j?”eY?Z]>Q”?
Transcript of j?”eY?Z]>Q”?
1
Farkas, J., & Neumayer, C. (2017). ‘Stop Fake Hate Profiles on Facebook’: Challenges forcrowdsourcedactivismonsocialmedia.FirstMonday,22(9).
‘StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook’:Challengesforcrowdsourced
activismonsocialmedia
JohanFarkas*andChristinaNeumayer**
* ITUniversityofCopenhagen,[email protected].
**ITUniversityofCopenhagen,[email protected].
Abstract
Thisresearchexamineshowactivistsmobiliseagainstfakehateprofileson
Facebook.Basedonsixmonthsofparticipantobservation,thearticle
demonstrateshowDanishFacebookusersorganisedtocombatfictitious
Muslimprofilesthatspurredhatredagainstethnicminorities.Thearticle
concludesthatcrowdsourcedactionbyFacebookusersisinsufficientasaform
ofsustainableresistanceagainstfakehateprofiles.Aviablesolutionwould
requiresocialmediacompaniessuchasFacebooktotakeresponsibilityinthe
struggleagainstfakecontentusedforpoliticalmanipulation.
Keywords:onlineactivism;crowdsourcedactivism;fakeprofiles;hate
profiles;Facebook
Introduction
Thisishowweshuthispagedown.We’renearly1300membersandifwe
eachspend5secondsreportinghispage,it’llberemovedinnotime.
(StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook,postbyadmin,1July2015)
Pre-print version
2
InJune2015,aclosedFacebookgroupnamedStopFakeHateProfileson
Facebook(STOPfalskeHAD-PROFILERpåFACEBOOK)wascreatedtocombat
fakeprofilesspurringanti-MuslimdiscoursesinDenmark.Within24hours,the
groupattractedover1000membersengaginginseveralformsofcooperative
contestation.Mostnotably,thegroupusedcollectivereportingofcontentfor
violationsofFacebook’scommunitystandards(Facebook,2016).
StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebookwascreatedinreactiontoseveral
Facebookpagesthatsparkedhundredsofhatefulcommentsandsharesfrom
DanishFacebookusersinspring2015.Thesepageswereallconstructed
aroundfictitiousMuslimidentities,claimingtorepresentawiderMuslim
communityinDenmark.TheirconsistentmessagewasthatDanishMuslims
wereconspiringtotakeoverthecountry,rapeDanish(white)women,andkill
allnon-Muslims(Farkasetal.,2017).Mostuserswhoreactedtothishateful
contentdidnotrealisetheidentitieswerefakeandexpressedaggressionas
wellasxenophobicsentimentsincomments.Furthermore,userswho
contestedthepages’authorshipincommentsweresystematicallyremoved
andblockedbytheanonymouspageadministrator(s).
JournalistsfromtheDanishpublicservicebroadcaster(DanmarksRadio)
eventuallyreportedonthephenomenon,highlightingthattheFacebookpages
werefakeandlikelyconstructedbyfar-rightactiviststosmearMuslims
(Nielsen,2015).Thelatterfinding,however,couldnotbepositivelyconfirmed,
asFacebookenablespageadministratorstoremaininvisible,challengingany
Pre-print version
3
legalactionagainstthem.StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebookthusrepresented
theonlysystematicattempttoresistandcombatthefakeMuslimFacebook
pages.ThisoccurredthroughcrowdsourcedreportingofthepagestoFacebook
inordertogetthecompanytoclosethemdown.
Thepowerofcrowdsourcedonlineactivismasaformofcollectiveresistance
haslongbeenheralded,thoughparticularlyintheearlydaysofsocialmedia
(Benkler,2006;Jenkins,2006;Shirky,2009).Scholarshavearguedthat
dataficationofpersonalinformationandtheriseofmany-to-many
communicationenablesnewformsofpoliticalmobilisationbasedonapolitics
ofnumbers(LoaderandMercea,2011).Acoreaspectofsuchpolitical
mobilisationiscrowdsourcedcollectiveaction(inthestreetsandonline),often
throughsocialmediaplatformsthatenablelarge-scalecoordinationand
organisation(Lotanetal.,2011).Thereare,however,limitationstothisformof
action.Giventheincreasingrangeofopportunitiesforengagementinthe
digitalera,ithasbecomecommontolamentthatonlineparticipationisno
morethanfeel-good‘slacktivism’(Morozov,2011),‘clicktivism’(White,2010),
oraltogetherlackingacollectivealtruisticcomponent(Bauman,2001).While
thiscriticismmightringpartiallytrueinthecaseofStopFakeHateProfileson
Facebook,thisarticlearguesthatparticipationandactivismorganisedinthe
groupwasconditionedandlimitedbyFacebook’sdigitalarchitecture.Basedon
participant-observationalfindings,thearticleexploresthechallengesthatStop
FakeHateProfilesonFacebookfacedinitsstruggle.Drawinguponthese
findings,thearticlesuggeststhatcrowdsourcinguseractioncanonlymakea
marginalcontributiontosustainablypreventingfakehateprofilesonsocial
Pre-print version
4
mediaundercurrentconditions.Asustainablesolutionwouldrequirethat
Facebooktakesongreaterresponsibilityasacompanyandprovidemorethan
itscurrentlylimitedandopaqueusersupport.
Thecrowdsourcingideologyonsocialmedia
JeffHowecoinedtheterm‘crowdsourcing’in2006inaWiredarticle.Theidea
ofcrowdsactingandcreatingtogetherwaspresentinearlydiscoursesabout
socialmedia.TimO’Reilly’s(2005)conceptof‘Web2.0’hadthe“wisdomofthe
crowds”asakeycomponent.Theseideasmainlyincludedcrowdsourcingina
businesscontext,focusingonbottom-upcreativeprocessesinwhich
companiesadoptideasfromcrowds,fans,andamateurs.Inadiscourse
analysisofpopularpressarticlesconcerningcrowdsourcing,Brabham(2012,
p.407)concludesthattheconceptwasalsopromotedas“apotentially
powerfultooltospurpublicparticipationandtransparencyingovernment
affairs.”Brabhamargues,however,thatthe‘amateur’labelinthiscontext
delegitimisesotherwise-worthyagentsbydevaluingtheirrolesasparticipants
andcitizensindemocraticsociety.Liberatorytechnologicaldiscourses–a
powerfulpartofthecorporateidentitiesofsocialmediacompaniessuchas
GoogleandFacebook(Turner,2006)–havethusbeenadoptedinboth
contemporarybusinessculturesanddemocraticdiscoursesandprocesses.
Basedonananalysisofthepoliticaleconomyofthedigitalmediaindustry,
Sandoval(2014,p.252)arguesthat,ratherthanbeingsocial(asassertedin
corporatesocialresponsibilitystatements),socialmediacompaniesexploit
labourand“arefeedingonthecommonsofsociety.”Socialmediaandother
Pre-print version
5
techcompaniesco-optideasoftheradicalleft,suchasparticipation,
decentralisation,spontaneousinteraction,andlackofdisciplineandhierarchy
(Žižek,2009),inconceptssuchascrowdsourcing.Thesediscoursesof
empowerment,however,shifttheobligationforactiononsocialmediatothe
users.Thiscreatespotentialsforuseractionaswellasdisempowermentsince
socialmediacompaniescandisowncorporateresponsibilityforphenomenaon
theirplatformssuchasfakehateprofiles.
Facebook’scommunitystandardsstatethatthecompanystrives“towelcome
peopletoanenvironmentthatisfreefromabusivecontent.Todothis,werely
onpeoplelikeyou”(Facebook,2016).Thecompany’smodelforhandling
abusivecontentisthusbuiltaroundfreeuserlabour.Thisiseconomically
beneficialforFacebook,asitonlyemployscommercialcontentmoderatorsto
reviewcontentreportedbycost-freeusers(Fuchs,2015;Roberts,2016).It
alsoenablesthecompanytodistanceitself,bothlegallyandcommunicatively,
fromabusivematerialonitsplatformbygrantingusersprimaryresponsibility.
ThisevasionstrategyiscentraltoFacebook,whichiscurrentlyseekingto
increasethisdelegationofresponsibility:“Theideaistogiveeveryoneinthe
communityoptionsforhowtheywouldliketosetthecontentpolicyfor
themselves”(Zuckerberg,2017).Asweshowinthisarticle,Facebook’suser-
centredapproachisproblematic,asthecompanycircumventsresponsibility
forcounteringabusewhileprovidinginadequateandopaquetoolsforuser
action.Thisdisempowersusersandlimitsthepotentialforcounteracting
phenomenasuchasfakehateprofiles.
Pre-print version
6
Activismandsocialmedialogics
Manychallengesconfrontactivistsusingcorporatesocialmediaplatformsto
counter-actdominantdiscourses,includingracism.PoellandBorra(2011,p.
695)notethatfor“crowd-sourcingalternative[news]reporting,”thecontent
oftweetsisframedbymainstreamnewstoproducevisibility.Leistert(2015)
arguesthatcorporatesocialmediahavebecomealgorithmicmassmedia,using
algorithmstocensor,normalise,andstandardiseactivistcommunications.The
silencingofcriticalvoicesreinforcesneoliberalvaluesinwhichcorporate
socialmediaplatformsareembedded(Couldry,2010).Inordertosuccessfully
achievepoliticalgoals,activistsinsocialmediaenvironmentsmustthusadapt
theirpoliticalstrategiestocorporatesocialmedialogicssuchasconnectivity,
popularity,anddatafication(vanDijckandPoell,2013).Throughthis
adaptation,activistsriskbeingco-optedbythesocialmedialogicsthatthey
attempttouseagainstthesystem(GalisandNeumayer,2016).Inotherwords,
insteadofempoweringactivists,“powerhaspartlyshiftedtothetechnological
mechanismsandalgorithmicselectionsoperatedbylargesocialmedia
corporations”(PoellandvanDijck,2015,p.534).
Inhisphilosophyoftechnology,Feenberg(2002)focusesonhumanagency,
arguingthattechnologyreinforcesprevailingpoliticalhierarchiesandpower
relations.Feenbergsuggests,however,thattechnologicalinventionalso
providesnewopportunitiesforsubversiveactorstochallengepoliticalsystems
byappropriatingnewmediatechnologiesfortheircause.Acriticalanalysisof
technologymustconsequentlybe“balancedbydescriptionofwhatpeople
actuallydoinpractice”(Mackenzie,2006,p.458).Thisrequiresustoopenthe
Pre-print version
7
blackboxofsocialmediamateriality“asactiveagentsshapingthesymbolic
andorganizationalprocessesofsocialactors”(Milan,2015,p.897).Inthe
following,weseektounpackthisblackboxbyanalysingthesocialmedia
practicesofStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook.Insodoing,weexplorehow
thegroupnavigatessocialmedialogicsinitsstruggleagainstfakehateprofiles.
Aparticipant-observationalinquiry
Thisarticlebuildsupondatacollectedduringsixmonthsofparticipant
observationwithintheclosedFacebookgroupStopFakeHateProfileson
Facebook.ThefieldworkcommencedinlateJune2015,shortlyafterthe
creationofthegroup,andendedinearlyJanuary2016.Levelsofactivity
withinthegroupvariedoverthecourseofthesixmonths,withconcentrations
aroundoccurrencesoffakehateprofiles.Duringtheresearchperiod,StopFake
HateProfilesonFacebookcontestedeightfakehateprofiles,whichattracteda
totalofover14,000commentsand6000sharesfromDanishFacebookusers.
Priortothegroup’screation,datafromfivefakeMuslimFacebookpageshad
alreadybeencollectedinAprilandMay2015(Farkasetal.,2017).WhenStop
FakeHateProfilesonFacebookwascreatedinresponsetofakeMuslim
Facebookpages,itwasthuspossibletoinitiateresearchwithinthegroup
shortlythereafter.Dataonfakehateprofilescollectedpriortotheexistenceof
thegroupenablesacomparativeperspectiveonfictitiousprofilesbeforeand
afterinitiationofthegroup’scollectivecontestation.
Thedatasetof13fakehateprofiles–eightofwhichwerecontestedbyStop
FakeHateProfilesonFacebook–derivesfromourqualitativeapproach.Based
Pre-print version
8
ononlineparticipantobservations(Hine,2015),ourresearchobjectiveisto
exploreandinvestigatethepeople,objects,controversies,conflicts,and
negotiationssurroundingfakehateprofilesandthestruggleagainstthem.
Throughoutthesixmonthsofresearch,wecontinuouslyobservedand
participatedintheactivitiesofStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook.This
involvedahighdegreeofengagement.Wesupportedthegroup’scauseand
interactedregularlywithgroupmembers,particularlythegroup
administrator.Theprimarypurposeoftheseinteractions(whichcanbestbe
describedasinformaldialogues)wastounderstandthewaysinwhichthe
groupwasorganisedandoperated.Basedontheseobservations,thisarticle
seekstounravelthedelicatepracticesandtacticsofStopFakeHateProfileson
Facebookaswellasthechallengesfacingthegroup’scrowdsourceduser
action.Infuturework,quantitativemeasurescouldadvantageouslybe
includedtoexaminethescaleandproliferationoffakehatesprofilessuchas
thosecontestedbythisgroup.
InformedconsentwassecuredfrommembersofStopFakeHateProfileson
Facebookbyfirstcontactingthepageadministratorandreceivingpermission
fromhim.Wethereafteraskedtheadministratortopostastatementinthe
groupforallmemberstosee,disclosingourresearchagendaandrequesting
permissiontodofieldwork.Inthisstatement,weassuredgroupmembersthat
wewouldprotecteveryone’sanonymity.Thegrouprespondedpositivelyto
ourrequest.Useractivitywithinthegroupwasarchivedthroughscreenshots
and‘printpage’functionalitiestoensuretheexistenceofdataincasethegroup
oritscontentweredeleted.Intotal,wecollected38posts(allmadebythe
Pre-print version
9
groupadministrator)and943comments.Subsequenttoourfieldwork,all
namesofgroupmembershavebeenanonymised,andtheactoftranslation
fromDanishtoEnglishrendersthecontentunsearchable.
StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook
Asitsnamesuggests,StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebookwascreatedwiththe
purposeoffindingandcombattingwhatitterms‘fakehateprofiles’on
Facebook.Inthegroup’smissionstatement,thistermencompasses“fake
profiles[…]groups,orpagescreatedtoincitefearandhatredtowardsspecific
groupsinDanishsociety”(Postbygroupadministrator,21June2015).The
group’sobjectivewastoexposeandcombatsuchprofilesthroughcollective
effortsusingFacebook’sdigitalarchitectureandcommunitystandards.All
groupmemberscouldinvitenewuserstothegroup,thoughtheyhadtobe
approvedbytheadministrator.Thegroupwasexplicitlynon-partisan,and
politicaldiscussionswerenotallowed.
Thefakehateprofilescombattedbythegroupwereidentifiedonthebasisofa
numberofcharacteristics,mostprominently:useofstolenprofilepictures,
falselyproclaimedaffiliationswithexistingorganisations;deletionofuser
commentsquestioningtheprofiles’authorship,lackofresponsewhen
contactingtheprofiles,andrhetoricsimilartothatofpreviousprofiles
identifiedasfake.ThefakehateprofilesusedfictitiousMuslimidentitiesto
constructanarrativeofMuslimsplottingtooverrunDanishsociety,killingand
rapingethnic(white)Danesintheprocess:
Pre-print version
10
IslamisNOTaboutpeacebutsubjugationtoAllah.Oncewegetsharialawin
Denmark,allyouinfidelpigswillhavetosubmittoIslam…It’sokaytokill,
aslongasthevictimsareinfidels.AllahuAkhbar!
(Facebookpost,MohammedEl-Sayed,30June2015)
YouDanescanlaughatmenow,butjustwaituntilwegetsharialawin
Denmark,thenallnon-Muslimswillbe‘removed’(ifyouknowwhatImean)
J.AllahuAkhbar!YoushouldbythewayknowthatItakeyourmoney,I
havesexwithyourcheapwomen,andImakethempregnant.
(Facebookpost,MehmetDawahAydemir[1],9September2015)
Mostpostsfromthesefakehateprofilescontaineddirectthreatstooppress,
rape,andkill(non-Muslim)Danes.Othersprovokedbyrejoicinginthe
September11terroristattacksorstatingthatallDanesarestupidpigsand
dogs.Onallprofiles,theaggressivestatementswerepresentedasoriginating
fromyoung,Danish-speakingMuslimslivinginDenmark(Farkasetal.,2017).
Thesefictitiousidentitieswereallconstructedaroundexistingxenophobic
stereotypesofMuslimsasviolent,hypersexual,andalienthreatstotheDanish
welfarestate(Hervik,2011).Stolenimages,text,andhyperlinkswerethusall
deployedtopersonifythesestereotypesascredibleandauthenticindividuals.
Oneachprofile,imagesofArab-lookingpeoplewerepresentedalongsidelinks
toexistingMuslimorganisations,postsaboutMuslimsdestroyingDenmark
fromwithin,andimagesofburningDanishflagsortheflagofISIS.Thefake
profilesallclaimedtospeakonbehalfofawiderMuslimcommunityin
Denmark,allparticipatinginalarge-scaleconspiracy:“WeMuslimshavecome
Pre-print version
11
tostay.Wehaven’tcomeinpeace,buttotakeoveryourshittycountry”
(Facebookposts,ZahraAl-Sayed,2July2015).Rhetoricandwordingwere
highlysimilaracrossthepages,indicatingthattheircreatorswerelikely
connectedoridentical.AsFacebookenablespageadministratorstoremain
completelyanonymous,however,theactualidentitiesandmotivesofthese
authorscannotbeestablished.Consequently,intermsofmotive,wecanonly
concludethatallfakehateprofilesdeliberatelysoughttoprovokeandspark
anti-MuslimaggressionfromDanishFacebookusers–anagendainwhichthey
largelysucceeded.
Acrossthevariousfakehateprofiles,theviolentrhetoricpromptedthousands
ofusercommentsfromDanesbelievinginthestatedauthorshipand
respondingwithhatredtowardsthefictitiousidentitiesaswellasMuslimsand
immigrantsingeneral:
Gohometoyourowncountry!Wedidn’taskyoutocomeheretoour
country”
(Usercomment,MehmetDawahAydemir[1],9September2015)
Whatthefuckisthis,youfuckingpig!!!WehelpyoucometoDenmarkand
thisishowyouthankus!
(Usercomment,MehmetDawahAydemir[1],9September2015)
NotallusersreactedwithaggressiontowardsthefictitiousMuslimidentities.
Numeroususersactivelytriedtodismantlethehatredandwarnothersthat
Pre-print version
12
theprofileswerefake.Theanonymouspageadministrators,however,
systematicallyobstructedsuchattempts,asweshowbelow.
StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebookwasformedinJune2015toorganiseand
increasecontestationoffakehateprofiles.Thiscontestationinvolvedfour
distinct,concurrentprocesses:(1)findingandreportingpages,(2)alerting
users,(3)alertingjournalistsandauthorities,and(4)speculatingabout
culprits.Theseprocesseswerecontinuouslynegotiatedanditeratively
developedbygroupmembersinordertoincreasetheeffectivenessoftheir
efforts.Inthefollowingsections,weexplorethegroup’scrowdsourced
contestation,focusingonthesocio-technicaltacticsdeployedintheirstruggle.
Basedonthisexamination,wediscussthelimitationsandopportunitiesfor
crowdsourceduseractiononsocialmediaandtheirimplicationsforthe
preventionoffakehateprofiles.
(1)FindingandreportingfakehateprofilesonFacebook
Thefirststepinthegroup’scontestationwastosearchforFacebookprofiles,
groups,orpagesusingfictitiousidentitiestodisseminatehatespeech.When
memberslocatedsuchcontent,theywouldcontactthegroupadministrator
andgethimtosharealinkwithinthegroupalongsideashortstatement,for
example:
We’vereceivedatipfromamemberanditseemsthisprofileisfake.The
rhetoricissimilartopreviousprofiles,andIwillthereforeencourageyouall
toreportthepage,sowecanshutitdown.
Pre-print version
13
(Postbygroupadministrator,5January2016).
UserswouldfollowthelinkandreporttheprofiletoFacebookforviolationsof
thecompany’scommunitystandards,whichprohibitbothfakeidentitiesand
hatespeech(Facebook,2016).KeytothisoperationwasFacebook’s‘report’
button,whichcanbefoundonallprofilesandpagesaswellasposts,pictures,
andvideos.WhenreportingviolationstoFacebook,groupmemberswould
subsequentlypostcommentswithinthegroup,oftensimplywriting:
‘Reported’.Memberswouldtherebycontinuouslymaketheir(otherwise-
invisible)actionsvisibletoeachother.Someusersdeliberatelyreportedthe
sameprofilefornumerousviolations(e.g.fakeidentity,hatespeech,
harassment)andalsoreporteditsindividualposts.Thiswasdoneinthehope
thatlargerquantitiesofreportswouldcauseFacebooktopaymoreattention.
Facebook’sprocessingoffileduserreportsisahighlyopaqueprocess
(Roberts,2016),makingitdifficulttodiscernhowthecompanyoperates.
Consequently,groupmemberswoulditerativelyexchangepersonal
experiencesandhypothesesinanattempttomaximisetheeffectivenessof
theircrowdsourcedcontestation.Arecurrentfindingbygroupmemberswas
thatthequantityofreportsplayedamajorroleinFacebook’sresponse,
althoughthecompanyofficiallydeniesthis(Facebook,2016).Often,when
filingreports,groupmemberswouldinitiallyreceiveastandardresponsefrom
Facebook,statingthatthereportedprofile(s)didnotviolateFacebook’s
communitystandards.Groupmemberswouldtakescreenshotsofthesereplies
andpostthemwithinthegroupaccompaniedwithstatementsofdisbelief:
Pre-print version
14
Really!?They’vecheckedthepageandwon’tshutitdown…!!!”
(Commentbygroupmember,22June2015)
Ican’tbelieveFacebookclaimsthisisn’tviolatingtheircommunity
standards?Afakeprofilespreadinghatespeech,thismustbeaviolationof
therules?
(Commentbygroupmember,1July2015)
Afternumerousadditionalreports,Facebook’sverdictwouldoftenbe
reversed,causinguserstopostnewscreenshotsaccompaniedwithstatements
ofcelebration:“TogetherWEARESTRONG…evilwillbeconqueredinthisway!
<3”(Commentbygroupmember,2July2015).Thepatternofreversed
verdictsfromFacebookcausedmemberstospeculatethatthecompanyatfirst
respondsalgorithmicallytofiledreportsandonlylaterinvolvesactualhuman
staff:“Keepreportingtheprofiles.Facebookusesrobotstogothroughthe
complaints.Realhumanswillonlylookintoitiftherearelotsofreports”
(Commentbygroupmember,22June2015).
Asexemplifiedbytheabovequotes,groupmembersfeltempoweredthrough
theircollectivecontestation,asitenabledthemtoinfluence(whatwere
otherwisefelttobe)unwaveringdecisionsmadebyFacebook.Simultaneously,
however,groupmembersalsofeltdisempoweredbyFacebook’ssecrecyand
lackofcollaboration,withnoapparentinterestinthegroup’scrowdsourced
activism.Thegroup’spowerseemedtoliesolelyinitssize.Groupmembers
andthegroupadministratorwouldthereforerepeatedlyemphasisethe
Pre-print version
15
importanceofallmembersfilingasmanyreportsaspossibleandcomplaining
ifFacebookdidnotrespondpositivelytotheirrequest(s):
Weneedtokeepreportinghis[theanonymousadministrator’s]page.At
somepoint,Facebookwillgettiredandlookatwhathe’sactuallywritten.
Thisishowweshuthispagedown.We’realmost1300members,andifwe
allspend5secondsreportinghispage,it’llberemovedinnotime.
(Postbygroupadministrator,1July2015).
ThecontestationsurroundingFacebook’s‘report’buttonshowshowStopFake
HateProfilesonFacebookengagedintacticalsocio-technicalnegotiations,
continuouslyattemptingtounlockFacebook’ssecretivedigitalarchitecture
anduseitstrategicallytofurtheritscause.Thesestrategiesprovedlargely
successful,ascontestedhateprofilesoftenonlyexistedforafewdaysbefore
Facebookremovedthem(seeTable1).
<InsertTable1-Overviewoffakehateprofilesandtheirdurationsof
existence.>
(2)Alertingusers
Onseveraloccasions,hateprofilescontestedbyStopFakeHateProfileson
FacebookreceivedhundredsoreventhousandsofcommentsfromDanish
Facebookusers.MostusersacceptedtheproclaimedMuslimidentitiesand
expressedanger,hostility,andevenracism:
Pre-print version
16
Fuckyou,youfuckingmonkey
(Usercomment,MohammedEl-Sayed,1July2015)
Disgustinganimal!Getthefuckoutofmycountry…youdon’tbelonghere!
(Usercomment,MehmetDawahAydemir[1],11September2015)
It’sbecauseofpeoplelikeyouthatmoreandmorepeopleturnracist
(Usercomments,MehmetDawahAydemir[1],11September2015).
StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebooksoughttodismantlethishatredtowards
Muslimsandimmigrantsbyalertingusersthattheprofileswerefakeand
deliberatelycreatedtoinciteaggression.Groupmemberswouldpost
commentsontheprofiles,warningusersnottobelieveintheproclaimed
identitiesandpoliticalmanipulation.Aftermakingsuchcomments,members
wouldnotifyeachotheroftheiractionswithintheclosedgroup:“Wroteonhis
page,awarningandalinktothisgroup”(Commentbygroupmember,1July
2015).
Theanonymouspageadministrator(s)runningthefakehateprofiles,however,
continuouslysabotagedtheseefforts.OnallFacebookprofilesandpages,
administratorscanremoveanycontentwithoutnotifyingitsauthorandcan
blockanyuserfrommaking(additional)comments.Theadministrator(s)of
thefakehateprofilessystematicallyusedthistechnologicalfeaturetotheir
advantagebydeletingallcommentsandblockingalluserswhocontestedtheir
proclaimedauthorship.Newusersencounteringthehateprofileswouldthus
beexposedexclusivelytousercommentsaffirmingthelegitimacyofthe
Pre-print version
17
sources.Groupmembersandtheirwarningswerecontinuouslydeletedand
blockedeventhoughtheystillattemptedtoalertusers:
Yougetblockedsofastinthere,butatleastIgottopost20timesthatthe
pagewasfakebeforeitwasover.
(Commentbygroupmember,1July2015);
Iwasremovedrightaway!!Thepersonbehindmustknowthatwework
togetherandareonhistrail!!
(Commentbygroupmember,1July2015).
Duetothesystematicmoderationperformedbytheanonymouspage
administrator(s),theeffectivenessofthegroup’seffortstoalertusersastothe
existenceoffakeMuslimhateprofilesseemstohavebeenlimited.The
administratorsofthehateprofilestacticallyexploitedFacebook’sdigital
architecturetosilenceanycontestation.Nevertheless,afewgroupmembers
reportedthattheyhadinfactfirstbelievedinthefakeauthorshipandonly
laterbecameawareofitsdeceptivenatureduetocommentsmadebygroup
members:“Yesterday,Ireallythoughtthatsomeonewasbeingthishostileand
Ijumpedinfeetfirstandcursedhimback.I’mgladsomeonetoldmeitwas
fake.”(Commentbygroupmember,12September2015).Thishighlightshow
thestrugglebetweenStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebookandvariousfakehate
profilesfundamentallyconcernedvisibilityandawareness.Thehateprofiles
soughttorenderallcontestationinvisible,leavingonlycommentsaccepting
theproclaimedauthorship.Thegroup’sgoal,incontrast,wastomakeits
Pre-print version
18
contestationasvisibleaspossibletowarnuserswhilesimultaneouslymaking
thepagesinvisible(throughdeletionbyFacebook).
Inseveralrespects,Facebook’sdigitalarchitectureseemstohavesupported
thehateprofiles’agendabyprovidingunlimitedanonymitytotheir
administrator(s)aswellasasymmetricalpowerrelationsbetween
administrator(s)andusers(e.g.throughtheabilitytoremoveanycomment).
Thecountergroup’seffortstoalertusersregardingfakehateprofilesmight
havefurthermorehadtheunforeseenconsequenceofcontributingtotheir
proliferation.Facebook’salgorithmscontinuouslyevaluatecontentand
‘decide’howfaritshouldspreadbasedonanumberofparameters.Acentral
parameterinthisprocessisthenumberoflikes,comments,andshares
receivedbythecontentinquestion(Bucher,2012).Commentspostedby
membersofStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebooktowarnusersmightthushave
indirectlyincreasedthefakehateprofiles’reach,potentiallydeceiving
additionalFacebookusers.Thus,despitethegroup’scollectiveefforts,fake
hateprofilescontinuedtoposeacomplexchallenge.Aswediscussbelow,
however,thegroupalsopursuedthegoalofmakingtheircontestationvisible
outsideofFacebook.
(3)Alertingjournalistsandauthorities
AlthoughStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebookprimarilyoperatedwithinthe
boundariesofsocialmedia,thegroupalsosoughttoreachoutandinvolve
journalistsandauthoritiesintheirstruggle.Thegroupmanagedtoattractthe
attentionofseveralmajorDanishmediainstitutions,includingthenational
Pre-print version
19
tabloidEkstraBladet(Ryde,2015),thenewspaperInformation(Skovhus,
2015),andtheTVbroadcasterTV2.Thesemediaoutletsallreportedonthe
phenomenonoffakehateprofilesonFacebook,thelattertwointerviewingthe
group’sadministratoraspartoftheircoverage.Thepublicoutreachagenda
pursuedbythegroupwasprimarilyundertakentowarntheDanishpublic
aboutpotentialdemocraticdangersposedbyfakehateprofiles.
Simultaneously,itenabledthegrouptoattractmorememberstoparticipatein
theirstruggle.Theseeffortslargelyprovedsuccessful.Yetaswiththegroup’s
effortstowarnusersonFacebook,theincreasedattentiontofakehateprofiles
achievedthroughmassmediacouldpotentiallyalsohaveledmoreusersto
engagewiththeprofiles,indirectlyincreasingtheirproliferationonFacebook.
Inparallelwiththegroup’seffortstoreachjournalists,groupmembersalso
contactedtheDanishpoliceandtheintelligenceagency(PET)inorderto
instigateinvestigationsintotheoriginatorsofthefakehateprofiles.The
ephemeralityofthecontestedcontent,however,presentedanobstacletothis
agenda.Theshorttimeperiodsinwhichthefakehateprofilesexistedmeant
thatarchivedmaterialwasnecessaryinordertofilepolicereports.Thegroup
addressedthischallengebyworkingcollectivelytocompilesuchmaterial:
REQUEST:Amemberisaskingforscreenshotsfromthehateprofilesthat
havebeenshutdownsincethepolicewanttolookintothecase…please
sendthemtomeinaprivatemessageorpostthembelow,sothey’revisible.
(Postbygroupadministrator,2July2015)
Pre-print version
20
Inadditiontothechallengeofpiecingtogetherdeletedevidence,the
ephemeralityandanonymityoffakehateprofilesprovedproblematic.
Ephemeralityofcontentmeantthatauthoritiescouldneverobservethe
consequencesoffakehateprofilesastheyunfolded.Furthermore,the
completeanonymityoffakehateprofilecreators,enabledbyFacebook’s
design,meantthatnochargescouldbefileddirectlyagainstanyone.Doingso
wouldfirstrequireathoroughinvestigationandclosecontactwithFacebook.
ThiscausedfrustrationandfeelingsofdisempowermentformembersofStop
FakeHateProfilesonFacebook,asthesocialmediacompanyshowedno
apparentinterestincollaboratingwiththem.Thegroupwasthustotallyreliant
onDanishauthoritiesforconductinginvestigations,yetthegroupalso
experiencedalackofsupportfromauthoritiesinidentifyingandinvestigating
thecreatorsoffakehateprofiles.Thiscauseddistress:
Idon’tunderstandwhyITspecialistsinthepolicecan’tfindtheir[the
administrator’s]IPaddress…Thesefakeprofilesaresofarout…
(Commentbygroupmember,13September2015)
Idon’tthinkwecanachieveanythingthroughpolicereports.
(Commentbygroupmember,1July2015)
ThemostpowerfulmeansavailabletomembersofStopFakeHateProfileson
Facebookthuscontinuedtobetheircollectiveeffortstoreportfakehate
profilestoFacebookandgetthemdeleted.Yetthisstrategyhadsevere
limitations,asthegroupcouldnevergettotherootoftheproblemdueto
Facebook’sdigitalarchitectureand(apparent)lackofinterestincollaboration.
Pre-print version
21
Theanonymouscreatorsoffakehateprofilescouldcontinuously(re-)create
newfictitiousidentitieseachtimeoldoneswereremoved.Formembersof
StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook,thiscausedfrustration,eveninsituations
inwhichFacebookdeletedfakehateprofiles:“Yes:)!Finally,they[thefake
hateprofiles]areremoved..buthe[theanonymousadministrator]willjust
createanewone:(:(“(Commentbygroupmember,1July2015).Thelackof
collaborationfromauthoritiesandFacebookledtoinvestigationsbygroup
memberstoidentifytheanonymouscontentcreators.
(4)Speculatingaboutculprits
ArecurringthemewithinStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebookwasspeculations
astowhowerebehindthefakehateprofilescombattedbythegroup.On
Facebook,allpageandprofileadministratorscanremaincompletely
anonymous.Evenifapageorprofileisremoved,noinformationisprovidedas
towhocreatedit.Duetonumeroussimilaritiesacrossdifferentfakehate
profiles,groupmembersbecameconvincedthatseveralprofileswerecreated
bythesameadministrator(s):“Thisisexactlythesamerhetoricasonthelast
one.It’sthesamepersonwho’sbehindit,fuckingcoward”(Commentbygroup
member,24October2015);“Youjustknowit’sa20-year-oldkidwithno
friendsandNazitendencieswho’sbehindthekeyboard.”(Commentbygroup
member,1July2015).Severalmembersexpressedfrustrationattheabilityof
theanonymousadministrator(s)tocontinuallyconstructnewfakehate
profilesandsparkaggression,eventhoughFacebookcontinuallydeletedthe
pages.Membersalsoexpressedhopethatauthoritieswouldreactand
investigatetheculprits:“Ireallyhopehe[theadministrator]willbepunished
Pre-print version
22
forthehatredhecreates”(Commentbygroupmember,12September2015).
Othersconductedtheirowndetectiveworkandformulatedhypothesesabout
specificpeoplewhocouldbebehindtheprofiles,includingfar-rightactivists.
Suchspeculationswere,however,criticisedbyothermembers,whoargued
thatStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebookshouldnotbecomeavigilantegroup:
“ThisisexactlywhatImean.Asuspicionisn’tenoughtoaccusepeople”
(Commentbygroupmember,12September2015).Thegroupnever
successfullyidentifiedanyhatecontentcreators,thoughtherewerestrong
indicationsthatseveralofthefakehateprofilescombattedbythegrouphad
thesameadministrator(s).
Crowdsourcedsocialmediaactivism
HavingexploredtheactivistpracticesofStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook,
wenowaddresshowgroupmembersnavigatedFacebook’ssocialmedialogics
intheirstruggleagainstfakehateprofiles.Wefurthermorediscusswhether
thegroup’scrowdsourcedactivismprovedsuccessfulintermsofits
overarchinggoalofstoppingfakehateprofiles.Thegroup’scrowdsourced
contestationandreportingdoesindeedseemtohavesucceedinshorteningthe
lifespansoffakehateprofiles(seeFigure1).Fakehateprofilesstudiedinour
researchthatexistedpriortothegroup’sformationexistedsignificantlylonger
thandidprofilesthatwerecreatedafterthegroup’sformation.Facebook,
however,maintainsinitscommunitystandardsthatquantityofreportsdoes
notinfluencetheevaluationofflaggedcontent(Facebook,2016).Facebook’s
opaqueevaluationproceduresmeanthatdifferentfactorscouldhavehadan
impact.
Pre-print version
23
<InsertFigure1-Lifespansoffakehateprofilesbeforeandafterthe
formationofStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook.>
Temporalityisnottheonlyavailableparameterforevaluatingthegroups’
struggleagainstfakehateprofiles.Someprofilesthatexistedfortheshortest
periodsoftime(andwerecreatedafterthegroup’sformation)werealsothose
thatreceivedthemostcommentsandsharesfromDanishFacebookusers(see
Figure2).Forexample,aprofilenamedMehmetDawahAydemir[1],which
existedforlessthantwodaysinSeptember2015,managedtoattract10,426
commentsand4954shareswithinthisperiod.Mostcommentingusersdidnot
recognisethepage’sdeceptivecharacter.Itsrapidproliferationcanpartiallybe
explainedbyFacebook’salgorithmicprioritisationofshorttimedecayswhen
assessingtheimportanceofcontentand‘deciding’itsreach(Bucher,2012).
Posts,images,andvideoscaninotherwordsreachthousandsofuserswithin
hoursiftheysparkalargenumberofinteractions.Thisseemstohavebeenthe
casewithMehmetDawahAydemir[1].
<InsertFigure2-Timesofexistenceoffakehateprofilesandnumbersof
commentsandshares.>
AlthoughStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebooksuccessfullyreducedthe
lifespansoffakehateprofiles,theprofilescouldstilldeceiveandprovoke
thousandsofuserswithinthisperiod.Lifespan,then,doesnotseemtobethe
bestindicatorofthegroup’ssuccessindismantlingfakehateprofiles.This
Pre-print version
24
raisesthequestionofwhetherthisformofcrowdsourcedactivismrepresentsa
viabletrajectoryforstoppinghatredandmanipulationonsocialmedia.Should
itbeuptouserstostopphenomenasuchasfakehateprofilesonFacebook?Or
shouldsocialmediacompaniestakegreaterresponsibility?
Basedonthechallengesandlimitationsfacingthecrowdsourcedactivismof
StopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook,wearguethatFacebook’sdelegationto
usersofresponsibilityforreportingviolationsisproblematic.Unlesssocial
mediacorporationstakegreaterresponsibilityincombattingfacelesshatred
andracismproducedbyanonymousadministrators,noactioncangobeyond
solelyclosingdownsuchhateprofiles.Reachingouttoandcollaboratingwith
authorities–findingcontentandidentifyingitscreators–couldbepartofa
solution.Removingunlimitedanonymityforpageandprofileadministrators
couldbeanother.Suchefforts,however,wouldrequireFacebooktochangeits
self-image,whichiscurrentlythatofatechcompanyandnotamediacompany
(Seetharaman,2016).IfFacebookistostopfakehateprofilesonitsplatform,
thecompanymustacknowledgethatproblemsassociatedwithfakeidentities
andhatredarepartiallyitsresponsibilityandnotonlythatofusers.This
argumenthasrecentlybeenraisedindebatesconcerning‘fakenews’(Stromer-
Galley,2016).Hopefully,futureresearchcanhelpaddresstheseissuesby
expandingcurrentknowledgeontheextensivenessoffakehateprofileson
socialmediaaswellasrelatedphenomenasuchasfakenewsspreadbysocial
bots(seeShaoetal.,2017).Sucheffortscouldadvantageouslydrawuponboth
bigdataanalysisandmachinelearning(seeFerraraetal.,2016).
Pre-print version
25
Onthebasisofthepresentarticle’sfindings,Facebook’slimitedresponseto
thephenomenonoffakehateprofileshighlightsadiscrepancybetweenthe
company’sbusinessmodelanditscorporateideals.Facebook’sbusinessmodel
isbuiltaroundcommodificationofuser-generateddataanduserattention,
makingthequalityofcontenteconomicallysecondarytotheattentionit
receives.Atthesametime,Facebook’scorporateidentity,whichhijacksleft-
wingideasofparticipationanddecentralisation(Žižek,2009),burdensusers
withresponsibilityfortacklingproblemssuchasfakehateprofiles.Inthis
process,thecompanyprovidesonlylimitedopportunitiesforuserstoengage
incrowdsourcedactivism.EventhoughFacebookreferstoitsplatformasa
“globalcommunity”(Facebook,2016),thecompanyseemstoprioritise
commodificationofuserattentionovertheempowermentofusersandquality
ofcontent.
Inthecurrentstateofaffairs,crowdsourcingofresponsibilityleavesuserswith
a‘report’buttonastheironlyweapon.Eveniffakehateprofilesonlyexistfor
shortperiodsoftime,theirvisibilitycanstillbegreatduetosocialmedialogics
thatalgorithmicallyprivilegecontentthatquicklyattractscomments,likes,and
shares–evenifthesereactionsexpresshatredandracism.AlthoughStopFake
HateProfilesonFacebookcontinuouslyperformedcrowdsourcedresistance,
Facebook’sarchitecturedisempoweredthegroupbylimitingitspossibilities
foraction,whilefakehateprofilescouldcontinuetospurhatred,aggression,
hostility,andracism.Ifthisistochange,socialmediacompaniesmustreduce
hierarchicalpowerrelations,increasethepotentialforuseraction,andtake
responsibilityforhatredandracismontheirplatforms.
Pre-print version
26
Abouttheauthors
JohanFarkasisAssistantLecturerattheITUniversityofCopenhagen.His
researchinterestsincludepoliticalparticipationanddisguisedpropagandain
digitalmedia.
ChristinaNeumayer(PhD,ITUniversityofCopenhagen/MA,Universityof
Salzburg)isAssociateProfessorofdigitalmediaandcommunicationinthe
DigitalDesigndepartmentattheITUniversityofCopenhagen.Herresearch
interestsincludedigitalmediaandradicalpolitics,socialmediaandactivism,
socialmovements,civicengagement,publicsandcounterpublics,surveillance
andmonitoring,andbigdataandcitizenship.
Acknowledgements
TheauthorswouldliketothankStopFakeHateProfilesonFacebook,
particularlyitsadministrator,formakingthisworkpossible.Theauthors
wouldalsoliketothanktheanonymousreviewersofthisjournal.
References
ZygmundBauman,2001.Theindividualizedsociety.Cambridge,UK:Polity
Press.
YochaiBenkler,2006.TheWealthofNetworks:HowSocialProduction
TransformsMarketsandFreedom(Vol.7).NewHaven:YalePress.
Pre-print version
27
DarenC.Brabham,2011.“Themythofamateurcrowds:Acriticaldiscourse
analysisofcrowdsourcingcoverage”.Information,Communication&Society,
volume15,number3,pp.394-410.
TainaBucher,2012.“Wanttobeonthetop?Algorithmicpowerandthethreat
ofinvisibilityonFacebook”.NewMedia&Society,volume14,number7,pp.
1164–1180.
NickCouldry,2010.Whyvoicematters:Cultureandpoliticsafterneoliberalism.
London:SAGEPublications.
Facebook,2016.“FacebookCommunityStandards”at
https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards,accessed13January2016.
JohanFarkas,JannickSchou,andChristinaNeumayer,2017.“Cloaked
FacebookPages:ExploringFakeIslamistPropagandainSocialMedia”.New
Media&Society.https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817707759
AndrewFeenberg,2002.Transformingtechnology:Acriticaltheoryrevisited.
Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
EmilioFerrara,Wen-QiangWang,OnurVarol,AlessandroFlammini,andAram
Galstyan,2016.“Predictingonlineextremism,contentadopters,and
interactionreciprocity”.In:E.SpiroandYY.Ahn(editors),SocialInformatics.
Pre-print version
28
SocInfo2016.LectureNotesinComputerScience,Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47874-6_3
ChristianFuchs,2015.Cultureandeconomyintheageofsocialmedia.London:
Routledge.
VasilisGalisandChristinaNeumayer,2016.“Layingclaimtosocialmediaby
activists:acyber-materialdétournement”.SocialMedia+Society,volume2,
number3,pp.1-14.
PeterHervik,2011.TheAnnoyingDifference:TheEmergenceofDanish
Neonationalism,Neoracism,andPopulisminthePost-1989World.NewYork:
BerghahnBooks.
ChristinaHine,2015.EthnographyfortheInternet:Embedded,Embodied,and
Everyday.London:Bloomsbury.
JeffHowe,2006.“TheRiseofCrowdsourcing”.Wired,Issue14,number6.
https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/,accessed19July2017.
HenryJenkins,2006.Convergenceculture:Whereoldandnewmediacollide.
NewYork:NewYorkUniversity.
OliverLeistert,2015.“Therevolutionwillnotbeliked:Onthesystematic
constrainsofcorporatesocialmediaplatformsforprotest”.In:L.DencikandO.
Pre-print version
29
Leistert(editors),Criticalperspectivesonsocialmediaandprotest:Between
controlandemancipation.London:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishersInc,pp.5–
52.
BrianD.LoaderandDanMercea,2011.“NetworkingDemocracy?”.Information,
Communication&Society,volume14,number6,pp.757–769.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.592648
GiladLotan,ErhardtGraeff,MikeAnanny,DevinGaffney,IanPearce,danah
boyd,2011.“TheArabSpring|TheRevolutionsWereTweeted:Information
Flowsduringthe2011TunisianandEgyptianRevolutions”.International
JournalofCommunication,volume5,pp.1375–1405.http://doi.org/1932–
8036/2011FEA1375
AdrianMackenzie,2006.“Innumerabletransmissions:Wi-Fi®fromspectacle
tomovement”.Information,Communication&Society,volume9,number6,pp.
781–802.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180601064139
StefaniaMilan,2015.“Fromsocialmovementstocloudprotesting:The
evolutionofcollectiveidentity”.Information,Communication&Society,volume
18,number8,pp.887–900.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1043135
EvgenyMorozov,2011.Thenetdelusion:Hownottoliberatetheworld.London:
PenguinBooks.
Pre-print version
30
StineBødkerNielsen,2015,19May.“ViovertagerDanmark:Falskefacebook-
sidersættermuslimeridårligtlys”.DRNyheder.
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2015/05/18/110828.htm,accessed19
July2017.
TimO’Reilly,2005.“Whatisweb2.0”at
http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html,,
accessed19July2017.
ThomasPoellandErikBorra,2011.“Twitter,YouTube,andFlickrasplatforms
ofalternativejournalism:Thesocialmediaaccountofthe2010TorontoG20
protests”.Journalism,volume13,number6,pp.695–713.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911431533
ThomasPoellandJosevanDijck,2015.“SocialMediaandActivist
Communication,”In:C.Atton(editor).TheRoutledgeCompaniontoAlternative
andCommunityMedia.London:Routledge,pp.527-537.
SarahT.Roberts,2016.“CommercialContentModeration:DigitalLaborers’
DirtyWork,”In:S.U.Noble&B.Tynes(editors),TheIntersectionalInternet:
Race,Sex,ClassandCultureOnline.NewYork:PeterLang,pp.147–160.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Pre-print version
31
RonjaRyde,2015.12September.EkspertomMehmet-profil:Forargende
Dannebrogs-pissererformentligfalsk.EkstraBladet.
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/ekspert-om-mehmet-profil-
forargende-dannebrogs-pisser-er-formentlig-falsk/5729027,accessed19July
2017.
MarisolSandoval,2014.Fromcorporatetosocialmedia:Criticalperspectiveson
corporatesocialresponsibilityinmediaandcommunicationindustries.
Abingdon,UK:Routledge.
DeepaSeetharaman,2016.25October.“FacebookLeadersCallItaTech
Company,NotMediaCompany”.TheWallStreetJournal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-leaders-call-it-a-tech-company-not-
media-company-1477432140,accessed19July2017.
ClayShirky,2009.11December.Thenetadvantage.ProspectMagazine.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/12/the-net-advantage,accessed
19July2017.
ChengchengShao,GiovanniL.Ciampaglia,OnurVarol,AlessandroFlammini,
andFilippoMenczer,2017.“Thespreadoffakenewsbysocialbots”.Eprint
arXiv:1707.07592.
Pre-print version
32
PhillipR.Skovhus,2015.22September.ӮgtehadfrafalskeFacebook-
profiler”.Information.http://www.information.dk/546054,accessed19July
2017.
JenniferStromer-Galley,2016.2December.“ThreewaysFacebookcould
reducefakenewswithoutresortingtocensorship”.TheConversation.
http://theconversation.com/three-ways-facebook-could-reduce-fake-news-
without-resorting-to-censorship-69033,accessed19July2017.
FredTurner,2010.Fromcounterculturetocyberculture:StewartBrand,the
WholeEarthNetwork,andtheriseofdigitalutopianism.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
JoséVanDijckandThomasPoell,2013."Understandingsocialmedialogic."
MediaandCommunication,volume1,number1,pp.2-14.
http://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/70
MicahWhite,2010,12August.“Clicktivismisruiningleftistactivism”.The
Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-
ruining-leftist-activism,accessed19July2017.
SlavojŽižek,2009.Violence:Sixsidewaysreflections.London:ProfileBooks.
Pre-print version
33
MarkZuckerberg.2017,“BuildingaGlobalCommunity”at
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-global-
community/10154544292806634/,accessed7august2017.
Pre-print version
34
Name Time period Number of days
Ali El-Yussuf [3] 16/06-22/06 2015 7
Mohammed El-Sayed 30/06-02/07 2015 3
Fatimah El-Sayed 01/07-02/07 2015 2
Zarah Al-Sayed 02/07-02/07 2015 1
Mehmet Dawah Aydemir [1] 09/09-12/09 2015 4
Mehmet Dawah Aydemir [2] 13/09-15/09 2015 2
Ebrahim Said 24/10-25/10 2015 2
Mohammed Al-Dawah 05/01-07/01 2016 3
Table1:Overviewoffakehateprofilesandtheirdurationsofexistence.
Pre-print version
35
Figure1:LifespansoffakehateprofilesbeforeandaftertheformationofStopFake
HateProfilesonFacebook.
Pre-print version
36
Figure2:Timesofexistenceoffakehateprofilesandnumbersofcommentsandshares.
Pre-print version