Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Taylor and Francis Group, Information, Communication and Society, 6(19), p. 787-803

DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2016.1153700

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Bot-based collective blocklists in Twitter: the counterpublic moderation of harassment in a networked public space

Journal article published in 2016 by R. Stuart Geiger ORCID
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

This article introduces and discusses bot-based collective blocklists (or blockbots) in Twitter, which have been developed by volunteers to combat harassment in the social networking site. Blockbots support the curation of a shared blocklist of accounts, where subscribers to a blockbot will not receive any notifications or messages from those on the blocklist. Blockbots support counterpublic communities, helping people moderate their own experiences of a site. This article provides an introduction and overview of blockbots and the issues that they raise about networked publics and platform governance, extending an intersecting literature on online harassment, platform governance, and the politics of algorithms. Such projects involve a far more reflective, intentional, transparent, collaborative, and decentralized way of using algorithmic systems to respond to issues like harassment. I argue that blockbots are not just technical solutions but social ones as well, a notable exception to common technologically determinist solutions that often push responsibility for issues like harassment to the individual user. Beyond the case of Twitter, blockbots call our attention to collective, bottom-up modes of computationally assisted moderation that can be deployed by counterpublic groups who want to participate in networked publics where hegemonic and exclusionary practices are increasingly prevalent.