Online Shaming
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ONLINE SHAMING Ethical Tools for Human-Computer Interaction Designers Erik Campano Department of Informatics Magister thesis, 15 hp Master’s Program in Human-Computer Interaction and Social Media SPM 2020.13 Dedication to Kathleen Content Warning This paper discusses the topics of racism, transphobia, and gender-based-violence. Abstract A set of tools – concepts, guidelines, and engineering solutions – are proposed to help human-computer interaction designers build systems that are ethical with regards to online shaming. Online shaming’s ethics are unsolved in the literature, and the phenomenon can have devastating consequences, as well as serve social justice. Kantian ethics, as interpreted by Christine Korsgaard, provide our analytical methodology. Her meta-ethics invokes Wittgenstein’s private language argument, which also models relevant concepts in human-computer interaction theory. Empirical studies and other ethicists’ views on online shaming are presented. Korsgaard’s Kantian methodology is used to evaluate the other ethicists’ views’ moral acceptability, and guidelines are drawn from that analysis. These guidelines permit shaming, with strong constraints. Technical engineering solutions to ethical problems in online shaming are discussed. All these results are situated in the public dialogue on online shaming, and future research from other ethical traditions is suggested. Keywords: online shaming, ethics, human-computer interaction 1. Introduction 1.1 Three Examples of Online Shaming We begin with three examples of online shaming. I will be using these examples throughout this paper. Justine Sacco: Justine Sacco was an American communications executive at a large media and internet holding company. She had a history of fighting for causes endorsing racial equality. She also had an “ascerbic” sense of humor (Ronson, 2015). On December 20, 2013, on the way to visit family in South Africa, just before she boarded a plane in London, she tweeted: “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” [Fig. 1] She says she intended this as a joke, an ironic, self-reflective critique of white privilege. (ibid). The tweet was republished quickly on the blog of technology journalist Sam Biddle. Readers, who did not know Sacco, did not appreciate the comment as an ironic joke, but rather saw it as serious racism. During her 11 hour flight to South Africa – when she was offline and could not explain herself – her tweet went viral. Sacco became the target of online anti-racism vigilantes, who posted tens of thousands of threatening and abusive messages. The number one worldwide trending Twitter hashtag became #HasJustineLandedYet. “We are about to watch this @JustineSacco bitch get fired. In REAL time. Before she even KNOWS she’s getting fired,” tweeted one critic. Indeed, when she landed, she had been fired (Billingham and Parr, 2019) and branded a racist on social media and search engines. Natalie Wynn: Natalie Wynn is a transwoman, former philosophy graduate student and YouTube vlogger who since 2017 has published movie-length video essays about ethics, politics, race, and gender, on a channel called ContraPoints. In October 2019, in a video, 1 she included a 10 second clip voiced over by transsexual pornographic actor Buck Angel, whom some transgender rights activists criticize as a transmedicalist – that is to say, someone who believes that people who do not experience gender dysphoria, or undergo medical transition, are not truly transgender. Wynn says she is not a transmedicalist. Nonetheless, transmedicalism critics barraged Wynn with hatred on social media for having used Angel’s voice. “Pee pee, poo poo, I'm ContraPoints and I can't stop being a transmedicalist and sh*tting myself in public bwuh,” wrote one commenter. The critics called for Wynn to be “cancelled” – for her channel to be boycotted. "Deplatform her just like every other racist, sexist, bigoted content creator,” a critic wrote. Wynn disappeared from public view for about a month, and then resurfaced with a widely-praised video called Canceling. In it, she details the process of online shaming, and also movingly describes the negative effects it had on her – and her colleagues. “I'm becoming a burden to anyone who associates with me. … I'm working on this totally alone because I'm aware of how radioactive I am right now. And I don't want to contaminate anyone else,” she says (Wynn, 2020). Canceling has received almost two million views. Brock Turner: Brock Turner was a 20-year old Stanford undergraduate. In January 2015, after a party in which he and a young woman named Chanel Miller drank heavily, he was discovered by two Swedish graduate students outdoors, on top of Miller while she was unconscious from the alcohol. Turner tried to run, but the students caught up and tackled him. Stanford banned Turner from the campus for life. He was convicted of sexual assault with intent to rape an intoxicated person, and two other charges. Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in prison, three years’ probation, and lifetime registration as a sex offender. Anti-gender-based-violence advocates, led by Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, felt that this sentence was too lenient, and launched an online campaign to have Persky recalled from the bench. Countless memes and websites labeled Turner him a rapist; an introductory law textbook even used his picture next to the definition of rape [Figure 2.] (Rennison, 2017). After Dauber’s campaign, county voters recalled Persky from the bench – the first time that a judge in California had been recalled in 80 years. Persky took a new job as a high school tennis instructor, but was fired after a Change.org petition accused that school of “explicitly and ignorantly allowing rape culture to ensue.” (BBC, 2019) Dauber herself was the target of an online counter-campaign, which she says led to offline threats, such as two stalkers, and an envelope sent to her house with white powder in it. (Deruy, 2018) In September 2019, Miller told her story in a bestselling book, Know My Name: A Memoir. Turner still faces online death threats and calls for his execution. On May 14, 2020 one user tweeted, “my homies wanna kill brock turner”. [Fig. 3] There are uncountably many identified cases of online shaming, but for the purposes of this essay we shall focus on these three. Each has a certain extreme quality that makes it particularly useful for our analysis: Justine Sacco’s case was extreme in the relative small scale of the trigger (a single 12-word tweet from a private, largely unknown person) versus the large scale of the reaction (worldwide media coverage). Natalie Wynn’s case is extreme in how successfully the target defended herself, and in her detail of description of the dynamics and personal effects of online shaming. 2 Brock Turner’s case is extreme, as popular commentators have called it one of the most morally justified examples of online shaming. An influential anti-shaming book, Shame Nation: The Global Epidemic of Online Hate, says about Turner: “We raged, we blogged, we vented, but finally, all that was left was to enact vigilante justice.” (Scheff et al., 2017, p. 13) The Turner case is also important for our purposes, because many extant academic arguments for online shaming see it as a tool to combat gender-based-violence. 1.2 A Working Definition of Online Shaming Online shaming, as defined in the literature, has many types. These include: • doxing – publishing private information about an individual, such as his address or workplace, in order to encourage others to harass him • revenge pornography – publishing sexual content without a subject’s permission • harassment – for example, online stalking, blackmail, threats, and fake profiles • bullying – for example, children writing hurtful things about another child online • bigotry – publishing hate speech about a group based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, or other identity status • gossiping – sharing false personal information carelessly online (Laidlaw, 2017) Popular and academic literature broadly concede that these types are ethically unacceptable. We will therefore skip them in this paper. Rather, we will explore one other, specific type, which, as will become clear, raises the ethical issues about which we are concerned. For our purposes, shaming is: a large group of people publishing many individual posts on social media, intending to punish a person extrajudicially for doing something they perceive as unjust, for the ostensible purpose of societal modification. This type is sometimes called online vigilantism, although many definitions of that term have been proposed in the academic literature (Billingham and Parr, 2019; Gallardo, 2017; Chandler, 2016; Chang and Poon, 2016; Hou, 2017). In this paper, we shall use online shaming and online vigilantism almost interchangeably. The former emphasizes the act of punishing, whilst the latter, its extrajudicial nature. How large is large, and how many posts are necessary, for punishment to count as shaming? There is no number. As I shall argue, the threshold is crossed when moral accountability becomes distributed among many shamers. 1.3 Knowledge Assumed by this Paper This paper is written for human-computer interaction designers. Therefore, it assumes knowledge of certain human-computer interaction concepts, specifically: distributed cognition, embodied interaction, persuasive technologies, metaphor, blended space, and the spiral of silence. This paper assumes