsibility (Trice and Potts 2018, p. 7-8). The use of pseudonyms, rather than complete anonymity, can further allow for individuals to gain a reputation within a community on a certain platform (Massanari 2015, p. 7). Having the possibility to be anonymous or to use a pseudonym can also invoke a sense that you are freer to express extreme or discrepant opinions, or to voice an opinion on a controversial matter (Chatzakou et al. 2017, p. 4). These are factors that seem to have fostered anti-progressive mobilisation.

On Twitter, many users choose to have their real name visible either in the name of their profile, or by including it in their profile ‘biography’, along with other personal information such as occupation, age, and nationality. However, it is equally possible to be completely anonymous, by simply not attaching any personal information to your profile. In order to post or communicate through Twitter in any way, you however need to be logged into an account, why it might be argued that users on this platform always use pseudonyms to some extent as they are connected to a certain profile. The same goes for mgtow.com; although you are able to read

17 posts while not logged in, you need to access a profile in order to either post a thread, reply to one, or to send direct messages. However, unlike Twitter, all of the users on this platform seem to choose to be anonymous, or rather to use a pseudonym. Nonetheless, many provide some personal information in their biographies, much like on Twitter. Thus, both mgtow.com and Twitter allow for a certain degree of anonymity in their users, why it is highly relevant to study how this affordance affects counterpublics that use them.

Finally, how a platform is moderated can bear significance for behaviour, especially when there is a lack of moderation (see Geiger 2016, Massanari 2017), which will be referred to as the affordance of extreme public expression. From previous studies we have learned that differences in platform moderation and design will foster an environment where specific actions or subjects of conversation are deemed possible or suitable (Massanari 2017). The content of an online platform can be more or less controlled by a group of moderators, and the manner in which discussion is controlled in this way affects the discourse within that platform. Massanari (2017) points to how in the case of Reddit, toxic technocultures can be enabled by a lack of accountability stemming from a lacking moderation on the platform. In the case of Reddit, controversial material could even be passively promoted by the platform, if appearing on the front page as a consequence of heightened activity surrounding a particular subreddit (which is what happened to leaked images during “The Fappening”). If this material is not removed by moderators, certain content and jargon is passively promoted by the platform. In this sense, controversial themes can be “allowed” by the platform as a consequence of its design, which in turn might foster a permissive attitude towards controversial material or extreme views amongst members (Massanari 2017).

Twitter’s rules and policies prohibit any threat or glorification of violence, any abuse or harassment, sexual violence, child sexual exploitation, promotion of self-harm or suicide. (Twitter Help Center, 2020). Twitter’s ‘content moderators’ reportedly review a vast amount of footage, videos and written material with prohibited content each day. Moderators describe how they are “haunted” by what they have seen; a consequence of both the sheer amount of material reviewed, and the extreme nature of this material (such as violence, pornographic material, and images and videos depicting abuse) (Cabato, Dwoskin and Whalen 2019). Twitter, like most larger websites, also relies on automated algorithms to filter out unwanted content. It is however not entirely clear how this automated moderation operates, or its consequences (Geiger 2016, p. 788). As can be read on the “Help Center” site on Twitter:

“People are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, as long as they’re not violating the Twitter Rules”.

The website mgtow.com, on the other hand, is a much smaller platform with a significantly lower number of active users. The policy for prohibited content and moderation is somewhat unclear, and only stated in a post from when the forum was first launched. Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) have however described the ways in which discussions on the forum are seemingly controlled. The “policy” states that unlike other platforms, the forum will not be policing any content. However, “[t]otally inappropriates (like suggested violence) will be unapologetically deleted”. The founder of the platform, referred to as “Keymaster”, is no longer active on the forum. The consequence is seemingly that users depend on self-moderation. Nonetheless, a keyword filter stops usage of certain words (resulting in members trying to avoid this filter by purposely misspelling or censoring prohibited words) (ibid., pp. 916-917). If someone suspects that a thread has been written by either a woman (as they are not allowed on the platform) or a “troll” (i.e. someone who attempts to provoke or sabotage the forum), it can be “quarantined” in what is referred to as the “Litter Box”. It is however unclear whether this function is currently in use, since the last thread that was added to the “Litter Box” was posted almost a year ago at the time of writing. As both MGTOW and other groups within the Manosphere has previously been shown to promote certain violent language, it is of interest for this analysis to consider the ways in which the affordances of platforms related to moderation affects this counterpublic.

Analytical Framework

Given the theoretical background presented above, the following section will be devoted to an outline of the analytical framework. A first look at the material, where some preliminary patterns and themes were identified, has guided the construction of this framework. The analytical framework is based on the conceptualisation of the dual nature of counterpublics as described by Fraser (1990). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the material that was gathered with netnographic methods, i.e. through a kind of online participant observation. In the following section, a number of analytical questions will be presented to help structure the analysis according to the two counterpublic functions (the analytical questions are presented in Table 1 below). After the data collection process, the material was sorted and analysed

19 according to themes that correspond with the two counterpublic functions and the analytical questions. By answering these questions and considering the role of the two platforms, this allows for an analysis of how platform affordances might enable or constrain online counterpublic dynamics.

First Function

Counterdiscourse Formation

The development of counterdiscourse is a central part of the activities within counterpublics. As stated by Fraser, the inward-oriented function revolves around the need for a counterpublic to “formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (1990, p. 67). Counterdiscourse formation is thus focused on understandings of interests or needs, as well on identifying central issues for the community which contrasts those of dominant or opposing publics. To capture this function the analysis will explore how members discuss and share ideas.

To understand the process of counterdiscourse formation we need to look at ideas and concepts that are important or often used, and therefore can be identified by looking at posts that they share with one another. As has been shown by Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) in their study of the r/MGTOW subreddit, central themes of discussion for the MGTOW community were anti- feminism and masculinity. We can therefore expect that central ideas will revolve around these issues. When exploring central ideas, it might be of interest to identify new words or concepts that carry meaning for the counterpublic, much like Fraser describes how feminists developed new vocabulary to describe their social reality, which allows them to reformulate their interests and needs (1990, p. 67). Such concepts can be identified by looking at commonly used terms or phrases that carry meaning in relation to what are identified as central issues, such as men’s rights, feminism or relationships.

The analysis will bring in the perspective of affordances by looking at how platforms create possibilities for developing and sharing these ideas. The analysis will therefore explore how members interact with or react to each other’s posts, since this can inform us about how central ideas are developed and disseminated within the counterpublic through interaction between

20 members. This might be in the form of comments, “likes”, upvoting and so on. As mentioned previously, considering that the platforms Twitter and mgtow.com have been shown to have somewhat lacking moderation, it will be of interest to explore this in relation to this kind of communication. Similarly, as both platforms allow for anonymity this is something which will be explored. In this way, it might be possible to study how communication of this kind can be either enabled or constrained when seen in relation to these technical properties. For this function, the following questions will be posed to the material:

Which concepts or ideas are central to the counterpublic?

How are central ideas discussed and shared within the community on the two platforms?

Training New Members

Another aspect of the first function relates to how new members are introduced into the counterpublic. As stated by Fraser, new ideas are invented and “circulated” among members. The closed spaces in which members communicate thus function as a type of “training ground” (1990, pp. 67-68). The focus for this part of the analysis is therefore on exploring how affordances might affect how new members are trained by the community. Of relevance to this function is looking at how new members are introduced to the community, start posting and how they learn about central concepts and ideas. An example of this is the “training blogs” of the anti-feminist blogosphere. These are used for practicing argumentation and seen as the first step before starting a new blog. Members can prepare for participating in outward-oriented activities in this way, by publishing text that is only viewed by members of the counterpublic and receive feedback on their posts from these (Holm 2019, p. 152).

To capture this function, the analysis will look at how members start posting in the community, and if and how other members are responding to this. Moreover, the analysis will focus on whether any technical properties can make the introduction easier for new members, such as being anonymous when posting. Drawing on Fraser (1990) and Holm (2019), this is how platform affordances, i.e. the affordance of anonymity, might lower the risks of being held accountable for participating in an anti-progressive counterpublic. This part of the analysis will have the following questions as its starting point:

How do members of the counterpublic start engaging with the community?

Do, and if so how, other members of the counterpublic respond to this?

Do any technical properties of the platforms make it easier for new members to start posting?

Second Function

Targeting Opposing Publics

Fraser (1990) states that the second function of counterpublics is related to “agitational activities directed towards broader publics” (p. 68), i.e. targeting publics while aiming to transform discourse according to their social reality (see also Toepfl and Piwoni, 2015; Asen, 2000). As stated by Toepfl and Piwoni (2015), a central role of counterpublics is to “break up hegemonic consensual patterns within dominant publics” (p. 8). This can of course be tricky to distinguish from how counterpublics construct discourses in opposition with competing discourses, however the difference might lie in the form it takes. We are therefore looking for examples of how the counterpublic directly opposes and interacts with other publics.

This function can be identified by looking at how opposing counterpublics interact with each other, for example by posting or by commenting on posts about an issue on which the communities disagree. Furthermore, by identifying which publics are mainly being targeted, i.e. which publics that the counterpublic frequently contest by posting or interacting with these. Moreover, the analysis will explore how affordances enable (or constrain) these actions. Technical properties that create opportunities for communication with other publics and are used by members to contest opposing publics in this way, are seen as enabling. This might be in the form of different kinds of commenting or posting functions available on the platform. We also need to identify whether this interaction can be interpreted as challenging opposing publics. An example of this might be discussions or interactions revolving around central issues, which are expressed through posting or commenting in a way which can be seen as challenging the opposing public’s worldview or ideas. The questions that will guide this part of the analysis are the following:

What opposing publics do members of the counterpublic mainly interact with in order to discuss their central ideas?

How are members of the counterpublic engaging with opposing publics, and how do they use the platforms for this purpose?

Counterdiscourse Formation in Relation to Opposing Publics

As we have seen, counterpublics are formed as a reaction to mainstream or dominant discourses. Interaction between publics is therefore characterised by a discursive struggle over meaning (Asen 2000, p. 426) and counterpublics become places for constructing counterdiscourses. Toepfl and Piwoni (2015) suggest that counterpublic “discursive patterns” consist of three main parts, the two relevant for our investigation being “deconstructing of a dominant public as mainstream” and “challenging the consensus”. We should hence be able to observe how their interaction with opposing publics can be seen as informing the construction of counterdiscourses.

Firstly, we should explore how the counterpublic positions itself in relation to opposing publics on these platforms, in terms of identity, interests or needs. This might for instance be seen in if members share posts to discuss the ideas or members of other publics. Subsequently, by looking at how their discursive practices can be seen as a reaction to that of opposing publics. It might for example be explicitly stated by members that an issue is discussed because of a post from an opposing public, or that they are in disagreement.4 The use of certain language might indicate that they are contesting dominant or opposing ideas, and in that way “challenging the consensus”. To explore how platform affordances can be understood as enabling (or constraining) this function, we can look at how these create opportunities for the counterpublic to interact with and thus be shaped by its opposition to other publics. This might be studied by looking at how the counterpublic engage with posts about central ideas written by opposing publics, by for example reading and commenting on posts. For this last function, the following question will be posed to the material:

4 However, it is necessary to consider the possibility for counterpublics to construct counterdiscourses in order to compete with or oppose marginalised groups, and not just dominant or mainstream publics (Holm 2019, p. 13).

Do members of the counterpublic engage with posts about central ideas written by members of opposing publics?

How are members of the counterpublic using the platforms to engage with these posts?

Table 1. First function Second function

Type of interaction Within the counterpublic. In relation to opposing publics.

Questions to be posed Counterdiscourse Formation: Targeting Opposing Publics: to the material Which concepts or ideas are What opposing publics do central to the counterpublic? members of the counterpublic mainly interact with in order to How are central ideas discuss their central ideas? discussed and shared within the community on the two How are members of the platforms? counterpublic engaging with opposing publics, and how do they use the platforms for this purpose?

Training New Members: Counterdiscourse Formation in Relation to Opposing Publics: How do members of the

counterpublic start engaging Do members of the counterpublic with the community? engage with posts about central

ideas written by members of Do, and if so how, other opposing publics? members of the counterpublic

respond to this? How are members of the

counterpublic using the platforms Do any technical properties of to engage with these posts? the platforms make it easier for new members to start posting?

Method and Research Design

The following section will be devoted to a presentation of the method and research design chosen for this study. There will also be a discussion of the ethical considerations that were necessary for using online platforms as a field of research, and a motivation for the selected material. The method used for this thesis is netnography, sometimes also referred to as digital ethnography. This is a single case study, using two different online platforms to explore the behaviour and activity of an online counterpublic (MGTOW) on each of these platforms, in line with how netnography usually is used to “gain a particularised understanding of a specific context” (Kozinets 2002, p. 62). In this sense, we can learn more about the particular structures and discourses within this specific community using this method. The material will mainly consist of field notes, which will be the result of four weeks of observation, and these will be complemented with text extracts, images, and so on that is collected in the “field” during this time. The material is then sorted and categorised using thematic analysis.

The theoretical motivation behind this study is to further explore how counterpublics are either enabled or constrained by platform affordances. As described in the introduction, this study complements previous research in that it will be a cross-platform comparison, rather than a case study looking at just one platform. We might expect that Twitter and mgtow.com provide different constraints or enable certain behaviour and discourse as a result of their affordances, and these are thus strategically selected to allow for analysis of different aspects of the two counterpublic functions. As part of the larger Manosphere, MGTOW can be expected to have certain commonalities with similar counterpublics. It should however be clear that we cannot expect this case to be representative of all such communities, and that the possibilities to generalize therefore are limited. The case selection is nonetheless motivated by the potential for analytical generalisability (Esaiasson et al. 2012, p. 159). The MGTOW community was selected as an example of an online counterpublic with an anti-progressive agenda, to further our understanding of how such counterpublics are enabled or constrained by platform affordances. The results can also help us gain a deeper understanding of the dual function of online counterpublics. In this sense, the aim of the study is explorative. However, this is a small, single case study conducted during a relatively short period of time, and the possibilities to generalise the results are therefore more limited than the opportunities for deeper understanding of this particular case. We should hence be careful to make claims of empirical generalisability.

Netnography

The term “netnography” was coined by Kozinets (2010), who described it as “a specialized form of ethnography adapted to the unique computer-mediated contingencies of today's social worlds” (p. 1). Much like ethnography is about an in-depth understanding of people's lives and social and cultural practices, digital ethnography or netnography is about doing this in a digital or online context, in “digital society” (Lindgren 2017, p. 258). The aim of ethnography is to provide a “thick description” of the material, that is, presenting a meaningful interpretation of a certain context rather than a description of it (Geertz 1973). Netnography is usually a mix of different methods, for example discourse analysis, interviews, visual analysis, and participant observation (Kozinets 2010, p. 59). Due to limitations in terms of time and resources, this study will however be limited to one method, i.e. participant observations. Netnography, like ethnography, should be grounded in “the local, the particularistic, and the specific”. It can be used to generalise; however, it has been mostly used to gain a particularised understanding of a specific context (Kozinets 2002, p. 62), why it is a suitable method for a case study.

Because netnography can generate large amounts of data, it is recommended that the process of sorting and analysing data is decided on beforehand. Similarly, the field of research should be defined as to limit the amount of data collected (Kozinets 2010, p. 104). It should be noted that the term data “collection” is somewhat misleading, since it implies that content from the field is collected without any reflection or interpretation, rather than being cogenerated by the researcher (Lindgren 2017, p. 95). For reasons of clarity, this is however the term that will be used going forward. In digital society, we cannot always define a field as in a particular space in the way that classic ethnography does. Instead, the field is defined through networks and socio-political contexts (Lindgren 2017, p. 260), and in this case, the field is defined through the actions of members of the community, i.e. where they are active as members of the counterpublic. As this research project is limited in terms of time and space, the field of research must therefore be fairly limited as well.

The material will subsequently be coded and analysed in accordance with qualitative thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). This is a way of categorising the material by “identifying, analyzing, and interpreting” themes in the text that are relevant to the analytical categories (Braun & Clarke 2017), which were presented in Table 1. The themes were identified based on theoretical relevance as well as on how frequently they occurred, in this sense, the analysis is

26 both “data-driven” and “theory-driven”. Themes were derived from the process of going back and forth between the data and the analytical framework. Braun and Clarke (2006) have identified a model for the coding and defining of themes which served as the basis for this process (however not in its entirety). Firstly, the data is read repeatedly as to familiarise oneself with the material (p. 16). Next, initial codes are identified in accordance with the analytical framework. The codes are then structured into more general themes. For this analysis, the focus was on finding themes which corresponded with counterpublic functions. Lastly, these themes are reviewed and refined so that they can be used for the analysis. Thematic analysis was thus used to sort and define the material which was collected during the netnographic study. The next section is devoted to a description of the material and the manner in which it was collected.

Material

This study will be conducted mainly using what can be called participant observation (Kozinets 2010, p. 59), with the “field” being the online platforms that have been chosen for study. Similarly, this study will be focused on a single community, however by looking at its presence on two different online platforms, namely the website mgtow.com and Twitter. On Twitter, the field was limited to tweets under the hashtag commonly used by MGTOW, namely the #mgtow hashtag. Although this hashtag is often used in combination with others, this decision was made both to limit the amount of material, and to assure that the study was focused on this particular community, and not on other parts of the Manosphere potentially using the same hashtags (such as #TRP or #FeminismIsCancer). The data collected on Twitter thus consists primarily of tweets, which are limited to 280 characters (Twitter, Inc. 2021).

On the website mgtow.com, the focus was mainly on the rather large and active forum, in which a wide array of topics is being discussed. This means that the data which was collected from this platform consists mainly of posts from users, ranging from short comments which are part of longer discussions (in “threads”), to longer and more substantive ones. Longer posts are often made by the user initiating a new discussion, i.e. in a new “thread”. However, in order to grasp the context of some of these posts, some data has been collected from the “About” section, as well as a section named “Red Pills”. The content of these sections is presented as written by the owners of the platform, and seemingly used for new visitors to the website. They contain information about the community, for example “Frequently Asked Questions” and a

27 community glossary, as well as examples of “red pills” (links to articles, images, selected quotes by members or historical figures, book recommendations etc.).

Field notes are centred on interpretations of these posts in terms of their content, as well as on how meaning-making in relation to affordances is conveyed in these. When conducting netnography, posting is considered a social action. Therefore, every post is an important item of data in itself, consisting of observations of the medium, visual elements, as well as the content of the posting (ibid., p. 65). This approach to the field has guided the observations, where fieldnotes are used as a way of capturing the “subtexts, pretexts, contingencies, conditions and personal emotions” (Kozinets 2002, p. 65), which was then sorted and analysed in relation to the analytical framework. The analysis is focused on what is expressed in the posts, but also on identifying how members perceive the possibility to act within the scope of the two counterpublic functions (although perhaps not knowingly), which is seen as mediated by platform affordances. It follows that the analysis is an interpretative process, in which the role of the researcher should be considered. When conducting netnography, the position of the researcher will inevitably affect the analytical process. For a woman conducting a study on a community which is anti-feminist and excluding of women, this will of course have an impact on the research process. Importantly, this affected the possibility for engagement with the informants. It is furthermore essential that the researcher remains attentive to the ways in which their positionality affects the interpretation of results (Gustavsson & Johannesson 2016, p. 19- 20), and thus presents the material in such a way that the reader might make their own assessment of the material and the subsequent rendering of these.

Participant observation took place on both platforms and should be considered a form of “passive” observation, since it was not done through engagement with other members5. The focus for the observations was the two functions of counterpublics and the different ways in which these can be observed and interpreted. The observations took place during four weeks for about two hours each day, during which time the material was collected and fieldnotes were taken. The fieldnotes were mainly reflections about language, subtexts, meanings, practices and themes (Kozinets 2010, p. 114). These were both focused on content of posts, and on how the platform was used by the community more generally, in order to capture the role of affordances. Approximately 200 tweets and 75 posts from mgtow.com, of varying length, were

5 The reason for this is elaborated upon in “Ethical Considerations”.

28 collected during this time. However, all tweets under #mgtow that were posted during this period were also collected and archived (using the TAGS add-on program for Google Sheets).

Posts in other languages than English have not been considered, due to the risk of misinterpretation when translating these. Of course, this means that the study is focused on English-speaking members of this community, which limits the possibilities to generalize outside of the English-speaking part of the counterpublic. According to mgtow.com the community has its “epicentre” in Toronto, and members can mostly be found in Canada, the US, the UK and Australia. Even though users on the website mgtow.com are not exclusively from English-speaking contexts, English is used here for the most part. After a preliminary search of the forum and the Twitter hashtag, it is clear that active members also can be found in for example Europe and India. It should be noted that the #mgtow hashtag on Twitter is used by posters writing in many different languages. It has nevertheless been necessary to limit the field in this way in order to avoid misinterpretation. Although the discussion seems to be somewhat focused on the North American context, it is nonetheless important to remember that the community is not limited to these areas.

Case Selection

The community called “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW) was chosen as a case for this study because of it seemingly being a growing, but understudied part of the Manosphere, making it an interesting example of an online counterpublic with an anti-progressive agenda. From previous studies, we understand that the MGTOW worldview is rooted in misogyny, sexism, and a belief in male superiority. There are also findings from previous studies which indicate that although MGTOW is close to other groups in the Manosphere in terms of their worldview, it nevertheless deviates from these in terms of the “solutions” to the “gynocentric system” that they present. The idea that men should “go their own way” and avoid relationships with women is rather unique to this community, and perhaps the reason why it has continued to grow. One might even argue that this concept is similar to the feminist idea of self- empowerment, although it is based on an opposing philosophy.

As opposed to the now well-known Incels group (Involuntary Celibates), the MGTOW community consists of men who actively avoid relationships with women. Like other groups

29 in the Manosphere, the MGTOW community has formed as a reaction to what they call the “gynocentric order”, which is the idea that feminism has enabled women to establish their power over men in modern society. By “going their own way”, these men seek self- empowerment in a lifestyle free of women (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2019; 2020.) The reasons for them to avoid relationships with women are many. Due to “female nature” it is believed that women are not able to care for men in the same way that men care for women, since women constantly search for a better partner for procreation (Ging 2019, p. 649). Women are described as manipulating, lying, promiscuous, or as “gold diggers” who only marry men for financial gain and stability (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020, p. 920). As shown in the section devoted to previous research, this represents a philosophy with roots in the MRA movement, which in its modern form mostly can be found in communities dedicated to TRP philosophies.

MGTOW has a presence on multiple online platforms, with Twitter and mgtow.com representing important discursive venues. It is therefore relevant to study this case in terms of how it is affected by platform affordances. According to mgtow.com, the MGTOW community was formed online, like many other parts of the Manosphere, and has continued to exist primarily on online platforms. It is an example of how a counterpublic can be formed and mobilise members only by using online platforms. MGTOW is also understood as a non- subaltern counterpublic, although MGTOW believes that male subordination and female domination is the norm in modern society. As described by Holm (2019, p. 73), it has been shown that anti-feminist groups often develop from a position of privilege as a response to successes in feminism and egalitarian movements, which is also considered the case for the Manosphere in general as well as for MGTOW. A preliminary study of the material showed that members of MGTOW often describe themselves as well educated, as owning houses or apartments or even as being wealthy. Moreover, the community only allows male members, most of which seems to describe themselves as cis-gender and heterosexual, which taken together motivates the choice of interpreting MGTOW as a non-subaltern counterpublic for this study. As the community now seems to be growing in size and influence on certain online platforms, it becomes increasingly relevant to study it as a non-subaltern counterpublic which influences the political discourse in these spaces.

The first platform which will be studied in relation to this counterpublic is the MGTOW website mgtow.com. As shown by Jones, Trott and Wright (2020), the MGTOW website is a hub for discussion within this community. The forum currently has more than 32 000 members

30 and new posts are made daily, whether it be new “treads” or comments to existing ones. The forum is divided into several parts, which each has a specific theme for discussion. There are currently eighteen sections, for example ones that are dedicated to introductions by new members, relationships, “blue pills”, politics, and finance. Each section has between 200 and 4000 “topics” (i.e. threads) with around 4000 to 40 000 replies combined, except for the section called “MGTOW Central”. This is the forum for general discussion, and it contains almost 30 000 topics and over 50 000 replies. Apart from the forum, there are also collections of MGTOW-material found here. These are presented as “red pills”; mainly videos, audio files, book recommendations and articles which are all on the subject of “going your own way”. The MGTOW website and forum has thus been strategically selected for analysis because of it being a central platform for the MGTOW counterpublic (Teorell and Svensson 2007, p. 152).

The second platform to be studied is Twitter, focusing on the #mgtow hashtag which is commonly used by this community. At the end of 2019, Twitter had a “Monetizable Daily Active Usage” (mDAU), i.e. daily active users, of 152 million worldwide (Twitter, Inc. 2019). According to the company itself “Twitter is what’s happening in the world and what people are talking about right now” (Twitter, Inc. 2020). As a platform, Twitter is dedicated to “free expression and protecting the health of the public conversation around the world” (ibid.) Previous studies of MGTOW have also looked at this community’s presence on Twitter (see Jones, Trott and Wright 2019). However, we know very little about how it is used as a platform, especially in contrast to other online platforms. Studies of other counterpublics on Twitter however suggest that it is an environment where privilege can be reproduced in relation to other publics or social groups, and that the supposedly inclusive nature of Twitter as a platform in fact can have the opposite effect on political engagement (Holm and Castro, 2018). The selection of this platform for analysis is thus motivated by its theoretical relevance derived from previous research, and because of it being a central platform for mainstream political discourse, as can be seen in its popularity and number of active users (Teorell and Svensson 2007, p. 151).

Ethical Considerations

When using the internet as a field of research, one might be tempted to think of any material that has been published in an open access forum as public. To some extent, this might be the

31 case. Some venues, such as open platforms or public websites, have been approached by researchers with the assumption that because it is available for anyone, it is public and can therefore be studied as such (Holm 2016, p. 70). Nevertheless, a digital environment forces us to think in new ways concerning whether or not online communities should be considered public or private venues. As discussed previously, the internet is often considered a public sphere. However, certain forums or platforms can be thought of as private to the individuals that use them, although the platform itself might in fact be fully accessible to anyone. An online community is unique in that it functions as a “public-private hybrid”, which also poses new challenges for researchers (Kozinets 2010, p. 71). For example, what should informed consent in a digital environment entail (ibid., p. 65)? Gaining informed consent in the traditional sense might not always be possible. As shown by the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR), ethical considerations might have to be done on a case-by-case basis (as opposed to an “one size fits all” model). According to the AoIR Ethical Guidelines from 2019, it can be possible to make ethically legitimate “judgment calls” (2019, p. 6). For example, it might be difficult to gain informed consent when using large amounts of data. Instead, researchers have focused on anonymising informants and making sure that information cannot be traced back to specific individuals (ibid., pp. 10-11). This is why all the informants in this study will be anonymised and quotes will be altered slightly, without changing their meaning, as to prevent that they can be traced back to a particular account or post (Holm 2016, p. 72). In the case of Twitter, it was decided that posts could be considered public and could be used without informed consent from the posters, and moreover that the use of anonymised information would not cause harm to posters. The other platform that was chosen for analysis, mgtow.com, is also an open forum in the sense that anyone can visit it and read posts in the forum, without logging in to an account. However, a preliminary overview of the material suggests that posters in this forum would not consider it a public forum as such, making the question of informed consent more relevant.

Also discussed in the AoIR 2019 Ethical Guidelines is the question of safety for the researcher. Research on extremist or especially violent communities call for safety measures to ensure that the researcher is not put at risk. The event of Gamergate is mentioned as an example of when researchers have been exposed to death threats and “doxing” (private or sensitive information being published online as a sort of threat) as a consequence of their research (AoIR 2019, p. 11, see also Massanari 2018). Netnography can be a convenient way of gaining access to communities that would otherwise be unobtainable, such as anti-progressive or extreme communities. Nonetheless, it might be necessary to limit contact with the informants when

32 studying a context in which hateful expression and threats of violence are common strategies (Holm 2016, p. 64, 77). Announcing one’s presence as a researcher in order to gain informed consent might therefore not be suitable in this scenario. This was considered to be the case for the mgtow.com website, since the discourse of the MGTOW community has been shown to be violent and hostile towards women and outsiders. It is also a forum which forbids women to become members. Of course, this presents other challenges to the researcher. It is important that any material is anonymised so that it cannot be traced back to the informant, in order to assure their safety. Moreover, engaging with the community when conducting netnography has been emphasised as important for gaining a deeper understanding of a cultural context (Kozinets 2010, p. 65). When this is not possible, it is especially important that the data collection is focused not just on gathering written material, but on observing and interpreting different kinds of interactions.

Analysis

The analytical framework presented above will guide the analysis of the MGTOW counterpublic. This section is therefore presented in four parts, based on the dual function of counterpublics, i.e. the outward-oriented and inward-oriented function respectively. The analysis is focused on how these functions are affected by platform affordances, namely the affordances of association, anonymity and extreme public expression. For each function, a number of analytical questions have been posed to the material in order to capture different elements of the counterpublic functions. These questions address the issues of counterdiscourse formation, training of new members, targeting of opposing publics, and counterdiscourse formation in relation to opposing publics respectively. The method of netnography has been used to gather data and explore how these different elements of the counterpublic can be observed on the two platforms Twitter and mgtow.com, while thematic analysis was used to code and sort the data into theoretically relevant themes.

The First Function: Inward-Oriented Activities

Counterdiscourse Formation

The first aspect of the inward-oriented function to be discussed here is counterdiscourse formation. The affordances of association, anonymity and extreme public expression will all be considered in relation to the analytical questions, which are as follows:

Which concepts or ideas are central to the counterpublic?

How are central ideas discussed and shared within the community on the two platforms?

The study by Jones, Trott and Wright (2020, p. 920) found that the most prevalent topics of discussion within MGTOW were women and relationships. Although somewhat contradictory to the stated goal of the group, which is avoiding relationships with women, the focus on women and relationships is logical considering the counterpublic function of formulating counterdiscourses. Like in other parts of the Manosphere, discussions about women and relationships rely on the idea of the “red pill”. While other men are “blue pilled”, i.e. unaware of the truths of society, the members of MGTOW have “taken the red pill”. A member on mgtow.com expresses the following: “I look back and with the benefit of a red pill mindset one thing is clear –– all women are nothing but a trap.” Connected to this idea of women as deceiving, is the concept of “gynocentrism”. “Gynocentrism” is seen as the root of men’s subordination in modern society and is presented by a poster as the reason why women for example are able to use state-sponsored mechanisms to take advantage of men when it comes to child support and marriage, as exemplified by the following extract from a longer post on mgtow.com: “Marriage is a concept enforced by our gynocentric judicial system, and you can bet that it will f~~~ you over the first chance it gets. She will pull the “poor me” with sad eyes routine which we’ve all seen”.

The expression “white picket fence dream” is used by a poster on mgtow.com to describe the innocent mindset of young men: “It’s terrible to lose the white picket fence dream but it’s a beautiful dream that leads men into losing their lives. I’d rather have a life”. Men are pictured as entering into romantic relationships with women, hoping that this will fulfil their dream of blissful family life, only to discover that their wives are using them for their financial resources

34 and reproduction. These stories are used to convey the “red pill” message about the “true nature” of women. The following is from a thread about marriage on mgtow.com:

“They can’t help but trap you into “nesting” (marriage), and reproducing. I realize now that my ex wife’s subconscious was strong, she never realized that she wasn’t looking for a husband – she was looking for someone to pay for the kids for 24 years.”

This counterpublic also seem to have adopted a specific jargon used for this “storytelling”. For example, women are sometimes referred to as an altered version of the word, for example “wymin” or “weemins”. In this context, one can assume that this is done mockingly. Women can also be “snowflakes” or “princesses”. Another important expression is “AWALT”, which stands for “All Women Are Like That”, implying that “all” women are deceiving and manipulative. The term AWALT is often used on its own, followed by storytelling to confirm this statement. In contrast, “unicorns” are “good” women who are honest about their intentions. However, a user encourages members to “stop unicorn hunting” because finding a “unicorn” is an unattainable dream, and instead “go their own way”.

These are examples of the kind of storytelling that seems central to this community, also in line with findings from previous research by Jones, Trott and Wright (2020). Storytelling appears to be a way of developing and disseminating new ideas. These ideas often revolve around women and relationships, i.e. through “red pills”. About 42 of the 75 posts examined on mgtow.com and more than one fourth of the examined tweets were on the topic of women, relationships or marriage. These are shared through posts and comments on both websites. As described in the theoretical framework, association allows for connections with new individuals (Treem and Leonardi 2013). The process of counterdiscourse formation is understood as being made possible by the affordance of association, because it creates possibilities for storytelling. These “red pill” accounts are understood as a way in which the counterdiscourse is developed and subsequently disseminated within the community. Mgtow.com in particular allows for storytelling in that users are able to write longer posts where they can share their “red pill” accounts. Anonymity might also play a part in this process. As we have seen, anonymity reduces risks in participating in anti-progressive discourses, because it reduces the risk of being held accountable for expressing extreme views (Holm 2019; Massanari 2015; Trice and Potts 2018; Chatzakou et al. 2017). Users on these websites are usually anonymous or using a pseudonym when interacting with each other, both on Twitter

35 and on mgtow.com. It can be argued that the reduced risk of being held accountable for expressing extreme views, or the risk to be personally associated with your “storytelling”, increases the likelihood for members to engage in this counterdiscursive practice. However, as users are anonymous or using a pseudonym on both of these platforms this does not allow for a comparison and it is thus difficult to say for certain if the affordance of anonymity indeed affects users in this way.

As described in the theoretical framework, the mgtow.com forum is no longer regularly moderated by its owners. Members therefore seem forced to monitor each other instead, seen in how new (and old) members can be “policed” by more experienced posters. As the forum is seemingly no longer being regularly moderated, conflicts are instead settled between members. The most notable conflict is between dedicated members and so-called “trolls” or “tunas”. “Trolls” post controversial threads and comments in order to provoke conflict. “Tunas”, on the other hand, are women (or feminists) who have “infiltrated” the forum, seemingly also aiming to provoke. Commenting on this, a user stated that “[s]ome are not here to focus on MGTOW. They just like s~~~ stirring”. Up until recently, when an infiltrator was discovered, or rather when someone was suspected of being one, the suspected thread or post was put in “quarantine”. This meant that the thread was moved to a section of the forum called “The Litterbox”. It was still possible for others to read these posts, and most importantly these could still be commented on and the discussion held alive. These posts might serve as a warning against deviating behaviour. Since the “Keymaster” disappeared from the forum, the “Litterbox” is no longer updated with suspected threads. It is however not clear when this happened, why it is not possible to draw conclusions from this with any certainty. Nonetheless, it appears like this section serves as an example for “trolls” and other provokers since all threads can still be read and commented on. In this sense, the “Litterbox” is a way of protecting the community from intruders and unwanted ideas. The lack of moderation appears to have contributed to the formation of counterdiscourse in the sense that users have found new ways of “policing” discourse on this platform, as the “Litterbox” is continuously used to set an example for possible intruders. This can be seen as an example of how the possibility for association between both “intruders” and dedicated members, as well as between members discussing these unwanted posts seems to inform the process of counterdiscourse formation.

During the data collection process, it soon became clear that users tend to self-censor on mgtow.com. One thread specifically discusses how by for example writing “s~~~ stirring”, the

36 poster is trying to avoid a key-word filter which is used on the website, thus hindering the use of specific words unless these are misspelled or censored with other characters (such as a tilde). Other examples of this practice are the following posts: “I have never met a woman who isn’t f~~~ing nuts on some level”, and (about marriage) “Its just a piece of paper that she can rip up when she gets bored and use the courts to f~~~ you over with”. As mentioned previously, this filter is the only way in which the forum is currently being automatically moderated. However, it does not seem to stop users from using ‘prohibited’ words. Users hence practice self-censoring in order to continue using the same kind of language, showing that they are aware of the key-word filter and to some extent also of how it functions (although the specifics of this is not disclosed on the site). Users have thus adopted to a functional affordance of the website in a way that has affected the counterdiscourse, but importantly, this still allows for harsh language to be used. This process is therefore interpreted as a way in which extreme public expression enables the function of counterdiscourse formation.

To conclude, the MGTOW counterdiscourse is focused on the central idea of the “red pill mindset”, which encourages members to “go their own way”. It has been shown that association might enable this function in two ways; in the sense that it allows for storytelling, and through the “litterbox” on mgtow.com, allowing for members to both share and police each other’s ideas within this community. Furthermore, it was explored how anonymity might contribute to lower individual risks in regard to this storytelling. Finally, it was argued that extreme public expression through self-censoring on mgtow.com might enable this function.

Training New Members

The second part of the inward-oriented function that will be examined here is the process whereby new members are trained within the counterpublic. The affordances of anonymity and association will be discussed in relation to this counterpublic function. This section will be focused on the following questions:

How do members of the counterpublic start engaging with the community?

Do, and if so how, other members of the counterpublic respond to this?

Do any technical properties of the platforms make it easier for new members to start posting?

The activities related to training have mainly been identified on mgtow.com, but Twitter seems to be used for this purpose to a certain extent as well. On Twitter, the field of research has been limited to the #mgtow hashtag, and the use of this hashtag is therefore of interest. About 62 out of the 200 examined tweets revolve around the topics of women, marriage or feminism, such as the following:

“The more shit you put up with from a woman and just “take it”, the more she will see you as a weak man”

“Remember King, these bitches don’t want you, they only want what you can provide”

“Remember guys, don’t be a white knight and help the weemins, they are strong and independent, they can take care of themselves, they have the same strength as a man after all”.

These tweets show how the hashtag can be used to provide “red pills”, i.e. how posters show the “truth” about women and relationships. The use of this hashtag can also be interpreted as opening up for discussion between members who otherwise would not come in contact with each other. Someone following this hashtag would see a constant stream of tweets with different kinds of “red pills”. The tweets shown above also exemplifies how posts using the #mgtow hashtag can be aimed towards “blue pilled” men, that is, men who are new to these ideas. This can be seen as a way in which potential new members are introduced to numerous new concepts and ideas, without having to post themselves or being forced to prematurely commit to the counterpublic. In this sense, Twitter allows for association through the use of hashtags, which in turn is used to spread the “red pill”-message. As we have seen with the use of the #mgtow hashtag, it can be used as a way to spread MGTOW ideas to potential new members, while also potentially lowering the threshold for entrance into this community.

One of the most active parts of the mgtow.com website is the “Introductions” section, where the description encourages new members to write a longer introduction of themselves. An overview of these introductions suggests that the purpose of these are to share how the user “took the red pill”, i.e. stories about the experiences that brought them to find the community, and eventually decide to “properly” join. The introductions are then commented on by other

38 members, either welcoming them to the community or not. A central part of this process seems to be for the more experienced members to address the “red pill” stories that have been brought forward by the newcomer, for example by commenting how they share the same experiences with women, relationships or marriage. However, a few new members posting their introductions are instead criticised for their stories. A notable example is a post that mention having romantic or sexual relationships with men, which is then immediately discouraged by commenters: “I think you mistakenly thought this was Grinder app, though you certainly seem to go your own way”. Similarly, a poster who mention an ongoing relationship with a woman is recommended by commenters to “go their own way” and read about “red pills” in the forum. It thus seems like the introductions are used as a way for older members to encourage or discourage behaviour or attitudes in newcomers. Since all members are anonymous or using a pseudonym, this will limit the risk of being held accountable for the content of your introduction, or for responding to one. A poster who seems more experienced says that “newcomers are welcomed very warmly here, but they gotta lay it down on the table as honestly as possible, since this is how real men act. It is a modern rite of passage (almost).” The consequence is seemingly that when you enter into this counterpublic, you are well aware of what will be accepted within this community, as showcased by the following post: “YES intros are very important. I was almost terrified when I posted mine. I’ve spent a few days editing it to make sure it was straight to the point and as complete as possible”. This shows the importance of the introductions for new members to be accepted into the community, while suggesting that the affordance of anonymity provides a kind of “safety-net”.

Based on the introductions, it seems like a common practice for new members to be “lurkers” for some time before setting up their own account. The following post suggests that having lurkers is accepted by some or most members: “Read carefully lurking manginas and blue pilled simps – if you dedicate yourself to family; your pumpkin will inevitably turn on you”. This might hence be an accepted first step into the community. “Lurkers” read posts and other material in the forum, without being logged into an account and without posting or commenting on their own, i.e. while being completely anonymous. How the role of lurkers is perceived is shown in the following post:

“As more and more young men read/lurk on red pill/mgtow sites and take up the advice to get a vasectomy (without ever being married or having kids) I wonder if the government will start passing laws to combat this by restricting men from being allowed to get sterilized until AFTER they’ve ALREADY had kids”

These readers are however encouraged to start posting on their own. Based on these posts, it appears that “blue pilled” men usually start by “lurking”, so that by the time they join they are already familiar with the counterpublic to some extent. Consequently, the barrier is low for starting to learn about the counterpublic. This suggests that anonymity affects the possibilities for new members to find and join the community, perhaps in combination with later having the possibility to anonymously present oneself in an introduction post.

Association and anonymity seem particularly relevant for this function. As we have seen, a factor which might help members enter into the community on both platforms, is that they are able to read posts by members before becoming members themselves. Having anonymity as an option for users while they are learning about the community might thus lower the risks associated with taking the first step towards engaging with the counterpublic. We have seen that ways in which new members are trained in the MGTOW counterpublic can be by “lurking” and learning about “red pills”, and later by posting and receiving feedback on their introduction post in the forum. On Twitter, individuals who are interested in MGTOW are able to use the hashtag to read tweets about different “red pills” while being anonymous. However, newcomers seem less prone to engage in ‘red pill’ storytelling on Twitter than on mgtow.com, and it appears like this platform rather is used by newcomers for “lurking”. To conclude, the affordances of association and anonymity can be seen as enabling a connection between members, resulting in the training of new members.

The Second Function: Outward-Oriented Activities

Targeting Opposing Publics

The second counterpublic function involves targeting opposing publics, with the aim of transforming mainstream discourse in accordance with the social reality of the counterpublic (Fraser 1990, p. 68). The affordance of association will be discussed in relation to this function. The following questions will guide this part of the analysis:

What opposing publics do members of the counterpublic mainly interact with in order to discuss their central ideas?

How are members of the counterpublic engaging with opposing publics, and how do they use the platforms for this purpose?

Among the two platforms chosen for analysis, Twitter should be the one most suited for outward-oriented activities in the sense that Twitter facilitates contact between MGTOW and other publics. Targeting is understood as the contrasting and undermining of opposing discourse and establishing opposing ideas within the own counterpublic. Treem & Leonardi (2013, p. 143) state that targeting is about sharing knowledge, and about power. Although it is not explicitly stated in the material as targeting, MGTOW appears to focus its outward-oriented activities towards the feminist public. Considering that the MGTOW counterdiscourse have been shown to largely revolve around the idea of women and feminism as the culprit, the feminist public and their central ideas are a natural target. Twitter allows for easy access to different modes of communication with opposing publics, for example through the use of hashtags and “retweets” (i.e. quoting a tweet in your own post). However, we cannot be certain that other methods of communication between users, such as private messaging, are not used in a similar way.

An interesting example of how this is used is the #Feminism hashtag, which can be interpreted as targeting central ideas of the feminist public - 17 out of the examined tweets use this or another hashtag with the word “feminism” in it (such as #FeminismIsCancer or #FeminismIsAVirus) in combination with the #mgtow hashtag. In the following tweet, it is used to “attack” the feminist public, suggesting that the #Feminism hashtag is used in order to specifically address another public: “Here is the truth of it #Feminism. Keep on living entitled narcissistic ways. Your progress will destroy civilization not the #Patriarchy”. Furthermore, during the data collection there was a number of tweets from Indian users with the MGTOW hashtag, sometimes combined with #GenderBiasedLaws, #DomesticViolence or #FakeCases, following the debate about the supposedly rising numbers of “fake cases” of rape and sexual violence in India in the last couple of years. Men are encouraged to avoid marriage by “following MGTOW”, as to not get involved in “fake” court cases connected to domestic violence:

“Many Indian women are single because of one sided gender biased laws. Men are wising up to the fact that it is dangerous to marry given the rise in #fakecases and that #mgtow is the solution - also because of unrealistic expectations from husbands due to feminism”.

In this tweet, feminism is identified as the culprit for men’s discontent with their wives, while MGTOW is presented as the solution to marital issues and as a way of avoiding “fake cases”. It is also suggested that the legal apparatus is biased towards women in these cases. This idea seems rooted in the idea that women gain financially from falsely accusing men of sexual violence. As a consequence of “gynocentrism”, legal systems in most states are seen as biased towards women in cases of sexual violence or domestic violence. Women and feminists are accused of deceiving men for selfish purposes, using fake allegations in order to divorce their spouses. A poster states that he has “completely stopped interacting with women except with nearest family. I do not want fake accusations against me”. Another user expresses that “[f]eminist domestic violence policies victimize men who have experienced domestic violence while they enrich themselves”. However, #AbuseHasNoGender shows another side to this issue, where some users emphasize the need to consider male victims of domestic violence who have been overlooked. A “gynocentric” judicial system is nonetheless perceived as the root cause for this issue; they believe that male victims of domestic or sexual violence are not being taken seriously, and that this benefits women.

In sum, the feminist public seems to be the main target for this function in regard to the MGTOW counterpublic. The hashtag function on Twitter is seemingly used to both directly and indirectly target this opposing public. Association is interpreted as important for this function, because of how hashtags allow for connections between opposing publics. Although not all of these tweets use the #Feminism hashtag, or always clearly target the feminist public, it can be interpreted as partly aimed towards women and feminists. These are examples of how hashtags are used to forward an agenda which undermines central ideas of an opposing public, namely the feminist public, by distorting central ideas and presenting a competing worldview. The hashtag function thus represents a functional aspect of the affordance of association for users which is seemingly used for targeting opposing publics. Using hashtags to specifically aim a message towards a certain group can thus be a simple way in which opposing publics can be targeted, while the tweets in question also can be read by many more users for a larger impact.

Counterdiscourse Formation in Relation to Opposing Publics

The second part of the outward-oriented counterpublic function, i.e. the ways in which counterdiscourses are constructed in relation to opposing publics, is closely connected to the first one. However, the focus here is to explore how relations with opposing publics inform counterdiscourse formation. The affordances of association and extreme public expression will be discussed as relevant in regard to this function.

This section aims to answer the following:

Do members of the counterpublic engage with posts about central ideas written by members of opposing publics?

How are members of the counterpublic using the platforms to engage with these posts?

The discourse of this counterpublic can be understood as having formed partly as a reaction to the successes of feminism, which suggest that members of MGTOW engage with the feminist public to a great extent. This can for instance be seen in how the MGTOW counterpublic opposes the idea of a patriarchy, and in their disbelief of women as discriminated against or marginalised in modern society. Rather, the general belief is seemingly that men are disadvantaged when it comes to issues such as marriage and childcare, as implied in the following tweet:

“People blame #mgtow, but the reason marriage rates are dropping is simple, younger generations of men are seeing older generations of men losing their house, life savings and custody of their children. Keep robbing men, less women get married, it's simple”.

Related to this is also the idea of masculinity as being threatened by feminism. A solution to this can be to “take back” or “reclaim” masculinity, as exemplified by the following extract from a tweet under the #mgtow hashtag: ”The hatred of feminism, & unfair legal standards, forces males to set firm boundaries”. Included in the reclaiming of masculinity is to “reclaim power” and to “look within”, rather than looking to women for companionship:

“Determine for yourself what success is and what a fulfilling life is, every “advantage” of marriage can be achieved without signed the contract. Its just a piece of paper that she can rip up when she gets bored of you and use the courts to f~~~ you over with”

In this mgtow.com post, it is suggested that men who are “going their own way” should commit to self-improvement in order to become the best version of themselves. Other posts point to different methods of self-improvement, such as education, exercise, committing to your career or even having a vasectomy. Apart from avoiding relationships with women, “going your own way” seems to involve showing that men do not need women. However, some individuals express that although they oppose feminism, they do not “hate” women. This is: “a common misconception only because #Feminists perpetuate it, it's slander. What we’re actually avoiding is a legal trap #marriage, which triggers them”, according to a Twitter user. Although this poster expresses that a hatred towards women is not what drives his engagement in MGTOW, it is implied that anti-feminism does. This suggests that MGTOW counterdiscourse is somewhat informed by their stance towards feminism.

Some concepts and ideas that are used by the MGTOW counterpublic are interesting considering their relation to the feminist public and can be used to illustrate how the discursive struggle between publics shape what specifics terms that are used. The concept of “toxic femininity” is used to signify that rather than women, men are the ones who are discriminated against in modern society, and that the feminist movement is to blame for this. “Toxic femininity” (brought about by feminism) is allegedly what empowers women to “physically and sexually abuse men”, according to a tweet under the MGTOW hashtag. Similarly, the spread of the “MeToo” movement is mentioned as an event that supposedly undermined gender equality further, by giving women more sexual power. The female “hive mentality” is mentioned by a poster in the MGTOW forum, to suggest that women are brainwashed by feminism to behave in certain ways towards men. Similarly, men are seen as defined by the absence of this “hive mentality”:

”The real mistake that they are makeing, is lumping all men together. Making us ALL their enemy. Not smart. Epiphany. Men dont have a hive mentality”

The MGTOW counterpublic furthermore contests the ideas of other anti-progressive counterpublics within the Manosphere. Groups like Incels and pickup artists are looked down upon, and individuals in the MGTOW community are described as “more disciplined than your average simp” (a “simp” is someone who is desperate for female attention). This is also used to express a lack of concern for gender equality, exemplified by the following tweet: “Should I learn to respect women? You mean simping?”. This showcases how Twitter’s functional affordances which allow for connecting with other publics, also provides MGTOW with a space to resist opposing discourse within the own community. Although the “recruiting” of new members is important, and these might be found in other parts of the Manosphere, it seems like an equally important part of constructing counterdiscourses to distinguish this counterpublic from others who are considered subordinate by the MGTOW community. These findings are in line with the study by Jones, Trott, and Wright (2020), where it was found that MGTOW perceive themselves as more “normal” than other Manosphere communities.

Opportunities for association should be of relevance for this function, considering how this affordance allows for connection between (opposing) counterpublics. Among the two selected platforms, Twitter provides opportunities for association with individuals outside of the own public, by for example using hashtags, “retweeting”, quoting tweets or sending direct messages. Much like with targeting, these functional affordances provides opportunities for publics to interact with and also be influenced by other publics. We can therefore understand this affordance as mediating the influence of opposing publics on the MGTOW counterdiscourse, i.e. primarily the feminist public. Of relevance for this function is further the possibility to express the often-misogynist ideas that have been shown to be prevalent in the MGTOW counterpublic (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020, p. 908). This possibility can be understood as mediated by the affordance of extreme public expression. As the mgtow.com website is not, as far as we know, currently moderated (apart from the key-word filter) this might affect what kind of jargon which is perceived as possible or suitable to use here. The lack of moderation, combined with that no women are allowed to create an account on this platform, suggest that users are able to express misogynist ideas about women without being held accountable:

“I was starting to have suspicions that society hated men. I always thought it was just me thinking that. I always thought it was just me thinking men were constantly getting $H!+ on. Then one night it happened. Back in 2015 I was surfing the net and found this site. NOW I KNOW FOR A FACT SOCIETY HATES US.”

This post exemplifies how the MGTOW counterpublic can function as a “safe space” for expressing ideas that are looked down upon in the wider public sphere, i.e. pro-men and anti- feminist ideas. Stating that this counterpublic showed the “truth” about society, i.e. that “society hates men” (implying that “society” is in favour of women), signifies that members are able to express themselves freely in this community, without being held accountable for doing so as would have been the case in dominant or opposing publics. It can further be argued that the philosophy of “going your own way” is in line with having an exclusively male, online discursive venue - on which it is encouraged that members express hateful views towards women and feminists. This is hence a way in which the affordance of extreme public expression can be utilised for, and thus in a sense enable, counterdiscourse formation. As the idea of “going your own way” is informed by the opposition against the feminist public and progressive ideals, this is also a way in which the dynamics of this anti-progressive counterpublic can be seen as a reaction to discursive struggles between publics.

In sum, the possibilities for association are interpreted as mediating the influence of the feminist public, for example seen in how Twitter provides ways in which discursive struggles between publics can take place unhindered. Moreover, extreme public expression on mgtow.com have been shown to provide a “safe space” for members to express hateful views towards women and thus develop the counterdiscourse in this way. Opposing the feminist public can therefore be seen as having shaped MGTOW counterdiscourse in two different ways; firstly, to “go your own way” and commit to self-improvement rather than family life is understood as a reaction to progressive or feminist ideals. Secondly, contributing to counterdiscourse formation by expressing misogynist ideas can be seen as resisting opposing feminist or progressive discourse. In this way, the MGTOW counterpublic can be perceived as an alternative discursive venue which promotes anti-feminist thought.

Concluding Discussion

This thesis set out to explore how platform affordances enable or constrain the dual function of online counterpublics, by looking at an anti-progressive counterpublic’s presence on two different online platforms, namely the MGTOW counterpublic. The aim was also to provide a new perspective on online counterpublics by conducting a cross-platform comparison for a single case. The research question was:

How do platform affordances enable (or constrain) the dual function of online counterpublics with anti-progressive agendas?

The affordances of association, anonymity and extreme public expression were the focus for the analysis, and all three were found to be of relevance in relation to both the outward-oriented and the inward-oriented counterpublic function. In this way, the analysis showed different ways in which platform affordances can be seen as either enabling or constraining behaviour related to counterpublic functions within the MGTOW counterpublic. For the inward-oriented function and counterdiscourse formation, it was shown that association might have a dual effect in the sense that it allows for storytelling and in how it allowed for members to “police” each other through the “litterbox” on mgtow.com. Anonymity was also explored in relation to this function, and the analysis shows that this can contribute to lower risks when participating in this storytelling. Finally, extreme public expression was found to be relevant in the sense that the lack of moderation on mgtow.com encourages self-censoring. The affordances of association and anonymity were analysed in relation to training of new members. Here, it was elaborated upon how both platforms create possibilities for new or non-members to engage anonymously with the community, for example “lurking”, and that this might lower the risks associated with becoming an active part of the counterpublic. Association was also seen as enabling this function in how for example hashtags were used to disseminate the counterpublic’s worldview.

For the outward-oriented function, targeting was examined. Here, the affordance of association was the focus. The feminist public was shown to be the aim for this activity, although not always explicitly stated. The hashtag function on Twitter was pointed to as a way in which opposing publics can be effectively targeted, by for example using the #feminism hashtag. The second part of the outward-oriented function was focused on how counterdiscourses were formed in relation to opposing publics. On Twitter, association in the form of for example

47 hashtags and retweets was shown to allow direct contact between MGTOW and opposing publics. It was found that the interaction with opposing publics had informed the central idea of “going your own way”, which is interpreted as a reaction to the feminist public. Similarly, the analysis suggests that extreme public expression as a result of the absence of moderators, can be seen as enabling the development of the MGTOW forum as a “safe space” for expressing misogyny and hateful views towards women.

These results show that the two platforms, mgtow.com and Twitter, to some extent present different restraints and opportunities for the MGTOW counterpublic. As we have seen, Twitter presents multiple opportunities for interaction with opposing publics. The affordances of association and anonymity on this platform can be seen as enabling oppositional dynamics in relation to other publics. As we have seen, it is also used to “recruit” new members. Similarly, mgtow.com is suitable for inward-oriented activities. The results suggest that the forum presents opportunities for counterdiscourse formation, and for introducing and training new members. Both association, anonymity, and extreme public expression are interpreted as contributing to this function. In this way, mgtow.com seems to have an important purpose for this counterpublic in terms of both developing new ideas and mobilising the community.

Rather than only focusing on the content of posts, this thesis therefore contributes to an increased understanding of how platform affordances enable or constrain these. Earlier studies have, as mentioned previously, mainly focused on studying counterpublic dynamics in relation to a single platform. These results add to our knowledge of counterpublics, by showing how platforms with different affordances can have different purposes for the same counterpublic. An important finding is consequently that MGTOW utilises these two platforms in different ways to some extent, suggesting that they are suitable for different counterpublic functions. This further confirms the importance of so-called “platform politics” for the development and maintenance of counterpublic functions. The results also suggest that the specific platforms in question were suitable venues in which MGTOW as an anti-progressive counterpublic could work to increase their influence in relation to opposing publics, which is in line with findings from studies conducted by Holm (2019) and Massanari (2017). For example, they were able to strengthen their own community by developing counterdiscourse, recruiting new members and actively opposing other publics. This thesis is therefore also part of the growing number of studies that are interested in anti-progressive counterpublics and how these are affected by the online platforms on which they operate.

As counterpublics form as a reaction to exclusion from dominant publics, this analysis of the MGTOW community seemingly confirms that exclusion from the mainstream public sphere is the motivation for those who choose to “go their own way” and participate in this counterpublic. As we have seen, the counterdiscourse is focused on alternative explanations for issues related to for example marriage, divorce and sexual harassment. The inward-oriented activities within this community are to a great extent focused on finding common ground concerning these issues, based on a worldview which rejects mainstream or opposing discourse, such as feminist thought. It seems like a near-symbolic act to “go your own way” and embrace this position. Kimmel’s concept of aggrieved entitlement (2013, p. 15) also seems relevant in relation to this case, considering how MGTOW ascribe their perceived subordination to “gynocentrism” and therefore promote the idea that men should reclaim their masculinity in order to regain the position that they have lost.

A methodological contribution which this thesis provides is how we can investigate the role of platform affordances for counterpublic functions using netnographic methods. An important part of this process has been to find a way to explore the relationship between counterpublics and platforms. Building on previous research on online counterpublics, the focus has been on identifying ways in which functional and relational aspects of affordances can be studied using qualitative methods. Netnography in combination with thematic analysis was found to be a suitable way of presenting a “thick” description of the case despite a limited timeframe. Moreover, the purpose of the questions that were posed to the material was to capture the nuances of each counterpublic function. Nevertheless, because of the limitations in terms of time and material, additional study is necessary to confirm the presented findings. This thesis has been an attempt at exploring the role of affordances in relation to counterpublic functions, but because the aim has been explorative and single case-focused, we should be careful to generalise from these results. It might be fruitful to further explore to what extent online platforms with different affordances can be used for different purposes by online counterpublics, both subaltern and non-subaltern. A comparative analysis of subaltern and non- subaltern online counterpublics might help expand our knowledge on this. Examining how other platform affordances affect counterpublic functions might also be of interest.

As stated by Lindgren (2017), online platforms provide new opportunities for political participation and are more important than ever as political venues. Today, some online communities that are perceived as politically extreme, such as MGTOW and other groups in

49 the Manosphere, have an exclusively online presence and must therefore be studied in a similar fashion. The online public sphere is becoming increasingly fragmented (Papacharissi 2002, p. 17) and as we have seen, different platform affordances can enable or constrain counterpublic functions. It is therefore all the more relevant for political scientists to explore how political discourse develops through contestation in online spaces.

References

Azad, B. & Faraj, S. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world, 237-258.

Asen, R. (2000). Seeking the “Counter,” in Counterpublics. Communication Theory, 10(4), 424–446.

Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR). (2019). Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0, Association of Internet Researchers. Retrieved from: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf.

Banet-Weiser, S., & Miltner, K. M. (2016). #MasculinitySoFragile: Culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1), 171–174. boyd, danah. (2010). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp. 47–66). New York, NY: Routledge.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298.

Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The Affordances of Social Media Platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell, The SAGE Handbook of Social Media (pp. 233–253). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Burgess, J., & Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2016). Mapping sociocultural controversies across digital media platforms: One week of #gamergate on Twitter, YouTube, and Tumblr. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1), 79–96.

Chatzakou, D., Kourtellis, N., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., & Vakali, A. (2017). Measuring #GamerGate: A Tale of Hate, Sexism, and Bullying.

Chouinard, J. B. & Davis, J. L. (2016). Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241–248.

Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162.

Daniels, Jesse. (2009). Cyber racism: White supremacy online and the new attack on civil rights. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Davis, J. L., & Chouinard, J. B. (2016). Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241–248.

Dwoskin, E., Whalen, J., & Cabato, R. (2019). Content moderators at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter see the worst of the web and suffer silently. Washington Post [online]. Retrieved from: https://www. washingtonpost. com/technology/2019/07/25/social-media-companies areoutsourcing-their-dirty-work-philippines-generation-workers-is-paying price, 14(5), 20.

Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., & Wängnerud, L. (2012). Metodpraktikan: Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad (4., [rev.] uppl. ed.). Stockholm: Norstedts juridik.

Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56.

Geertz, C. (1983). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings (pp. 37–59). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Geiger, R. S. (2016). Bot-based collective blocklists in Twitter: the counterpublic moderation of harassment in a networked public space. Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 787-803.

Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.

Ging, D. (2019) Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere, Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638–657.

Gotell, L., & Dutton, E. (2016). Sexual violence in the ‘manosphere’: Antifeminist men’s rights discourses on rape. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(2), 65.

Gray, K. L., Buyukozturk, B. and Hill, Z. G. (2017) Blurring the boundaries: Using Gamergate to examine “real” and symbolic violence against women in contemporary gaming culture, Sociology Compass, 11(3), 2458.

Gustavsson, M. & Johannesson, L. (2016). Introduktion till politisk etnografi: Metoder för statsvetare. Gleerups.

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MIT Press.

Hawley, G. (2017). Making sense of the alt-right. Columbia University Press. Holm, M., & Castro, J. H. O. (2018). # solidarityisforwhitewomen: Exploring the Opportunities for Mobilizing Digital Counter Claims. PS, Political Science & Politics, 51(2), 331.

Holm, M. (2016). Politisk nätnografi: Etiska och praktiska överväganden vid studier av politiska rörelser på nätet. In Introduktion till politisk etnografi: Metoder för statsvetare. Gleerups.

Holm, M. (2019). The Rise of Online Counterpublics?: The Limits of Inclusion in a Digital Age (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Government).

Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, Texts and Affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.

Jones, C., Trott, V. and Wright, S. (2019) “The pussy ain’t worth it, bro”: assessing the discourse and structure of MGTOW, Information, Communication & Society, 23(6), 908– 925.

Jones, C., Trott, V. and Wright, S. (2020) Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment, New Media & Society, 22(10), 1903–1921.

Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London; Thousand Oaks.

Kimmel, Michael. (2013). Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era. Nation Books.

Kozinets, R. V. (2002) The Field behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities, Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), pp. 61–72.

Kozinets, R. V. (2010) Netnography - Doing Ethnographic Research Online. SAGE Publications Inc.

Kuo, R. (2018). Racial justice activist hashtags: Counterpublics and discourse circulation. New Media & Society, 20(2), 495–514.

Lindgren, Simon (2017) Digital Media and Society. SAGE Publications Inc.

Lin, J. L. (2017) Antifeminism Online. MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), in Frömming, U., Köhn, S. & Fox, S. Digital Environments. Ethnographic Perspectives across Global Online and Offline Spaces. Bielefeld: transcript 2017, 77–96

Marwick, A. E. and Caplan, R. (2018) Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment, Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559.

Massanari, A. L. (2015) Participatory culture, community, and play. Peter Lang.

Massanari, A. L. (2017) #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures, New Media & Society, 19(3), 329–346.

Massanari, A. L. (2018). Rethinking research ethics, power, and the risk of visibility in the era of the “Alt-right” gaze. Social Media + Society, 4(2).

Nagle, A. (2017). Kill all normies: Online culture wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the alt-right. John Hunt Publishing.

O’Donnell, J. (2020) Militant meninism: the militaristic discourse of Gamergate and Men’s Rights Activism, Media, Culture & Society, 42(5), 654–674.

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In A Networked Self (0 ed., pp. 47–66). Routledge.

Papacharissi, Z. (2020). The Virtual Sphere. In F. Webster (Ed.), The Information Society Reader (1st ed., pp. 379–392). Routledge.

Rodger, E. (2014). My twisted world: The story of Elliot Rodger.

Salter, M. (2013). Justice and revenge in online counter-publics: Emerging responses to sexual violence in the age of social media. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal, 9(3), 225–242.

Sparks, H. (2020) Privilege. In Kobayashi, A. L. (2020). International encyclopedia of human geography (2nd ed.). Elsevier Ltd.

Teorell, J. & Svensson, T. (2007). Att fråga och att svara, Samhällsvetenskaplig metod. Liber.

Travers, A. (2003). Parallel Subaltern Feminist Counterpublics in Cyberspace. Sociological Perspectives, 46(2), 223–237.

Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189

Trice, M., & Potts, L. (2018). Building dark patterns into platforms: How GamerGate perturbed Twitter’s user experience. Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society, 6(3).

Toepfl, F., & Piwoni, E. (2015). Public Spheres in Interaction: Comment Sections of News Websites as Counterpublic Spaces. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 465–488.

Twitter, Inc. (2019). Q3 2020 Selected Financials and Metrics. Retrieved from: https://investor.twitterinc.com/financial-information/quarterly-results/default.aspx

Twitter, Inc. (2020). Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://investor.twitterinc.com/financial-information/default.aspx

Twitter, Inc. (2021). Counting Characters. Retrieved from: https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/counting-characters

Törnberg, A., & Wahlström, M. (2018). Unveiling the radical right online. Sociologisk Forskning, 26.

Van Valkenburgh, S. P. (2018) Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere, Men and Masculinities, 1-20.

Warner, M. (2002). Publics and Counterpublics. Public Culture, 14(1), 49–90.

Waylen, G. (2017) Analysing Gender in Informal Institutions: An Introduction. Gender and Informal Institutions. London: Rowman & Littlefield.