Prediction, pre-emption and limits to dissent: Social media and big data uses for policing protests in the United Kingdom
Open accessAbstract
Social media and big data uses form part of a broader shift from ‘reactive’ to ‘proactive’ forms of governance in which state bodies engage in analysis to predict, pre-empt and respond in real time to a range of social problems. Drawing on research with British police, we contextualize these algorithmic processes within actual police practices, focusing on protest policing. Although aspects of algorithmic decision-making have become prominent in police practice, our research shows that they are embedded within a continuous human–computer negotiation that incorporates a rooted claim to ‘professional judgement’, an integrated intelligence context and a significant level of discretion. This context, we argue, transforms conceptions of threats. We focus particularly on three challenges: the inclusion of pre-existing biases and agendas, the prominence of marketing-driven software, and the interpretation of unpredictability. Such a contextualized analysis of data uses provides important insights for the shifting terrain of possibilities for dissent.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Western democracies-including the United States and Britain-have substantial surveillance capacities.
“Although many are quick to focus on autocratic uses of surveillance, Western democracies—including the United States (64) and Britain (36)—have substantial surveillance capacities.”
From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [36]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Earl, J. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl8198 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Investigating coordinated account creation using burst detection and network analysis
Bellutta, D., & Carley, K. M. (2023) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-023-00695-7 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dencik, L., Hintz, A., & Carey, Z.
- Affiliations
- Cardiff University (GB)
- The New School (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dencik, Lina
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-03-20
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1433-1450
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W2599626197
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 20.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- New Media & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Goldsmiths (University of London) (acceptedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Media Democracy Fund
- Ford Foundation
- Open Society Foundations
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime, Deviance, and Social Control
- Keywords
- protest policing, social media, big data, algorithmic decision-making, predictive policing, proactive governance, police discretion, professional judgment, algorithmic bias, unpredictability, dissent, United Kingdom
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