moonnieee

[moonnieee]

Week10

How Toxic Masculinity Fuels Online Harassment and Real-World Violence

The idea of gender roles isn’t new. Society has always assigned expectations to men and women, with men as providers and women as caregivers. But in modern discourse, these roles have evolved, challenged, and, in many ways, dissolved. However, in certain corners of the internet, they haven’t just remained intact; they’ve been weaponized.

Enter the manosphere, a collection of online communities that claim society is suppressing men’s rights, pushing “feminine values” at the expense of masculinity (Center on Extremism, 2025). And at the forefront of this movement? Figures like Andrew Tate.

From Misogyny to Harassment Controlling Women Through Fear

The manosphere doesn’t just exist to complain about feminism. It actively works to silence those who challenge it. Women, nonbinary individuals, and even men who speak out against toxic masculinity often find themselves targets of coordinated harassment campaigns.

This isn’t just a few trolls making rude comments. It’s a systemic effort to threaten, doxx, and psychologically manipulate individuals into silence (Vitis & Gilmour, 2016).

These harassment tactics include mass-reporting social media accounts to get them banned, publishing personal information like addresses or phone numbers, sending coordinated death and rape threats, and creating deepfake pornography to humiliate and degrade.

The manosphere isn’t just toxic rhetoric; it fuels real-world violence.

Radicalized by these communities, young men have carried out mass shootings and targeted killings, like the Toronto attack where an incel follower murdered womens. These aren’t isolated cases, yet those who spread this hate rarely face consequences.

And yet, figures like Andrew Tate, who directly contributed to this radicalization, face little to no consequences. His criminal history including allegations of human trafficking and abuse was widely ignored for years, allowing his influence to grow unchecked (Center on Extremism, 2025). By failing to hold these individuals accountable, society normalizes their rhetoric and, by extension, the violence they inspire.

A Society That Looks Away

The problem is how it normalizes crime. When figures like Tate joke about hitting women, belittle sexual assault survivors or dismiss harassment as “men just being men,” they create an environment where these actions seem acceptable (Center on Extremism, 2025).

The dangerous mindset they promote suggests that violence against women is justified if they step out of line, harassment is just a test of strength and women should toughen up, rape culture is excused with victim-blaming rhetoric, and the legal system is rigged in favour of women, so taking matters into one’s own hands is necessary.

This erases accountability and shifts the blame onto victims. Young men absorbing these messages grow up believing they are entitled to control over women’s bodies and lives, and when they don’t get that control, they lash out.

Maybe because we, as a society, allow it to.

The toxic ideology of the manosphere isn’t just the product of a few bad actors. It is deeply rooted in historical power structures. The idea that men must dominate and women must submit has existed for centuries, baked into laws, cultural norms, and social expectations.

Even as legal rights for women have improved, these outdated gender roles still influence modern society in ways that keep misogyny alive.

And then came the internet, a force multiplier that took these beliefs and pushed them into overdrive.

Old social structures laid the groundwork. Historically, women had little to no power, and their autonomy was controlled by men. Patriarchal values ensured that male dominance was never questioned, making it the default. 

The internet provided the perfect weapon.

Social media platforms amplified extreme voices while suppressing nuanced discussions.

Algorithms care about engagement over ethics, promoting figures like Tate who thrived on controversy.

Online anonymity emboldened individuals to harass without consequence.

Echo chambers reinforced toxic beliefs, radicalizing young men who felt disillusioned.

Instead of dismantling harmful gender norms, the internet gave them a new, more dangerous life.

This isn’t just about feminism. It’s about whether we accept a world where online spaces are breeding grounds for hate and violence or challenge the systems that allow it to thrive. Until society stops excusing, ignoring, or profiting from this culture, the cycle will repeat, and more lives will be harmed in its wake.

References

Center on Extremism. (2025, March 10). Andrew Tate: Five Things to Know. Adl.org. https://www.adl.org/resources/article/andrew-tate-five-things-know

Lennon, C. (2025, March 7). Online “manosphere” is moving misogyny to the mainstream. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/03/1160876

Vitis, L., & Gilmour, F. (2016). Dick pics on blast: A woman’s resistance to online sexual harassment using humour, art and Instagram. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal, 13(3), 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659016652445

[moonnieee]

Week 9

Escaping Reality, Reinforcing Inequality: The Class Divide in Gaming Communities

Gaming has long been marketed as an escape, a digital refuge from the constraints of the real world (Lee & Chen, 2022). However, within these virtual landscapes, the same hierarchies and inequalities persist, mirroring the structures players seek to evade. The gaming community is not a monolith; it is deeply stratified, and shaped by economic power, access to resources, and cultural capital.

At the top, competitive esports dominate the industry. Think of games like Dota 2 or Counter-Strike, where the best players are propelled into stardom, backed by lucrative sponsorships, and trained in high-end facilities (Maysalward, n.d.). Success here often depends on access, which is affording top-tier hardware, internet speeds, and the free time necessary to train like a professional athlete. Meanwhile, the casual player, lacking these advantages, is often relegated to the sidelines, never truly able to compete at the highest levels.

Streaming platforms create another layer of inequality. While some streamers amass millions of followers and brand deals, smaller content creators struggle for visibility. Algorithms favour those who already have an established audience, making it harder for new voices to break through. The wealth gap in gaming extends beyond competition, and it's embedded in content creation itself.

Knowledge communities, spaces once seen as democratic hubs for shared expertise, are also affected. Players who can afford early access to games, expensive DLCs, or even modding tools hold the advantage in shaping discussions. Their insights often carry more weight, reinforcing a divide between those who contribute to gaming culture and those who simply consume it.

Modding, a space hailed for player creativity, is not immune to this stratification. Popular mods can elevate certain players into positions of influence, but they also reflect broader industry tensions. Consider the Battlefront II loot box controversy—players who could pay had an advantage, while those who refused found themselves at a disadvantage (Shamus, 2017). Even in a modding community, demands for new features can create power imbalances, with certain voices being heard more than others.

Gaming is a reflection of society’s structures, not an escape from them. The illusion of equality within virtual worlds crumbles when examined closely. For gaming communities to thrive as inclusive spaces, these systemic inequalities must first be acknowledged and then challenged.

References

Lee, Y.-H., & Chen, M. (2022). Seeking a Sense of Control or Escapism? The Role of Video Games in Coping with Unemployment. Games and Culture, 18(3), 155541202210974. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120221097413

Maysalward. (n.d.). Exploring the Thrilling World of Esports. Maysalward. Retrieved March 21, 2025, from https://maysalward.com/the-rapid-growth-of-the-esports-industry

Shamus. (2017, March). This Dumb Industry: No, We Didn’t Beat EA - Twenty Sided. Shamusyoung.com. https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=41095

[moonnieee]

Week 8

Through the Filter: Instagram’s Algorithmic Beauty Standard

🌸 The Age of the Algorithmic Face

Instagram isn’t just a social platform—it’s an aesthetic regime, dictating what is desirable, acceptable, and worthy of attention. Beauty filters have become an inseparable part of digital self-presentation. Even more telling, 31% of users who open filter content end up using it, 31% of the captured content is shared, and 15% of users save the effect for later use (Lighthouse Studio, 2021).

At first glance, beauty filters seem harmless—small adjustments, fun enhancements, nothing too serious. But their widespread use signals something deeper: a collective recalibration of self-perception, where the "filtered face" becomes the aspirational default. Instead of merely experimenting with aesthetics has increasingly hate of  their real-world appearance. 

This will be explained by Social Comparison Theory.

The Filtered Self: When Perception Becomes Performance

Self-worth is often shaped by comparison. Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) explains how individuals measure themselves against others, especially those with similar lifestyles or interests. On Instagram, where filters blur the line between reality and perfection, these comparisons become relentless.

For teenage girls, whose identities are still forming, filtered beauty sets unattainable standards. Admiration quickly turns into self-doubt, making the unedited self feel inadequate- negative affection of upward comparision (Psychologs Magazine, 2024). Beyond personal struggles, comparison seeps into relationships, fostering insecurity and dissatisfaction.

Over time, this cycle takes a toll—fueling anxiety, depression, and body image disorders. The filtered self isn’t just altered; it’s a distorted reality, convincing individuals they are "less than" a version of beauty that never truly existed. This is an age of self-discovery, where peer comparison, social validation, and romantic relationships become deeply significant. As they seek independence from parental influence, peer acceptance grows into a defining force, shaping self-worth in ways that extend far beyond the screen. But when the majority of their interactions with beauty are filtered—when the algorithm consistently prioritizes symmetrical, poreless, and digitally perfected faces—what happens to the way they see themselves?

🚨 Beauty, Dependency, and the Loss of Reality

What’s most concerning is that this is the age group most reliant on filters, yet also the most psychologically vulnerable. Up to 95% of teens aged 13–17 use social media (Lighthouse Studio, 2021), and as they immerse themselves in these curated beauty standards, many begin to develop distorted self-perceptions, dissatisfaction with their natural appearance. The filter doesn’t just smooth skin—it conditions the mind, making the unedited self feel inadequate, undeserving, or even unrecognizable.

And so, a cycle begins: the earlier they start using filters, the deeper the dependency becomes. For many, the "real" face is no longer good enough. The filter becomes a mask, and with it, the fear of being seen without one.

References

Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Lighthouse Studio. (2021, July 12). Make the most out of your Instagram filter data. Medium. https://medium.com/@lighthousestudio/make-the-most-out-of-your-instagram-filter-data-b04722eb417f

Psychologs Magazine. (2024, November 20). Social Comparison Theory. Psychologs Magazine | Mental Health Magazine | Psychology Magazine | Self-Help Magazine. https://www.psychologs.com/social-comparison-theory/

[moonnieee]

WEEK7

In an era where algorithms govern digital landscapes, our understanding of beauty and identity is no longer organic—it is engineered. Social media platforms act as gatekeepers, curating what we see and, in turn, shaping what we believe to be desirable. By reinforcing a narrow, often unattainable aesthetic, these platforms do more than reflect beauty standards—they manufacture them.

Beauty as a Digital Commodity The aesthetic themes of social media are not accidental since they are algorithmically driven. From the sculpted sharpness of hyper-masculine figures to the delicate symmetry of hyper-feminine influencers, beauty has been distilled into a formula. Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Pinterest amplify these templates, promoting uniformity while relegating deviations to digital obscurity. Those who fail to conform find themselves not only unseen but also undervalued in a system that equates visibility with worth.

For many, this algorithmic curation translates into an ongoing struggle with self-perception (Lane, 2017). Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) is no longer just a psychological condition—it is an epidemic fueled by filters, FaceTune, and the relentless pursuit of an unattainable standard. The dissonance between one's reflection and one's digital self breeds an existential crisis where identity is fractured between reality and pixels.

"When the mirror doesn’t reflect the screen, self-worth hangs in the balance."

Social media does not merely act as a mirror; it distorts, selects, and edits what is reflected. Beauty, once an intimate and evolving concept, is now a performance. Digital visibility hinges on conformity, compelling users to brand themselves into algorithm-friendly personas.

Breaking the Algorithm Social media platforms wield immense power over digital identity, enforcing both explicit and implicit control mechanisms (Duffy & Meisner, 2022). While human moderators oversee formal penalties—content removals, account suspensions—users often question their qualifications and inherent biases. On the other hand, AI-driven moderation systems operate under a veil of opacity, frequently misidentifying or suppressing content in ways that disproportionately impact marginalized voices.

Beyond these overt forms of regulation, platforms employ subtler punitive measures, such as shadowbanning, where users’ visibility is reduced without warning. Many believe that these hidden restrictions are not just algorithmic quirks but structural biases embedded in digital governance. The lack of transparency surrounding these practices fuels ongoing concerns about fairness, discrimination, and accountability in online spaces (Duffy & Meisner, 2022).

The battle against algorithmic beauty conditioning is not just a conversation—it is a revolution.

RealBeautyUnfiltered is more than a campaign; it is a movement demanding a digital future where authenticity is not erased, and beauty is not dictated by code (Dorfman et al., 2017). It’s time to break free from algorithmic control and reclaim identity, representation, and self-worth.

#RealBeautyUnfiltered stands for: 🔹 Raising Awareness: 🔹 Amplifying Marginalized Voices 🔹 Advocating for Transparency 🔹 Partnering with Ethical Brands

The more challenging the algorithmic gaze, the closer the user comes to a world where #bodybeauty exists beyond the filter.

References

Dorfman, R. G., Vaca, E. E., Mahmood, E., Fine, N. A., & Schierle, C. F. (2017). Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 38(3), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx120

Duffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2022). Platform Governance at the margins: Social Media Creators’ Experiences with Algorithmic (in)visibility. Media, Culture & Society, 45(2), 016344372211119. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221111923

Lane, D. C. (2017). Understanding body modification: A process-based framework. Sociology Compass, 11(7), e12495. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12495

[moonnieee]

week 6

The Rise of Slow Fashion

Slow fashion is more than just an alternative to fast fashion—it’s a movement that promotes ethical production, high-quality materials, and fair wages (Domingos et al., 2022). Unlike mass-produced clothing that prioritizes speed and low costs, slow fashion emphasizes durability, timeless designs, and reduced waste. The idea is simple: buy less, choose better, and make it last.

Brands that truly follow slow fashion principles focus on: ✔️ Ethical labor practices ✔️ Sustainable and biodegradable materials ✔️ Transparency in sourcing and production ✔️ Encouraging mindful consumption

Sustainability vs. Greenwashing: Are Consumers Really Buying for the Planet?

The fashion industry is at a turning point. As sustainability becomes a marketing goldmine, brands are quick to claim they are green, eco-friendly, and sustainable. But how much of this is true? The reality is that many consumers don’t fully understand what sustainability means, making them easy targets for greenwashing (FSC, 2024).

The Greenwashing Trap

Greenwashing is when brands make misleading claims about their sustainability efforts to appear more eco-conscious than they really are. Terms like “organic,” “eco-friendly,” “carbon neutral,” or “conscious collection” are often thrown around without transparency or accountability (Lai et al., 2017). In reality, many of these brands continue harmful practices such as excessive water use, exploitative labor, and plastic-based materials while marketing themselves as sustainable.

Why Do Consumers Fall for Greenwashing?

Even though sustainability is a trending topic, most shoppers focus on price, quality, and convenience over ethical concerns. Studies show that while people express positive attitudes toward sustainability, their purchasing decisions don’t always align.

Some reasons for why consumers fall for greenwashing:

#!1 Lack of knowledge and FOMO Many consumers equate sustainability solely with organic materials and recycling, overlooking crucial aspects like fair wages, ethical labour, and long-term durability. #!2 Emotional appeal Terms like eco-friendly, carbon-neutral, and sustainable trigger a feel-good factor, making people feel responsible without questioning deeper production ethics. #!3 Cognitive dissonance Greenwashing eases their guilt, allowing them to justify purchases. #!4 Trust in big brands Many consumers assume well-known brands wouldn’t lie about sustainability.

Do People Actually Buy for the Planet?

While sustainability is an influencing factor, research suggests that environmental concerns alone rarely drive purchasing decisions. Instead, shoppers focus on:

Price and Affordability Consumers want ethical fashion but are unwilling to pay significantly more for it (Lai et al., 2017). Trendy Aesthetic and Social Influence Many choose ‘sustainable’ products because they look good, rather than out of deep environmental concern. Personal Benefits Some people buy ‘eco’ products believing they are better quality, safer, or healthier rather than out of activism.

The Consequences of Superficial Sustainability: Beyond the Green Façade.

Brands have mastered the art of looking sustainable without actually changing much. H&M’s ‘Conscious Collection’ and Zara’s ‘Join Life’ initiative are classic examples—both promise more sustainable materials but operate within the same fast fashion business model that relies on overproduction and planned obsolescence (Igini, 2022).  

If a brand claims to be sustainable while launching hundreds of new styles every month, can it be sustainable? If brands continue producing excessive amounts of clothing while marketing only a small portion as ‘sustainable,’ does it reduce their environmental impact or follow the sustained rule: buying less and choosing well?

References

Domingos, M., Vale, V. T., & Faria, S. (2022). Slow Fashion Consumer Behavior: a Literature Review. Sustainability, 14(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052860

FSC. (2024, May 27). What is greenwashing? Exposing deceptive tactics. FSC. https://fsc.org/en/blog/what-is-greenwashing

Igini, M. (2022, August 24). 5 Fast-Fashion Brands Called Out for Greenwashing. Earth.org. https://earth.org/fast-fashion-brands-greenwashing/

Lai, Z., Henninger, C. E., & Alevizou, P. J. (2017). An Exploration of Consumers’ Perceptions Towards Sustainable Fashion – A Qualitative Study in the UK. Sustainability in Fashion, 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51253-2_5

[moonnieee]

What is Digital Citizenship

Week 5: What is Digital Citizenship? Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement and Activism

In 2025, digital citizenship extends beyond traditional ideas of civic participation, encompassing responsible and informed engagement with digital technologies. It involves creating, sharing, socializing, and learning within digital spaces while upholding ethical values and promoting human dignity. 

Platformization and Its Influence

Social media platforms have transformed into powerful arenas for political discourse, activism, and community engagement. However, they are not neutral spaces. They operate through datafication, commodification, and selection, shaping user interactions and influencing public perception (Van Dijck, 2012). This shift raises concerns about privacy, misinformation, and corporate control over information.

Case Study: Digital Activism

Movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo demonstrate the power of digital citizenship. By leveraging hashtags, these movements create “hashtag publics,” mobilizing global support and driving social change. These movements exemplify how digital platforms enable direct voter engagement, fundraising, and real-time discussions, aligning with Theocharis in 2023 on the transformation from traditional political participation to online activism (Theocharis et al., 2022).

A key example is the BLM movement in 2020, which, through viral social media campaigns, influenced political discourse, raised funds for social justice initiatives, and pressured corporations and governments to address racial injustice. Similarly, #MeToo, by encouraging survivors to share their experiences, reshaped public discussions on sexual harassment, influencing policy changes and legal reforms worldwide.

Challenges and Ethical Considerations in Digital Activism

Despite its benefits, digital activism is not without challenges. Misinformation, online harassment, and algorithm-driven echo chambers often distort political discussions and amplify division. For example, BLM protests faced disinformation campaigns, including false narratives about protest violence, which undermined the movement’s legitimacy. Likewise, #MeToo activists encountered targeted harassment and attempts to discredit survivors, demonstrating how digital activism can expose individuals to online abuse.

Furthermore, the commercialization of online interactions raises ethical concerns. Social media corporations profit from engagement metrics, which go for sensational content over substantive discourse. This aligns with the concerns about power and surveillance, where tech companies shape public discourse while controlling data and user interactions. Addressing these issues requires digital literacy, regulation, and user awareness, ensuring that activism remains a tool for democratic participation rather than manipulation.

References

Rachimoellah, M. (2024). Digital Activism and Political Change: Challenges of Social Media’s Impact on Political Development. Jurnal of Middle East and Islamic Studies, 11(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.7454/meis.v11i2.177

Theocharis, Y., Boulianne, S., Koc-Michalska, K., & Bimber, B. (2022). Platform affordances and political participation: how social media reshape political engagement. West European Politics, 46(4), 788–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2087410

Van Dijck, J. (2012). Facebook as a Tool for Producing Sociality and Connectivity. Television & New Media, 13(2), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476411415291

[moonnieee]

Reality TV Case Study

Week 4: Digital Community and Fandom:

Reality TV, rooted in the 1950s and 1970s (Andrew, 2023), spans genres like dating shows, docusoaps, and talent contests . It is also defined as a "docusoap" or "unscripted interaction", thriving on hypervisibility and emotional spectacle. With various categories and guests, it easily captures audience attention and extends its reach through social media, transformingReality TV and Social Media 

Multiplatform Engagement

Reality TV increasingly relies on social media to expand engagement, diversify markets, and connect reality stars with fans (Lovelock, 2019). Platforms like podcasts, online recaps, virtual conventions, and Cameo extend visibility beyond television, shifting reality TV into a multi-platform entertainment economy.

A clear example is The Bachelor franchise, which sustains fans' engagement through social media. Contestants build online personas on TikTok and Instagram, competing for publicity, sponsorships, and brand endorsement (Walczer, 2019). Also, Love Island alumni convert fame to capital through endorsement and podcast interviews. However, this industry model is controversial. Reality TV often exploits contestants with precarious contracts, intense competition, and fleeting fame (Mirrlees, 2015).  Many guests feel pressured to dramatize personal lives for continued relevance, blurring the authenticity and performance of the show. 

Reality TV as a Platform for Political Discourse

Reality television can reshape political discourse by influencing public perception, voter behaviour, and the rise of celebrity politicians. By blending dramatization with personal narratives, it blurs the lines between entertainment and governance, favouring media personas over policy expertise (Shrum, 2004).

A key example is Donald Trump, who leveraged his Apprentice persona to craft an image of decisiveness, using sensationalism, direct engagement, and social media dominance to secure the U.S. presidency (Weiss, 2021). Similarly, Volodymyr Zelenskyy transitioned from playing a fictional president in Servant of the People to winning Ukraine’s presidency, demonstrating the appeal of media-savvy leaders (Weiss, 2021). Sarah Palin also sustained political relevance through reality TV, using Sarah Palin’s Alaska to reinforce her public image (Weiss, 2021).

However, this shift raises concerns about spectacle over policy. Political discourse increasingly mirrors entertainment, where branding and relatability outweigh governance experience (Grindstaff, 2002). This reflects a broader transformation in democratic engagement, where media presence can determine electoral success.

References

Andrew. (2023, December 6). Reality Television Through the Ages: A Journey from Milestones to the Future - AWARDS SHOW. American Reality TV Awards. https://www.realitytelevisionawards.com/reality-television-through-the-ages-a-journey-from-milestones-to-the-future/

Grindstaff, L. (2002). The Money Shot. In press.uchicago.edu (198th–287th ed.). Davis. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3630693.html

Lovelock, M. (2019). Reality TV and Queer Identities. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14215-5

Mirrlees, T. (2015, January 1). Reality TV’s Low-Wage and No-Wage Workforce. 187–205. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tanner-Mirrlees/publication/335680616_Reality_TV

Shrum, L. J. (2004). The psychology of entertainment media: blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion (pp. 137–189). http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/49559/1/229.pdf

Walczer, J. (2019). Book Review: Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online. Media International Australia, 172(1), 135–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x19858459 Weiss, J. (2021). Reality TV Has Remade Our Politics. But Just for One Party. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/17/where-are-all-the-democrats-in-reality-tv-499897

[moonnieee]

Tumblr and the Digital Public Sphere

Week 3 Digital Community: Tumblr Case Study

Introduction:

Tumblr and Its Role in the Public Sphere

Tumblr, a microblog that was launched in 2007, has long been recognized as a site of creative freedom, subcultural communities, and cultural dialogue. Unlike other social media platforms such as Facebook or Instagram, Tumblr promotes a more anonymous, user-oriented space with a wide range of content allowed, which users can engage in dialogue without the institutional policy of real names. This organizational framework closely adheres to that of the public sphere, in which users can exchange ideas openly without the interference of institutions.

Understanding the Public Sphere and Its Digital Evolution

The public sphere, according to Jürgen Habermas 1989, is a public arena where "private people come together as a public" to engage in reasoned debate and exchange of critical knowledge, ultimately leading to political and societal change (Calhoun, 1992). The distinguishing characteristics of a public sphere include open access to information, equal opportunity to join in, and immunity from economic or political coercion.

In the digital culture of the present, the Internet, and more so social media, satisfies most of these public sphere criteria. Many writers argue that online platforms facilitate the exchange of ideas with fewer barriers to participation (Kruse et al., 2018). In theory, the decentralized nature of the Internet enables users to disseminate information and participate in discourse without institutional interference (Van Dijck, 2012). However, in reality, concerns regarding algorithmic bias, surveillance, and exclusion based on socioeconomic factors challenge the Internet’s potential as a truly open public sphere.

Why Tumblr Is a Good Digital Public Sphere?

Tumblr’s structure and affordances make it a particularly strong example of a good digital public sphere. Some highlight features that reinforce its status from other platforms include:

Anonymity: Unlike Facebook or Instagram, which require real names, Tumblr allows pseudonyms, making it a safer space for marginalized communities, such as LGBTQ+ users, to engage freely.

Hashtagging & Community Building: Tumblr was among the earliest platforms to utilize hashtags as a tool of discussion and community formation, enabling users to move through conversations without having to be stringent about content curation.

Relatively Public Nature: Users do not need to follow one another to view content, allowing for broader participation.

Less Surveillance: Unlike other websites, Tumblr does not focus on time stamps or active status indicators, reducing constant monitoring of user activity.

Nevertheless, defining it as a good public sphere does not mean it's perfect. In 2018, Tumblr decided to ban NSFW (Not Safe for Work) content. The action was controversial, with many users, especially those engaged in #bodypositive content, complaining that the policy was unjustly affecting their freedom of expression (Pilipets & Paasonen, 2020). Tumblr's automated filtering system mistakenly labelled innocent content, including fully clothed selfies and animal photos, as explicit (Jackson, 2018). The error frustrated users and lowered engagement among younger users.

Although the rationale for banning explicit content—preventing child pornography, for example—the execution of the policy demonstrated the challenges of automated moderation. Tumblr's use of censorship by AI with poor accuracy resulted in a loss of trust among its members. 

References

Calhoun, C. (1992). Habermas and the Public Sphere edited by Craig Calhoun. https://calhoun.faculty.asu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/articles/habermas_and_the_public_sphere.pdf

Jackson, G. (2018, December 4). Tumblr’s New Algorithm Thinks Garfield Is Explicit Content. Kotaku. https://kotaku.com/tumblrs-new-algorithm-thinks-garfield-is-explicit-conte-1830854912

Kruse, L. M., Norris, D. R., & Flinchum, J. R. (2018). Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media. The Sociological Quarterly, 59(1), 62–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2017.1383143

Pilipets, E., & Paasonen, S. (2020). Nipples, memes, and algorithmic failure: NSFW critique of Tumblr censorship. New Media & Society, 24(6), 146144482097928. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820979280

Van Dijck, J. (2012). Facebook as a Tool for Producing Sociality and Connectivity. Television & New Media, 13(2), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476411415291