Pub Date : 2021-12-28DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.2020470
K. Montalbano
Abstract This article compares the socio-legal factors and challenges contributing to the failure of the deceased anonymous, hyperlocal platform, Yik Yak, with a living anonymous, hyperlocal platform, Jodel. By analysing each platform’s Terms of Service (ToS) statements alongside their guidelines and values, the article traces how anonymous, hyperlocal applications both diverge from and mirror communication law in fashioning their approaches to content moderation and responses to the dark side of communication. The article concludes that in contrast with Yik Yak, which attempted to rely on its ToS and limited community monitoring system to curb cyberbullying and harassment, the case of Jodel—and by extension, the German approach to regulating hate speech and bullying—suggests that surviving hyperlocal, anonymous platforms of U.S. origin should not solely hide behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Instead, they should aim to combine (1) robust ToS statements with (2) specific community values or guidelines that are fortified by (3) a comprehensive monitoring system in order to curb abusive behaviour on their platforms.
{"title":"“Yakety yak: Don’t talk back”: An autopsy of anonymity gone awry","authors":"K. Montalbano","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.2020470","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.2020470","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article compares the socio-legal factors and challenges contributing to the failure of the deceased anonymous, hyperlocal platform, Yik Yak, with a living anonymous, hyperlocal platform, Jodel. By analysing each platform’s Terms of Service (ToS) statements alongside their guidelines and values, the article traces how anonymous, hyperlocal applications both diverge from and mirror communication law in fashioning their approaches to content moderation and responses to the dark side of communication. The article concludes that in contrast with Yik Yak, which attempted to rely on its ToS and limited community monitoring system to curb cyberbullying and harassment, the case of Jodel—and by extension, the German approach to regulating hate speech and bullying—suggests that surviving hyperlocal, anonymous platforms of U.S. origin should not solely hide behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Instead, they should aim to combine (1) robust ToS statements with (2) specific community values or guidelines that are fortified by (3) a comprehensive monitoring system in order to curb abusive behaviour on their platforms.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42199901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-13DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.2015967
Sebastiaan Gorissen, R. Gehl
Abstract In 2005, the paths of Wikipedia and The Tor Project crossed publicly and ferociously. Tired of trolls and vandals, Wikipedia decided to block all Tor users from editing encyclopaedia articles. The Tor Project protested, arguing that such a block was not only ineffective, but constituted a form of censorship. This conflict came at a time when both projects were fighting to establish, maintain, and expand their perceived legitimacy. Using a threefold definition of “legitimacy,” this essay explores the Wikipedia/Tor conflict as a legitimacy conflict. We argue that Wikipedia was heavily invested in a conception of legitimacy as authenticity, focusing on who should be counted as a Wikipedian and who should be excluded. In contrast, the Tor Project was more concerned with Weberian legitimacy, challenging states’ claims to the monopoly of violent power. However, both projects shared an interest in acquiring resources and respect, or legitimacy as propriety. To explain this conflict, we draw on an archive of primary source emails and historical documents focusing on the early days (2001–2005) of both projects.
{"title":"When Wikipedia met Tor: trials of legitimacy at a key moment in internet history","authors":"Sebastiaan Gorissen, R. Gehl","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.2015967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.2015967","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2005, the paths of Wikipedia and The Tor Project crossed publicly and ferociously. Tired of trolls and vandals, Wikipedia decided to block all Tor users from editing encyclopaedia articles. The Tor Project protested, arguing that such a block was not only ineffective, but constituted a form of censorship. This conflict came at a time when both projects were fighting to establish, maintain, and expand their perceived legitimacy. Using a threefold definition of “legitimacy,” this essay explores the Wikipedia/Tor conflict as a legitimacy conflict. We argue that Wikipedia was heavily invested in a conception of legitimacy as authenticity, focusing on who should be counted as a Wikipedian and who should be excluded. In contrast, the Tor Project was more concerned with Weberian legitimacy, challenging states’ claims to the monopoly of violent power. However, both projects shared an interest in acquiring resources and respect, or legitimacy as propriety. To explain this conflict, we draw on an archive of primary source emails and historical documents focusing on the early days (2001–2005) of both projects.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42741618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-13DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.2000246
Migle Bareikyte
Abstract Although the Internet is a key global infrastructure, it is still often perceived in an abstract manner by the general public, which tends to disregard how the Internet emerges in different places. In contrast, this paper situates the Internet as infrastructure development in post-socialist Lithuania against the backdrop of multi-sited fieldwork within its telecom industry. Drawing on fieldwork material analysis comprised of qualitative interviews, participatory observation and archival research as well as previous research from media studies, this paper contributes to Internet studies via three conceptual motifs that emerged from fieldwork material—infrastructuring practices, geopolitical imaginaries and critical negotiations—that were evaluated in order to research media infrastructures and argue for the situated analysis of infrastructural labour, geopolitics and critique that frame Internet development. It further argues for the need to explore Internet infrastructure developments in post-socialist Eastern Europe that remain unrepresented in media infrastructures research, despite the rich potential of case studies into the simultaneous emergence of the Internet within new nation states.
{"title":"Situating the Internet as infrastructure: the case of post-socialist Lithuania","authors":"Migle Bareikyte","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.2000246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.2000246","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although the Internet is a key global infrastructure, it is still often perceived in an abstract manner by the general public, which tends to disregard how the Internet emerges in different places. In contrast, this paper situates the Internet as infrastructure development in post-socialist Lithuania against the backdrop of multi-sited fieldwork within its telecom industry. Drawing on fieldwork material analysis comprised of qualitative interviews, participatory observation and archival research as well as previous research from media studies, this paper contributes to Internet studies via three conceptual motifs that emerged from fieldwork material—infrastructuring practices, geopolitical imaginaries and critical negotiations—that were evaluated in order to research media infrastructures and argue for the situated analysis of infrastructural labour, geopolitics and critique that frame Internet development. It further argues for the need to explore Internet infrastructure developments in post-socialist Eastern Europe that remain unrepresented in media infrastructures research, despite the rich potential of case studies into the simultaneous emergence of the Internet within new nation states.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47827423","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-03DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.1997179
J. DeCook
Abstract The subreddit r/WatchRedditDie was founded in 2015 after reddit started implementing anti-harassment policies, and positions itself as a “fire alarm for reddit” meant to voyeuristically watch reddit’s impending (symbolic) death. As conversations around platform governance, moderation, and the role of platforms in controlling hate speech become more complex, r/WatchRedditDie and its affiliated subreddits are dedicated in maintaining a version of reddit tolerant of any and all speech, excluding other more vulnerable users from fully participating on the platform. r/WatchReditDie users advocate for no interference in their activities on the platform—meaning that although they rely on the reddit infrastructure to sustain their community, they aim to self-govern to uphold a libertarian and often manipulated interpretation of free expression. Responding to reddit’s evolving policies, they find community with one another by positioning the platform itself as their main antagonist. Through the social worlds framework, I examine the r/WatchRedditDie community’s responses to platform change, bringing up new questions about the possibility of shared governance between platform and user, as well as participatory culture’s promises and perils.
{"title":"r/WatchRedditDie and the politics of reddit’s bans and quarantines","authors":"J. DeCook","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.1997179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1997179","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The subreddit r/WatchRedditDie was founded in 2015 after reddit started implementing anti-harassment policies, and positions itself as a “fire alarm for reddit” meant to voyeuristically watch reddit’s impending (symbolic) death. As conversations around platform governance, moderation, and the role of platforms in controlling hate speech become more complex, r/WatchRedditDie and its affiliated subreddits are dedicated in maintaining a version of reddit tolerant of any and all speech, excluding other more vulnerable users from fully participating on the platform. r/WatchReditDie users advocate for no interference in their activities on the platform—meaning that although they rely on the reddit infrastructure to sustain their community, they aim to self-govern to uphold a libertarian and often manipulated interpretation of free expression. Responding to reddit’s evolving policies, they find community with one another by positioning the platform itself as their main antagonist. Through the social worlds framework, I examine the r/WatchRedditDie community’s responses to platform change, bringing up new questions about the possibility of shared governance between platform and user, as well as participatory culture’s promises and perils.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43736452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.1985835
J. Ogden
Abstract This article frames the cultural significance of web archiving through an ethnographic study of Archive Team and their efforts to archive “Not Safe for Work” posts on the popular social media platform, Tumblr. This research first sheds light on the origins and organisation of Archive Team, a long-running site of web archiving and “loose collective” of volunteers dedicated to saving websites in danger of going offline. I outline two Archive Team “tenets of practice” that reflect and frame an approach to web archiving centred on cultural values dedicated to the preservation of access. Using examples from their efforts to archive Tumblr NSFW, I examine how the entanglement of practice, participants and platform resistance ultimately shapes what was deemed worth saving (and conversely, not). I argue that web archiving is a transformative force that requires attentiveness to who is archiving, but also the cultural dimensions of practice that inform everyday decisions about how the Web is “saved.”
{"title":"“Everything on the internet can be saved”: Archive Team, Tumblr and the cultural significance of web archiving","authors":"J. Ogden","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.1985835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1985835","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article frames the cultural significance of web archiving through an ethnographic study of Archive Team and their efforts to archive “Not Safe for Work” posts on the popular social media platform, Tumblr. This research first sheds light on the origins and organisation of Archive Team, a long-running site of web archiving and “loose collective” of volunteers dedicated to saving websites in danger of going offline. I outline two Archive Team “tenets of practice” that reflect and frame an approach to web archiving centred on cultural values dedicated to the preservation of access. Using examples from their efforts to archive Tumblr NSFW, I examine how the entanglement of practice, participants and platform resistance ultimately shapes what was deemed worth saving (and conversely, not). I argue that web archiving is a transformative force that requires attentiveness to who is archiving, but also the cultural dimensions of practice that inform everyday decisions about how the Web is “saved.”","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42422801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-07DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.1985833
Diana Floegel
Abstract Queer transformative media fandoms have experienced multiple platform deaths due to “adult” content bans that remove queer content because it is considered “not safe for work” or pornographic. Such bans are biopolitically charged because they effectively regulate and erase queer sexualities and genders. Newer fan-created or moderated platforms such as Archive of Our Own (AO3) and Discord receive credit for rescuing queer fanworks and communities. These platforms are developed and used in direct response to content bans, and they therefore maintain a reputation for including queer people and their works. However, biopolitics continue to perpetuate marginalisation within newer fandom spaces because they ignore inequities that intersect with sexuality and gender. In particular, platforms like AO3 and Discord continue to perpetuate racism in fandom. Using data from interviews with queer fans and platforms’ features and policy statements, this paper traces how platform deaths and rebirths both respond to and perpetuate biopolitics throughout queer fandoms online.
酷儿转型媒体粉丝经历了多个平台的死亡，因为“成人”内容禁令删除了酷儿内容，因为这些内容被认为“不适合工作”或色情。这些禁令带有生物政治色彩，因为它们有效地规范和消除了酷儿性行为和性别。而像Archive of Our Own (AO3)和Discord等由粉丝创建或主持的新平台则因拯救酷儿同人作品和社区而获得赞誉。这些平台是为了直接回应内容禁令而开发和使用的，因此他们保持了包括酷儿和他们的作品的声誉。然而，在新兴的粉丝空间中，生物政治继续使边缘化永久化，因为它们忽视了与性和性别交叉的不平等。特别是像AO3和Discord这样的平台继续在粉丝圈中延续种族主义。本文利用对酷儿粉丝和平台的特征和政策声明的采访数据，追踪了平台的死亡和重生如何回应并延续了在线酷儿粉丝的生命政治。
{"title":"Porn bans, purges, and rebirths: the biopolitics of platform death in queer fandoms","authors":"Diana Floegel","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.1985833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1985833","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Queer transformative media fandoms have experienced multiple platform deaths due to “adult” content bans that remove queer content because it is considered “not safe for work” or pornographic. Such bans are biopolitically charged because they effectively regulate and erase queer sexualities and genders. Newer fan-created or moderated platforms such as Archive of Our Own (AO3) and Discord receive credit for rescuing queer fanworks and communities. These platforms are developed and used in direct response to content bans, and they therefore maintain a reputation for including queer people and their works. However, biopolitics continue to perpetuate marginalisation within newer fandom spaces because they ignore inequities that intersect with sexuality and gender. In particular, platforms like AO3 and Discord continue to perpetuate racism in fandom. Using data from interviews with queer fans and platforms’ features and policy statements, this paper traces how platform deaths and rebirths both respond to and perpetuate biopolitics throughout queer fandoms online.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48724182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-07DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.1985836
Kate M. Miltner, Y. Gerrard
Abstract This paper provides an analysis of a nostalgic Myspace discourse that contradicts the narrative of Myspace as a failed platform. The Myspace nostalgia discourse is especially dominant on Twitter and responds to what Miltner refers to as the “coding fetish discourse”. It re-imagines Myspace through the lens of digital skill development and reinforces the framing of coding as a net good for social mobility, particularly for women and people of colour. It also offers trenchant critiques aimed at platform capitalism and platform governance that position Myspace as a foil for “toxic” and “gentrified” contemporary social media platforms. Contrary to previous popular framings of Myspace as an unsafe environment, Myspace coding Tweets offer a generative reimagining of Myspace as a place where young people learned valuable skills. In doing so, these Tweets take the very elements that supposedly caused Myspace’s decline—its chaotic aesthetics and the dominance of people of colour and young women—and reposition them at the core of Myspace’s value and worth. We argue that these nostalgic reframings of Myspace ultimately reflect contemporary discourses about coding and social media platforms: Myspace may have “died”, but it is our current sociotechnical ideals and anxieties that brought it back to life.
{"title":"“Tom had us all doing front-end web development”: a nostalgic (re)imagining of Myspace","authors":"Kate M. Miltner, Y. Gerrard","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.1985836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1985836","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper provides an analysis of a nostalgic Myspace discourse that contradicts the narrative of Myspace as a failed platform. The Myspace nostalgia discourse is especially dominant on Twitter and responds to what Miltner refers to as the “coding fetish discourse”. It re-imagines Myspace through the lens of digital skill development and reinforces the framing of coding as a net good for social mobility, particularly for women and people of colour. It also offers trenchant critiques aimed at platform capitalism and platform governance that position Myspace as a foil for “toxic” and “gentrified” contemporary social media platforms. Contrary to previous popular framings of Myspace as an unsafe environment, Myspace coding Tweets offer a generative reimagining of Myspace as a place where young people learned valuable skills. In doing so, these Tweets take the very elements that supposedly caused Myspace’s decline—its chaotic aesthetics and the dominance of people of colour and young women—and reposition them at the core of Myspace’s value and worth. We argue that these nostalgic reframings of Myspace ultimately reflect contemporary discourses about coding and social media platforms: Myspace may have “died”, but it is our current sociotechnical ideals and anxieties that brought it back to life.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45331787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-06DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.1985360
Frances Corry
ABSTRACT This study of shuttered social network Friendster draws on interviews with 13 former employees to explore the discursive negotiation of this platform’s death. It chronicles the four central ways that employees related to Friendster’s end: through three diagnoses of the reasons behind its closure, or through claiming its persistence in platforms that thrive today. Arguing for the utility of technological death as a lens–especially within Silicon Valley techno-cultures saturated with death discourses–this article critically analyses these narratives to reveal otherwise obscured power dynamics, especially in regard to platforms’ purported support of global community. Finally, the article notes how death discourses are productive within Silicon Valley techno-cultures, as employees mobilize these failures as instructive assets in their careers.
{"title":"Why does a platform die? Diagnosing platform death at Friendster’s end","authors":"Frances Corry","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.1985360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1985360","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study of shuttered social network Friendster draws on interviews with 13 former employees to explore the discursive negotiation of this platform’s death. It chronicles the four central ways that employees related to Friendster’s end: through three diagnoses of the reasons behind its closure, or through claiming its persistence in platforms that thrive today. Arguing for the utility of technological death as a lens–especially within Silicon Valley techno-cultures saturated with death discourses–this article critically analyses these narratives to reveal otherwise obscured power dynamics, especially in regard to platforms’ purported support of global community. Finally, the article notes how death discourses are productive within Silicon Valley techno-cultures, as employees mobilize these failures as instructive assets in their careers.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44221578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.1988239
G. Goggin, Haiqing Yu, Kwang-Suk Lee
Abstract This paper provides an introduction to a special double-issue of Internet Histories journal on ‘Asian Internet Histories’. As the editors, we provide context and discussion of the exciting emerging work on Asian Internet histories, and identifies challenges ahead. We suggest that the histories of Asian Internet stand to make a precious and shape-shifting contribution to our understanding of the Internet and its evolution –– as well as ways in which its futures are being framed and approached in the present.
{"title":"Asian internet histories: an introduction","authors":"G. Goggin, Haiqing Yu, Kwang-Suk Lee","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.1988239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1988239","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper provides an introduction to a special double-issue of Internet Histories journal on ‘Asian Internet Histories’. As the editors, we provide context and discussion of the exciting emerging work on Asian Internet histories, and identifies challenges ahead. We suggest that the histories of Asian Internet stand to make a precious and shape-shifting contribution to our understanding of the Internet and its evolution –– as well as ways in which its futures are being framed and approached in the present.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49080186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.1984732
M. I. Parray
Abstract This article complicates India’s Internet history by offering a ‘particular’ account of the Internet in a ‘geographical context’ of the country’s conflictual relationship with its peripheral regions such as Kashmir and the northeast. Drawing on Giorgio Agamben’s concept of the ‘state of exception’ and Partha Chatterjee’s notion of ‘the rule of colonial difference,’ the article seeks to interrogate India’s Internet governance practices in peripheral regions and the disabling impact of shutdowns and filtering on local e-communities. In critiquing the Internet historiography of the technology predicated on its materiality, rendered through numbers and events and centred around the nation’s urban technoscape, it explores local imaginations of the Internet in particular regions alternative to the one perpetuated by the Indian state and market forces while highlighting the strategies used by e-communities to circumvent state filtering mechanisms.
{"title":"Choking the ‘periphery’: pride and prejudice in India’s globalizing Internet imaginary","authors":"M. I. Parray","doi":"10.1080/24701475.2021.1984732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1984732","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article complicates India’s Internet history by offering a ‘particular’ account of the Internet in a ‘geographical context’ of the country’s conflictual relationship with its peripheral regions such as Kashmir and the northeast. Drawing on Giorgio Agamben’s concept of the ‘state of exception’ and Partha Chatterjee’s notion of ‘the rule of colonial difference,’ the article seeks to interrogate India’s Internet governance practices in peripheral regions and the disabling impact of shutdowns and filtering on local e-communities. In critiquing the Internet historiography of the technology predicated on its materiality, rendered through numbers and events and centred around the nation’s urban technoscape, it explores local imaginations of the Internet in particular regions alternative to the one perpetuated by the Indian state and market forces while highlighting the strategies used by e-communities to circumvent state filtering mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":52252,"journal":{"name":"Internet Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48232925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：