Digital Parrhesia 2.0: Moving beyond deceptive communications strategies in the digital world François Allard-Huver, Nicholas Gilewicz

To cite this version:

François Allard-Huver, Nicholas Gilewicz. Digital Parrhesia 2.0: Moving beyond deceptive communi- cations strategies in the digital world. Handbook of Research on Digital Media and Creative Tech- nologies, pp.404-416, 2015, 978-1-4666-8205-4. ￿10.4018/978-1-4666-8205-4.ch017￿. ￿hal-02092103￿

HAL Id: hal-02092103 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02092103 Submitted on 7 Apr 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.

Digital Parrhesia 2.0: Moving beyond Deceptive Communications Strategies in the Digital World

François Allard-Huver Sorbonne University, France

Nicholas Gilewicz University of Pennsylvania, USA

ABSTRACT

Deceptive communications strategies are further problematized in digital space. Because digitally mediated communication easily accommodates pseudonymous and anonymous speech, digital ethos depends upon finding the proper balance between the ability to create pseudonymous and anonymous online presences and the public need for transparency in public speech. Analyzing such content requires analyzing media forms and the honesty of speakers themselves. This chapter applies Michel Foucault’s articulation of parrhesia—the ability to speak freely and the concomitant public duties it requires of speakers—to digital communication. It first theorizes digital parrhesia, then outlines a techno-semiotic methodological approach with which researchers—and the public—can consider online advocacy speech. The chapter then analyzes one case of astroturfing, and one of sockpuppteting, using this techno- semiotic method to indicate the generalizability of the theory of digital parrhesia, and the utility of the techno- semiotic approach.

INTRODUCTION private actors, we try to understand how deceptive communications practices are further problema- This chapter aims to analyze a variety of tized in the digital space, where ethos depends deceptive communication strategies and on a finding a proper balance between the ability practices taking place in the digital world. to create pseudonymous or anonymous online Examining phenomena of astroturfing done by presences, and the public need for transparency corporate actors to sockpuppet comments and in public speech. other misconduct by

Among these deceptive communication in specific situation, but the examples we chose practices we include, astroturfing—fake grass- to explore here show abusive use of pseudonyms roots campaigns about matters of public inter- or anonymity. This chapter proposes that digital est—presents a special problem to researchers, parrhesia helps evaluate deceptive communica- particularly to those interested in studying the tion strategies and helps understand why such content of advocacy speech. Specifically, the evaluation matters. By using digital parrhesia to content may be true, and even compelling, but if analyze these online communication practices, the honesty of the speaker is questionable, that this chapter’s analytic model aims to contribute truth may be a house of cards. This concern is to thepreservation—andmaybetherevivification heightened because of the fake accounts or false of—a culture of truth-telling. posts used by so-called “sockpuppets.” In recent years, these wrongdoings even extended to the private sphere with the multiplication of fake BACKGROUND: BEEKEEPING social network accounts used for cyber- bullying OR ASTROTURFING? or cyberharassment. These deceptive communication practices threaten the prospect Recently an important phenomenon of bee mor- that the Web could function as a public sphere tality has been observed around the globe. Every and therefore need to be taken into account in year, nearly 30-60% of the bee colonies are unable our analysis. to survive the winter, a phenomenon called “CCD In previous work, we expanded Pramad K. - Colony Collapse Disorder” by scientific experts Nayar’s application of parrhesia to digital space (Evans et al., 2009). As some observers raise the (2010), relying, as did Nayar, on Foucault’s specter of a total disappearance of bees in the articulation of this ancient Greek concept (Fou- forthcoming years, several scientific hypotheses cault, 2001). In this chapter we further develop have been advanced to explain CCD. The first is our previous research on parrhesia and digital related to the multiplication of colonies diseases parrhesia (Gilewicz and Allard-Huver, 2012) – such as parasites, mites or fungus. Another one Thus, we not only derive a model for analyzing blames the current agricultural system and the credibility of digital advocacy speech and a intensive agriculture leading to bee malnutri- modelfortruth-tellinginthedigitalpublicsphere, tion. Intensive beekeeping and selection of more but also implement a theoretical and pragmatic docile but more fragile species are part of the method for understanding ethos and its implica- assumptions. However, one of the main explana- tion on the web. Parrhesia, or the ability to speak tions given by scientists is that crop protection freely, implies three public duties for speakers: to products – pesticides – play a determining role in speak the truth, to sincerely believe that truth, and the general weakness and therefore mortality of to honestly represent themselves when speaking. beehives (Henry et al., 2012) but is also subject Astroturfing, sockpuppets or other online misbe- to harsh fights between scientists (Cresswell & havior that conceals identities in order to reduce Thompson, 2012). Nonetheless, the insecticide the risks of speaking truth to power—or to the class of neonicotinoids, such as imidacloprid, public—always fails the latter duty. fipronil or thiamethoxam, is suspected to disori- In networked space, however, pseudonymous ent and weaken the bees. These three insecticides and anonymous speech can work both democrati- are respectively sold under the commercial name cally and propagandistically. We think that the Gaucho, Regent TS and Cruiser by Bayer, BASF legitimate need to speak the truth in this space and Syngenta, three of the world largest chemical does not forbid the right to protect your identity and agricultural companies. Many sound science

studies argue that these pesticides are at least one the corporation initiated, and the Web site of factorin CCD, butcropprotectioncompaniesoften the network credits its chairman and founder, deny any link, blaming misuse of their products Philippe Lecompte, who is identified as a “pro- not the products themselves. In December 2013, fessional organic beekeeper in France.” (Bee after numerous studies pointing out the critical Biodiversity Network, n.d.). Nowhere does the role of neonicotinoids in the CCD, the European network’s web site identify BASF as a creator Union decided to temporarily ban the use of these or a partner, (Corporate Europe Observatory, insecticides. This decision has revived the contro- 2012). In fact, BASF only appears on the BBN versy and led to judicial arm-wrestling between site with its corporate logo, in small font, in the the EU and the big companies. bottom right corner of an invitation to a biodi- In this simmering conflict, the Bee Biodi- versity conference in Brussels. The industry thus versity Network (BBN) was created in 2007 to officially started to support and endorse such gather French beekeepers, growers and other public actions (Campagnes et environnement, agricultural professionals. The BBN supports the n.d.) in order to promote its corporate respon- idea that CCD’s most plausible explanations are sibility (Mennessier, 2010), while, at the same parasites or bee malnutrition. They promote time, concealing its role as a prime mover for numerous innovative programs for helping the the BBN in the first place. bees, particularly the creation of so-called A core concern of the circulation and pre- “jachère apicole” (bee fallow land), the goal of sentation of information in public space is one which “is to create a pantry for bees and thus central to the question of authorship and cred- contribute effectively to the survival of bees and ibility: astroturfing. In this case, what began as a maintaining biodiversity.” (Bee Biodiversity Net- simple action in the public space and through a work, 2012). The promotion of these programs website ended in astroturfing practices being also led the BBN to organize, every year since exposed by digital media observers. 2012,“The European Beesand Pollination Week” This clear case of astroturfing—and how with help of European Parliament members, on it was uncovered—allows us to observe the the grounds of the European Parliament. The interrelationship between astroturfing, digital BBN also developed a lot of online action and media use, and the exposure of other decep- has an active website. tive communication practices. In Europe, The BBN raised attention within the online much as in the United States, citizens are community and watchdog websites such as accustomed to controversies and debate. The Corporate Europe and Lobbypedia started to BBN raised concern and became a center of investigate. What surprised these actors was that attention not because it was making a point in the BBN suggested that alimentation would be the debate about CCD. The astroturf was the major causes of the CCD without mention- exposed as such because the BBN misled, ing pesticide as a factor. They even discharged hiding who in reality spoke through it and industry responsibility, an odd and unique from where its discourses and ideas originally position among beekeepers. Further investi- emerged—that is, from the pesticide industry. gation led the NGOs to discover the website These beekeepers violated what we see as a was in fact funded and publicly endorsed by fundamental factor governing digital com- BASF. Where the Bee Biodiversity Network munication space: parrhesia, in which the website is vague about its members, partners, public duty of speakers is to speak the truth, and funders, BASF’s Web site promotes “The to sincerely believe that truth, and to honestly French Bee Biodiversity Network” as something represent themselves when speaking.

BUILDING A THEORY OF product reviews are the most common form of DIGITAL PARRHESIA sockpuppetry in the web. But, how can we distinguish between sockpuppetry and regular Growing access to the tools of digital media and legitimate communication, especially those production, from email to Web site design to involving alternate identities? video, have created new communication spaces Pseudonymity and anonymity surely have and communities. Citizens, corporations, and their place, for they accommodate truthful governmentsallhave enhanced abilities toengage comments from individuals who may have valid in public dialogue about their beliefs, products, reasons—from fear of community disapproval and intents—and enhanced abilities to conceal to the fear of being “disappeared” by a govern- their identities while doing so. Thus, digital ment—to conceal their identity. Yet, corpora- communication space introduces new problems tions, governments, and their public relations or for ethos; this realm depends on a proper balance advertising companies can exploit that same between the ability to create pseudonymous or anonymity. What may be legitimately defensive anonymous online presences, and the public need for an individual becomes a public relations for transparency in public speech. tactic for an organization attempting to reduce The act of astroturfing may be thought of as the risk of advocacy. But if in the digital era, as- manufacturing support for an issue, or attempt- troturfing is easier than ever, so is learning the ing to mislead politicians, news media, or citizens true identity of astroturfers, as seen in the Bee about the origins of such support. The use of the Biodiversity Network case. term dates at least to 1985, when United States In order to fully understand the role of digital Senator Lloyd Bentsen said, about receiving communications in astroturfing, and to develop a letters that promoted insurance companies’ methodtoanalyzedigitalastroturfing, this chapter interests, that, “A fellow from Texas can tell the turnsto Foucault’sarticulationoftheancient Greek difference between grass roots and Astroturf. concept parrhesia (2001). Commonly translated This is generated mail” (qtd. in Sager, 2009). As- as “free speech,” parrhesia implies that when one troturfing attempts to leech the legitimacy held has the ability to speak freely, one also has the by grassroots movements, pretending that it is a public duty to speak the truth, to sincerely believe response from below to governance from above. that truth, and to honestly represent oneself when Among online deceptive communication speaking—criteria worth repeating, and to which strategies, sockpuppetry has raised a lot of at- this chapter will repeatedly return. tention and concern in online civil society and This concept was first ported to digital space is often seen as a major threat to ethical online to make an affirmative argument for the value of discussion. Sockpuppetry can be seen as a the Web site WikiLeaks as a defender of “the related online astroturfing strategy. It creates agora of information” and a culture of digital false online identities, not for the legitimate truth-telling (Nayar, 2010). The argument is com- purpose of protecting true identity—anonym- pelling, but the implications of digital parrhesia ity or pseudonymity can be understood as an are both wider and deeper than simply defending “alternate” identity operating as a protective WikiLeaks, because, according to Nayar him- mask—but to defend an axiological or ideologi- self, digital cultures generate new communities: cal point of view that a person or an organization “Digital cultures create a new communications would not normally publically defend. Phony culture, which generates a new community, the Facebook or Twitter accounts, comments under global civil society . . . and the globalisation of another name in a forum discussion or even false conscience. [WikiLeaks] is an embodiment of

this new form of communications-leading-to- Digital parrhesia lendsitselftosemioticanalysis community, a digital parrhesia” (Nayar, 2010, p. because it identifies different levels of speech. At 29). Under this view, new communities emerge eachlevel, truth-claimshingeonthemediumwhere whose participants may be judged by whether the speech occurs, how the speech is distributed, they adhere to the duties implied by parrhesia. the content of the speech, and the identity of the Discourseunder parrhesia centersontruth-telling speakerherself. Peoplewhohavetheabilitytospeak in the service of community. Digital parrhesia is freely in digital culture also have the obligation to then a necessary component of digital com- become Bentsen’s “fellow from Texas” who can munities, like parrhesia was a necessity in the distinguishbetweengrassrootscontentthatemerges Greek agora. from below, and content that is astroturfed down Risk balances the duty to speak truthfully in fromabove. Distinguishingbetweenthetwooftenis digital parrhesia, and in what Foucault calls the contingentonquestionsofauthorshipanddiscourse. “parrhesiastic game,” speakers balance the risk In order to help researchers make this distinction, to themselves with the duty to speak the truth. the next section operationalizes digital parrhesia “In parrhesia, the speaker uses his freedom and byintegratingtheauthorandthemediumintowhat chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth we call a “techno-semiotic” method of analysis. instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of Building a Techno-Semiotic flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest Method for Digital Parrhesia and moral apathy” (Foucault, 2001, p. 19-20). If engaging in the parrhesiastic game is courageous, The idea that every human construct has different then undermining and exploiting the game is levels of meaning is the basis of semiotics, which cowardly. Moreover, doingsosuspendsornegates itself can be a key that unlocks the structure of the rule of the game, and thus suspends—and communication by revealing patterns of meaning threatens—the role of the society as a discursive at those levels. Semiotics aims to build builds a community as well. coherent approach for analyzing units of meaning. Digital parrhesia, then, may be considered a The goal of this chapter is not to solve questions discursive space where a wide range of individu- asked by generations of semioticians, from the als can engage in truth-telling practices, and a foundational work (Saussure, 1977; Barthes, space whose boundaries—the duty to speak the 1968; Morris, 1964; Greimas, 1989) to scholars truth, to believe that truth, to honestly represent of today (Eco, 1976; Klinkenberg, 2000; Veron, oneself, all thoughonlinemedia—alsoprovidethe 1988), butrathertooperationalizetheirtheoretical beginnings of a critical framework for assessing work into an easily applied method. The different the credibility of digital texts. Clearly, identify- steps of this method have much in common with ing digital parrhesia as a discursive space and the analytical skills used in the humanities and defining the boundaries of that space is useful; it literature studies. And the “techno” part of the allows us to distinguish between digital actors techno-semioticmethoddoesnotrequireadvanced who seek to reveal the truth, or to conceal it. technical knowledge, but rather awareness that a Getting there, however, requires a clear meth- medium itself is a complex object or condition. odology. And the importance of good methods In this way, we propose to understand online here cannot be overstated; accusing an author of statements and the systems in which they evolve. astroturfing or sockpuppetry, under digital par- Of the object of research—in the case of this rhesia, is tantamount to accusing that author of chapter, an advocacy statement that may or may propagandistic lying. notbeastroturfing—fourquestionsmustbeasked:

Figure 1. Levels of meaning and questions practices and the meanings we give to objects.

This is but one aspect of the method—particularly significant at the level of the medium—which is highly influential, but not deterministic, because as Wright suggested, a technical apparatus does not determine communicative processes, which are themselves social, not technological, in nature (1986). Thus, thefirststepindescribinganobjectis to describe the technical apparatus and the system that produces it. For example, this method always asks: arearticles publishedin The New York Times newspaper and on nytimes.com the same? Is a 1933 speech by United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt the same when heard on the radio then, and when read in a history textbook today? These are the types of questions that the 1. Where does the statement occur? techno-semioticmethodprompts: Wheredoesthe 2. How is the statement enunciated? statement occur? And how does the medium in 3. What does the statement say? which it occurs affect the meaning of the state- 4. And who said it? ment? These questions serve to avoid the pitfall of technological determinism, while still insisting These questions correspond to different levels that a statement’s technological context affects of meaning: the medium, the document, the text, its meaning. The second step of this method takes us to and the discourse (see Figure 1). In the techno- the level of how a statement is enunciated. This semioticmethod, the levels, whilehavingseparate is closely related to the where, or to the medium, and identifiable characteristics, are not isolated but is distinct. Rather than looking at the me- from each other. Rather, each level plays a role dium and its systems—the differences between and influences, and is influenced by, the other New York Times stories in print or online, or the levels. So each level must be considered through differences between a contemporaneous radio two points of view: looking at properties intrinsic speech and a textbook—the second step turns to to each specific level of meaning, and looking at the document itself, and the process by which it how the levels of meaning can and do interact. comes into being. The question of how a First, the practice of semiotics in social statement is enunciated regards how statements science, communication and media studies has become text and how those texts are shown that exhaustive analyses must not restrict disseminated. For example, an author rarely themselves only to content—the technical publishes handwritten drafts of her work. In- apparatus of communication must be considered stead, she uses word processing software, then as well. Davallon, for example, suggested that sends a copy—sometimes digital, sometimes what makes objects of communication research paper—to her editor, who may send it along for unique is their “techno- semiotic weight” (2004). further review by peers and copyeditors, until the From the sheet of paper tothe PDFdocument, document is transformed into a printable version everydocumenthasmaterial features that for the printers. Thus, techno-semiotic analysis transform the way we receive and perceive signs, requires that attention be paid to how but also influences our research

documents are produced and distributed, and to influenced and transformed, but also for whom how those processes affect and inform the it was crafted and to what purpose it was de- meanings of statements. ployed. Meaning is conveyed through discourse Of course, analyses of communication texts and its intent; the techno-semiotic model thus are commonly concerned with the content of treats the author, via authorship claims, as text. statements, which is our third level: what the Traditionally, mass media have served to statement says, returning to the classic core confer status upon certain speakers—news question of finding meaning in a text. A news anchors of major television networks, editors of story viewed on YouTube will be different than major newspapers, politicians, and so forth— the same news story viewed during a CNN but in digital communication space, traditional broadcast. Neither will be understood in exactly status conferral is dramatically weakened. the same way, nor will they be understood the When discussing matters of public interest in same way as the script of the broadcast, or the digital communication space, we argue, status is audio track heard without the video. The conferred by the honesty of the speaker. Her medium informs this level, because audiences discourse must fulfill her public parrhesiastic receive different media differently. Nonetheless, duties, which, again, are: to speak the truth, to texts—particularly news and digital advocacy— sincerely believe that truth, and to honestly have claims. Those claims must be identified and represent herself when speaking. As we will see evaluated, and understood in the context of the in the examples that follow, analyzing the last of previous two levels: to what extent the medium these—honest representation—is at the crux of informs those claims, and to what extent how determining whether advocacy speech is those claims are presented and distributed af- astroturfing. fects their reception. The final level of meaning to investigate is the discourse. The analysis of discourse can be ASTROTURFING THE as complex as the definition of the term itself. In EUROPEAN COMMISSION: the techno-semiotic method, research into the FROM PUBLIC CONSULTATION content of the message requires gathering some TO RISK MANIPULATION information about the speaker, in order to understand his intentions and purposes. When In a previous project, Allard-Huver tried to under- considering a statement, the question of who stand how negotiating the concept of risk in the said it is then a more global question about the European public sphere transformed advocacy speaker and her relation to the statement. Analy- communications (2011). He analyzed the public sis at the level of discourse is closely and strongly deliberation from 2002 to 2009 surrounding the interrelated with the other levels of meaning. 91/414 European Directive regulating pesticides, Through analysis at the levels of the technics of finding that some public feedback was surpris- the medium, of the production and distribution ingly similar, considering letters were suppos- of a text, and of the content of a text, a holistic edly from individuals writing individually. Using understanding of a statement and its meaning the techno-semiotic method, it quickly became begins to emerge. To paraphrase and expound clear that an astroturfing attempt was being made upon Marshall McLuhan, if the message is the within the European legislative process. medium, then we can say that the discourse is the During its public consultation for the report medium: analysis of the medium reveals the Thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesti- space in which the discourse can evolve, can be cides, the European Commissioninvitedpesticide

stakeholders to send comments, suggest modi- exact text: “As a scientist who has dedicated most fications, put forward reservations and criticize of his career to researching and developing crop the commission’s work (European Commission, protection products, I believe there are a number 2009). Some feedback that initially seemed to be of elements of this strategy that need to be further from individuals appeared to be a part of a considered,” even Walz-Tylla, a woman who, coordinated campaign, when seen through the humorously, also “dedicated most of his career” prism of digital parrhesia and evaluated by the (emphasis ours) (European Commission, 2009). techno-semioticmethod. Thesequestionsfollowed Here, the content analysis is less the analysis of from the method: signs themselves, and more the recognition that First, is the European Commission Website, as the texts are the same. And these seams—like a digital public sphere, more subject to astroturf- Birgitt Walz-Tylla’s apparent claim to manhood, ing attempts? The first level of inquiry focuses on and our ability to quickly compare texts—sug- the Web site—the media layer—of the European gest that these letters are part of a coordinated Commission, its functions, and the ways it cre- astroturfing campaign. ated a digital public sphere. The site functioned So, who then is the speaker? The person who in three ways: it served as a medium that raised signed these letters? The person or people who public awareness of the problems of pesticides; wrote the original text, which was then distributed it built a digital discussion space for public par- tothesefourscientists? Thesequestionsgodirectly ticipation in debates about pesticide use; and to the third duty of a speaker in the realm of digital now, it serves as a public archive for a completed parrhesia: the duty to honestly represent oneself process. Each function makes clear that the Web when speaking. These four letters share the same site is a mediator between different publics. The content, butdifferslightlyintheirpresentationand site, by enunciating the perspectives of European thewaysinwhichtheirauthorspresentthemselves legislators as well as those of other stakeholders, publically. All identify themselves as scientists, suggests that the rules of parrhesia are at work; in and some sign their letters with their academic turn, stakeholders, by participating in the process, titles, laying a public claim to be experts in their imply that they accept those rules. But the physi- fields. The letters from Birk and Lick clearly cal and material distance introduced by Internet state their professional affiliations; both work communicationitselfmustnotbeforgotten. Onthe for BASF, a chemical company with interests in commission’s Web site, distinguishing speakers pesticide production. Walz-Tylla and Haber do can be difficult, and one can easily submit false not provide their professional affiliations. But no information, or falsify an identity; this admits matter: a simple Google search revealed that at the the possibility of astroturfing into the process. time of the report, Walz-Tylla was an employee of Nevertheless, because the site also plays the role Bayer CropScience, and Haberwasanemployeeof of an archive, the public—and researchers—can BASF. Bothcompaniesareindustrystakeholders. investigate the advocacy speech therein, and how Thus, what separately seem to be legitimate parrhesia operates in these debates. individual positions of experts are revealed to be Now, we can look at the third level of mean- the direct participation of industry. This discourse ing: the content of the documents. The principal does not arise from the individual concern of sci- element of our interrogation is that some of the entists, but from what appears to be coordinated stakeholder texts are remarkably similar. The text industry propaganda. An industrial agent almost of Birgitt Walz-Tylla’s letter is almost the same certainlywrotetheoriginaltext, andsuggestedthe as the text sent by Carlo Lick, B. Birk and Joseph campaign to other industrial stakeholders. This Haber. For example, all four letters include this actor, in fact, is the true author of the discourse,

but stays in the shadows, uses different identities, of “thug shootings” and “prostitute beatings,” and and ultimately leaves its intention unclear—is also attacked two Pinellas County commission- the issue one of good science, or good business? ers—in one case alleging that a commissioner In this debate, then, we can say that these four helped a “developer friend” access funds from scientists—and whomever wrote their letters for the county (DeCamp, 2011b). them—do not respect parrhesia. While they may A reporter noticed that Reality often ended have attempted to exploit the ease of submitting comments with the phrase “just say’n,” a phrase digital feedback, the realm of digital parrhesia alsousedbyanother Pinellas Countycommissioner also affords the opportunity to uncover their named Norm Roche, and he noticed that Real- campaign. Therefore, digital parrhesia and the ity announced a new Web site in a comment—a techno-semiotic method reveal what we believe Web site registered to Roche. Initially, this might to be a clear case of astroturfing. not seem to be a case of astroturfing; after all, Roche was not manufacturing wide support for racism. However, when confronted by a reporter, SOCKPUPPETING PINELLAS Roche admitted that he posted both as “Real- ity” COUNTY, FLORIDA: and as “Norm Roche,” suggesting a desire to SECRETING RACISM distance his public persona from the views of “Reality”—revealing that “Reality” was Roche’s Astroturfing can be professional, well-styled, digital sockpuppet. And when critiquing elected and coordinated, as seen in the BASF and Bayer- officials, including his colleagues, he again used a CropScience employees submitting letters as in- pseudonym to distance Norm Roche from Reality. dividual stakeholders, even though the content Even if the Reality persona was consistent and the thereof is so similar as to suggest a coordinated author of Reality’s comments believed them to be campaign by industrial stakeholders. Astroturf- true, thatonepersonoperatedtwopersonae, whose ing can also be petty, but still astroturfing, when opinions did not fully align (at least in public), a public official spreads individual social biases suggested an effort to mislead or misdirect readers and political accusations under pseudonyms. In of those comments. its previous iteration, the following example was The word “secreting” has two meanings: discussed in terms of petty astroturfing; in fact, concealing in a hiding place, and forming then it bears greater resemblance to sockpuppeting: emanating a substance. Here, Roche used a the creation of an online account controlled by pseudonym to conceal the origins of his con- a user of a different name or reputation, in an troversial comments, and possibly to conceal his attempt to conceal the identity of that user while own controversial views. (It must be noted, simultaneously providing him with a however, that Roche has publicly denied being a mouthpiece for his views. racist or a homophobe.) At the same time, he In 2010 and 2011, a commenter on the Web used a pseudonym to distribute those contro- site of the St. Petersburg Times, a daily newspa- versial comments, and to do so, used a medium per in Florida, posted a number of controversial that permitted pseudonymous comments and comments under the pseudonym “Reality.” The integrated them with news stories. In this case, commenter complained about “race pimps” who the journalist who uncovered the relationship would “walk around looking like an idiot thug between Reality and Norm Roche used some- trying to hold your pants up. Whitie isn’t to blame thing akin to the techno-semiotic method to do for your ignorance” (sic.). Reality also criticized so, and we argue that the method works very well what he saw as St. Petersburg’s outsized number to analyze speech in this situation.

As per the method, we first address issues “Your comments must be truthful. You may not related to the medium. Here, Roche’s speech impersonate another user or a tampabay.com staff required a news product that offered an online member by choosing a similar screen name. You commenting system. Such a system permits an must disclose conflicts of interest” (Tampabay. exchangeofideasbetweenreaderswhoparticipate, com, 2012). Finally, other commenters indicated and sometimes between readers and journalists, a parrhesiastic situation, because they implicitly shouldjournalistschoosetorespondtocomments. interrogated and summoned the criteria of digital Immediately, we see that these texts are polyse- parrhesia. On the story revealing that Reality was mous—different readers interpret the meaning Norm Roche, many of the 137 comments debated of news stories differently, including inscribing whether the publication had violated its own their own, sometimes divergent, meanings onto promises of privacy to its commenters, whether those texts.1 At the same time, we see how these thereporterhadusedhonesttechniquestouncover texts become polyvocal—for readers who do not this story, and whether a commenter should take comment, the news product is the story plus the responsibility for his comments by posting them comment threads. Within such polyvocal texts, under his real name. voices that threaten the peace of the community Next, weaddressquestionsaboutthecontentof can easily be identified. In this case, a reporter the speech. The comments by Reality were often identified outlandish claims by a commenter. incendiary, supportingbiasesofsomecommenters These claims could not exist without the newspa- andprovokingoutrageamongothers. Readercom- per offering a comment thread, which offering, in ments, in fact, operate as at least three different turn, introducedpolyvocalityintoitsnewsproduct. texts. First, comments exist in relation to the news The digital text therefore has the ability to reveal story—expanding it, criticizing it, and opining through its medium the plurality of voices that on it. Second, comments exist in relation to other create and recreate new texts. comments; they respond to previous comments Second, weaddressquestionsrelatedtohowthe while anticipating future ones. Third, comments speechisdistributed. In thecaseofthesecomment exist as part of a complete news product, one that threads, reader comments are attached to the end includes news story and all comments, that is of a news story. Online, the St. Petersburg Times served to non-commenting readers. The digital publishes stories along with the comments; at text is at the crossroads of the journalist’s produc- the end of the story, the reader must click a link tion of meaning and the public’s reception and reading “Join the discussion: Click to view com- sometimesre-appropriationofit. Thereporterwho ments, add yours.” While other content exists on revealed Reality as Roche did so by understand- thepage, rangingfromadvertisementstocopyright ing the first two content interrelationships—by information to links to other news stories, only identifying commonalities between supposedly links to the comments, or links that help read- different voices, and ultimately revealing them to ers repurpose the story by sharing or printing it, be the same. are directly connected to the story itself. When Finally, we consider the speaker himself. All commenting, a reader becomes a reader-author; four of the levels of the techno-semiotic method when sharing a story by email or on a blog, the interrelate, but questions of discourse are per- reader becomes a reader-publisher. In both cases, haps the most pervasive of all. Above, we have a participating reader implicates herself in a case seen how online commenting systems promote of digital parrhesia, especially because she must polyvocal texts, and thus create opportunities for agree to “Comment policy and guidelines” deviant speech. We also have seen that by posting whichinclude, amongothers, the requirementthat comments, readers become reader-authors, and in

doing so, implicate themselves in a parrhesiastic As Nayar suggested, digital communication system. Further, even the most cursory look constitutes new communities (2010). This is not at the content of reader comments reveals that a new phenomenon—we have seen it before in the understanding their intertextual and multitex- old bulletin board systems and chat rooms, and we tual nature allows us to see the different ways in see it today in online communities ranging from which content may be deployed. Discourse, then, 4chanto Facebookgroups. Thesecommunities, as is overlaid on all of these. The question of who all communities do, develop their own behavioral is commenting and why may be the fundamental norms and mores. These norms help define the question of digital ethos in online texts such as discursive space of digital parrhesia; the risks to these. In this case, once the reporter marshaled aspeakerforviolatingthosenorms—inthedigital his evidence and asked Roche if he was Reality, space, rangingfromchastisementtobanishment— Roche admitted that his reasons for concealing his help determine when and how the speaker will identity (at least part of the time) were entirely fulfill her duties to speak the truth, to believe that discursive. He told the reporter, “A lot of it can her truth-claim is indeed true, and to honestly rep- be rhetoric and rants. Unfortunately it’s part of resent herself and her belief. For astroturfers, the our communication base now, and you have to be risk is that a secret propaganda campaign will be part of it, you have to track it” (Decamp, 2011a). revealed, with consequences ranging from public Thus, we see how a reporter used a process shame to criminal liability. For sockpuppeteers, much like the techno-semiotic method to break a the risk is that their false representations and true news story about a politician who concealed his identities will be revealed and that they have thus identity while making possibly racist comments violate the mores or norms of the discursive abouthisconstituents.Andwealsoseehowdifferent space in which they operate. Most directly in the layers of meaning generated through the medium, case of cyberbullying or cyberharrassment, fake its distribution, its content, and its author are all accounts only show the perpetrators’ cowardice availabletoanalyzethecredibilityofonlinespeech. as they serve the purpose to evade the law or to avoid direct confrontations with “targets,” using the technosemiotic layer as a cover. CONCLUSION: DIGITAL Tooperationalizedigital parrhesia—tomakeit PARRHESIA AND DIGITAL useable not only for academic critics, but to make COMMUNICATION TEXTS a model that can be used to consider digital com- municationmorebroadly—wehaveintegratedthe Clearly, an application of digital parrhesia has the medium and the speaker into our techno-semiotic potential toevaluateandassessdigitalastroturfing method. Doing so solves a major problem with the and sockpuppeting. Under the parrhesia model, sender-receiver model of communications, which truth-claims are reviewed in three ways: whether manages to persist even when it is not appropri- they are true, whether the speaker believes that ate. Under a sender-receiver model, texts can be they are true, and whether the speaker is honestly recognized as univocal and polysemous—that is, representing herself. Again, parrhesia accom- readers can negotiate their own meanings with modates pseudonymous and anonymous speech texts, even meanings that run counter to the because honesty does not require mapping a name preferred reading of a univocal author. But when onto a real speaker, but rather requires that the texts become polyvocal, and when the medium speaker honestly believes in and argues for her itself—for example, an online news story with truthclaims. Thetechno-semioticmethodaccounts comments—creates polyvocality, the sender- for this, but it also has wider implications. receiver model falters.

Considering polyvocality in digital media Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel. (2011, Octo- facilitates the exposure of astroturfers and ber 18). Convention de la chaîne M6. Retrieved sockpuppeteers. In this chapter alone, we have a February 12, 2012, from http://www.csa.fr/ scholar (Allard-Huver, 2011) and a journalist Espace-juridique/Conventions-des-editeurs/ (DeCamp, 2011a; DeCamp, 2011b) use observa- Convention-de-la-chaine-M6 tions made through or use techniques reliant Cresswell, J., & Thompson, H. (2012). Comment upon digital media to expose astroturfing and on “A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging sockpuppeting that, themselves, were at least Success and Survival in Honey Bees”. Science, partially executed through digital media. This 337(6101), 1453. doi:10.1126/science.1224618 suggests that polyvocal media and polyvocal PMID:22997307 texts, when functioning in a parrhesiastic way (that is to say, when discussing community issues Davallon, J. (2004). Objet concret, objet scien- in ways that hinge on acts of truth-telling), are tifique, objet de recherche. Hermes, 38, 30–37. especially appropriate subjects for the techno- DeCamp, D. (2011a, November 17). Pinellas semiotic analysis outlined in this chapter. countycommissioner Norm Rochehasalteregofor The cases outlined here—how the distribution onlinecomments. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved of the PDF of a European Commission report January 22, 2012, from http://www.tampabay. compiling the feedback of stakeholders regarding com/news/localgovernment/article1202065.ece pesticideusefacilitated the revelationofastroturf- ing by pesticide manufacturers; and a journalist DeCamp, D.(2011b, November 18). Norm Roche’s revealingthatanelectedofficialclandestinelyused anonymous online snark strains city, county rela- a digital sockpuppet to stoked the fires of racism tions. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved January in Florida—suggest the versatility of both digital 22, 2012, from http://www.tampabay.com/news/ parrhesia as a theory and the techno-semiotic politics/local/norm-roches-anonymous-online- method as a method. snark-strains-city-county-relations/1202287 Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Blooming- REFERENCES ton, IN: Indiana University Press. European Commission. (2009). Towards a the- Allard-Huver, F. (2011). Transformation and maticstrategyonthesustainableuseofpesticides. circulation of the notion of “risk” in the Euro- Environment. pean Commission. (Unpublished Master Thesis). University of Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, France. Evans, J. D., Saegerman, C., Mullin, C., Haubruge, E., Nguyen, B. K., Frazier, M., & Pettis, J. S. et al. Barthes, R. (1968). Elements of semiology. New (2009). Colony collapse disorder: A descriptive York: Hill and Wang. study. PLoS ONE, 4(8), e6481. doi:10.1371/ Bee Biodiversity Network/ Le Réseau Biodiversité journal.pone.0006481 PMID:19649264 pour les Abeilles. (2012). Give a flower to the bees. Retrieved April 24, 2014 from http://www. Foucault, M.(2001). Fearlessspeech. Los Angeles, reseau-biodiversite-abeilles.com/?page_id=1169 CA: Semiotext(e).

Tampabay.com. (2012). Comments policy. Re- Freenews.(2011a, May 17).La Freeboxàl’honneur trieved January 22, 2012, from http://www.tam- dans E=M6 (MàJ). Retrieved February 12, 2012, pabay.com/universal/comment_guidelines.shtml fromhttp://www.freenews.fr/spip.php?article8300 Veron, E. (1988). La sémiosis sociale: Fragments Freenews. (2011b, October 11). Reportage bidon d’une theorie de la discursivité. París: Presses sur la Freebox dans E=M6: intervention du CSA. Universitaires de Vincennes. Retrieved February 12, 2012, from http://www. freenews.fr/spip.php?article9131 Wright, C. R. (1986). Masscommunication: Aso- Gilewicz, N., & Allard-Huver, F. (2012). Digital ciologicalperspective. New York: Random House. parrhesia as a counterweight to astroturfing. In S. Apostel & M. Folk (Eds.), Online credibility and digital ethos: Evaluating computer-mediated KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS communication (pp. 215-227). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Discourse: A sum of proposition and enun- Greimas, J. (1989). Thesocialsciences: Asemiotic ciation that creates a body of knowledge. The view. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota circulation of this discourse via media and other Press. form of organization is called “discursive forma- tion” in Foucault’s discourse. Henry, M., Béguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Semiotics: Literally the science of the signs, Odoux, J.-F., Aupinel, P., & Decourtye, A. et al. semiotics is the study of the meaning in every (2012). A common pesticide decreases foraging form. Here the perspective adopted is to study success and survival in honey bees. Science, communication as an exchange, a construction 336(6079), 348–350. doi:10.1126/sci- and a negotiation of sign via the media. ence.1215039 PMID:22461498 Technological Determinism: A doctrine Klinkenberg, J.-M. (2000). Précis de sémiotique focusing on the technological evolution of infor- générale. Paris: Seuil. mation and communication system rather than on their interaction and their subordination to the McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The society that developed them. extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Techno-Semiotic: A way to understand and analyze media and communication phenomenon Morris, C. W. (1964). Signification and signifi- cance: A study of the relations of signs and values. as being at the crossroad between a construction and a circulation of knowledge and signification, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. andinformationandcommunicationtechnologies Nayar, P. K. (2010, December 25). Wikileaks, the seen a savoir-faire serving and accompanying new information cultures and digital parrhesia. this circulation. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(45), 27–30. Sager, R. (2009, August 18). Keep off the astro- ENDNOTE turf. [Electronic version]. The New York Times.

Retrieved January 22, 2012, from http://www. 1 A phenomenon readily seen in comment nytimes.com/2009/08/19/opinion/19sager.html threads following all political stories, for Saussure, F. (1977). Course in general example. linguistics. Fontana: Collins.