CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionLaw, Rights, and FreedomsSocial Media and Politics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PRIVATE PROTEST?: Public and private engagement online

Earl, Jennifer·2012·Information, Communication & Society
DOI 10.1080/1369118x.2012.665936
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article examines two historically distinct understandings of privacy and their relationship to online protest. Using a contemporary view of privacy, which focuses on information secrecy and disclosure, the author examined the development of ‘private protest’ in which both the identities of protesters and even the number of participants are concealed. Empirically, she traced this by tracking both the percentage of protest-related websites that include privacy policies and the percentage of online protest actions that report or estimate participation figures. Using a much older view of privacy, which focuses on controlled access to private property, she examined the implications of online protest occurring on private servers (e.g. Facebook, YouTube). Offline protesters have increasingly had to choose between protesting in venues that enjoy substantial free speech protections or protesting in venues where large numbers of people gather; she argued that online protesters face a similar dilemma but with less recourse to protesting in legally protected spaces. By examining both definitions of privacy, this article offers a rich understanding of the privacy dilemmas facing online protest organizers and participants.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2012.665936

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Platform community standards shape online dissent, including dictating which tactics and causes are scrubbed from platforms.

    “Platform community standards (e.g., Facebook and Twitter’s community standards) shape online dissent, including dictating which tactics and causes are scrubbed from platforms (101).”

    From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [101]

  • Because the servers that major platforms and websites reside on are private property, protesters do not enjoy free speech and assembly rights while on them.

    “Because the servers that major platforms and websites reside on are private property, protesters do not enjoy free speech and assembly rights while on them (101).”

    From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [101]

  • There are so few major platforms, making their power consolidated and harder to route around.

    “This is true partly because of the volume of contention that takes place on private platforms today, but also because there are so few major platforms (101), making their power consolidated and harder to route around.”

    From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [101]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10.2307/1321160 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Earl, J.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Earl, Jennifer
ORCID
Earl, Jennifer
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2012-05
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
591-608
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
DOI
10.1080/1369118x.2012.665936
OpenAlex
W2335249413
Cited by
17
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Law › Law, Rights, and Freedoms
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
privacy, online protest, confidentiality, disclosure, privacy policies, freedom of expression, private property, Facebook, YouTube

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review