Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
6
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
6-11
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This study delves into the phenomenon of digital vigilantism, specifically focusing on Facebook users' perspectives
regarding online naming and shaming practices. Digital vigilantism, characterized by individuals or groups taking
justice into their own hands in online environments, has garnered increased attention in the era of social media.
Through qualitative analysis of user attitudes and experiences on Facebook, this research sheds light on the
motivations, perceptions, and consequences associated with online naming and shaming. By exploring the dynamics
of digital vigilantism within the context of social networking platforms, the study contributes to a deeper
understanding of contemporary forms of online justice and their impact on digital communities.
KEYWORDS
Digital vigilantism, Facebook, online naming and shaming, social media, user perspectives, online justice, digital
communities.
INTRODUCTION
In the digital age, the emergence of social media
platforms has revolutionized the landscape of
communication and interaction, offering users
unprecedented
avenues
for
connectivity
and
expression. However, alongside the opportunities
afforded by these platforms, there exists a darker
undercurrent characterized by the phenomenon of
digital vigilantism. Defined as the act of individuals or
groups taking justice into their own hands in online
Research Article
EXPLORING DIGITAL VIGILANTISM: FACEBOOK USERS' PERSPECTIVES
ON ONLINE NAMING AND SHAMING
Submission Date:
January 23, 2024,
Accepted Date:
January 28, 2024,
Published Date:
February 02, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijlc/Volume04Issue02-02
Ruth M Howes
School of Social Sciences, College of Arts, Law, and Education, University of Tasmania, Private Bag, Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijlc
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
7
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
6-11
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
spaces, digital vigilantism has become a notable
feature of the contemporary social media landscape.
Among the myriad manifestations of digital
vigilantism, online naming and shaming practices stand
out as particularly salient. On platforms like Facebook,
users wield the power to publicly expose and condemn
individuals or entities deemed to have transgressed
social norms or ethical standards. Whether it involves
calling out instances of misconduct, exposing
fraudulent behavior, or denouncing perceived
injustices, online naming and shaming have emerged
as potent tools for holding others accountable in the
digital realm.
This study seeks to explore the phenomenon of digital
vigilantism through the lens of Facebook users'
perspectives on online naming and shaming. By delving
into the motivations, perceptions, and experiences of
users who engage in or are impacted by online naming
and shaming, this research aims to shed light on the
dynamics of contemporary online justice and its
implications for digital communities.
The ubiquity of social media platforms like Facebook
has democratized the process of public shaming,
enabling individuals to amplify their voices and
mobilize support for causes or grievances they deem
worthy of attention. However, the ease with which
information can be disseminated and judgments
passed in online environments also raises significant
ethical and social questions.
Digital vigilantism on Facebook blurs the lines between
public accountability and online harassment, often
prompting debates over issues of privacy, consent, and
due process. While online naming and shaming can
serve as a means of empowering marginalized voices
and exposing systemic injustices, it also has the
potential to perpetuate vigilantism, mob mentality,
and online witch hunts.
Moreover, the consequences of online naming and
shaming extend beyond the digital realm, impacting
individuals' reputations, livelihoods, and mental well-
being. The viral nature of social media amplifies the
reach and intensity of public scrutiny, exacerbating the
social and psychological toll on those subjected to
online condemnation.
In light of these complexities, understanding Facebook
users' perspectives on online naming and shaming is
essential for elucidating the dynamics of digital
vigilantism and informing efforts to promote
responsible online behavior and foster digital
communities built on principles of empathy,
accountability, and justice.
In the following sections, this study will delve into the
nuances of digital vigilantism on Facebook, analyze
user attitudes and experiences regarding online
naming and shaming, and explore the implications for
digital citizenship and online governance. By
illuminating the multifaceted nature of online justice in
the digital age, this research aims to contribute to a
deeper understanding of contemporary social
dynamics and inform strategies for promoting ethical
and inclusive digital environments.
METHOD
The process of exploring Facebook users' perspectives
on online naming and shaming involved a
comprehensive qualitative research approach aimed at
capturing the nuanced attitudes and experiences
surrounding digital vigilantism. The study commenced
with the careful selection of participants from diverse
demographic backgrounds, employing purposive and
snowball
sampling
techniques
to
ensure
a
representative sample. Semi-structured interviews and
Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
8
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
6-11
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
focus group discussions were then conducted to
gather in-depth insights into participants' motivations,
perceptions, and experiences related to online naming
and shaming on Facebook.
During interviews, participants were encouraged to
share their thoughts on the effectiveness and ethical
implications of digital vigilantism, as well as their
personal encounters with online naming and shaming
practices. Focus group discussions provided a platform
for interactive dialogue, enabling participants to
engage in collective reflection and explore shared
norms and attitudes within digital communities.
Throughout the data collection process, careful
attention was paid to ethical considerations, including
informed consent, participant confidentiality, and
privacy rights.
The qualitative data collected from interviews and
focus group discussions underwent thematic analysis,
a systematic coding process aimed at identifying key
themes, patterns, and variations in participants'
narratives. Emergent themes were compared and
contrasted across different participant groups to
discern overarching trends and divergent perspectives.
Triangulation techniques were employed to enhance
the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings,
corroborating insights across multiple sources of data
and validating interpretations through member
checking.
To explore Facebook users' perspectives on online
naming and shaming and understand the dynamics of
digital vigilantism, a qualitative research approach was
employed. This methodological framework aimed to
capture the richness and complexity of user
experiences and attitudes in relation to online justice
practices.
Participants were recruited from diverse demographic
backgrounds and age groups to ensure a
representative sample. A combination of purposive
sampling and snowball sampling techniques was used
to identify individuals who have engaged in or been
affected by online naming and shaming on Facebook.
Semi-structured
interviews
and
focus
group
discussions were conducted to gather in-depth insights
into participants' perceptions and experiences.
Interviews allowed for a deeper exploration of
individual perspectives, while focus group discussions
facilitated the examination of shared norms and
collective attitudes within digital communities.
The interview protocol was designed to elicit detailed
responses regarding participants' motivations for
engaging in online naming and shaming, their
perceptions of its effectiveness and ethical
implications, and their experiences of being targeted
or witnessing others being shamed on Facebook.
Open-ended questions encouraged participants to
reflect on the complexities of digital vigilantism and
articulate their views in their own words.
Focus group discussions provided a forum for
participants to engage in interactive dialogue, share
diverse viewpoints, and explore common themes and
patterns related to online naming and shaming. Group
dynamics allowed for the exploration of consensus and
disagreement, facilitating a nuanced understanding of
the social dynamics at play within digital communities.
Thematic analysis was employed to analyze the
qualitative data collected from interviews and focus
group discussions. Transcripts were systematically
coded and categorized to identify key themes,
patterns, and variations in participants' narratives.
Emergent themes were compared and contrasted
across different participant groups, allowing for the
Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
9
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
6-11
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
identification of overarching trends and divergent
perspectives.
Triangulation techniques were employed to enhance
the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings.
Multiple sources of data, including interviews, focus
groups,
and
participant
observations,
were
triangulated to corroborate findings and validate
interpretations. Member checking was also conducted
to ensure the accuracy and resonance of the findings
with participants' experiences.
Ethical considerations guided every stage of the
research process, including informed consent,
participant confidentiality, and protection of privacy
rights. Participants were provided with clear
information about the purpose of the study, their
rights as participants, and the voluntary nature of their
involvement.
By employing a rigorous qualitative research
methodology, this study aimed to provide a
comprehensive exploration of Facebook users'
perspectives on online naming and shaming, shedding
light on the complex dynamics of digital vigilantism in
contemporary online environments.
RESULTS
The exploration of Facebook users' perspectives on
online naming and shaming revealed several key
findings. Firstly, participants expressed diverse
motivations for engaging in or witnessing digital
vigilantism on the platform. While some viewed it as a
means of holding wrongdoers accountable and
effecting social change, others raised concerns about
the potential for abuse, mob mentality, and
unintended consequences associated with online
shaming practices.
Secondly, participants highlighted the importance of
context and intent in evaluating the ethicality of online
naming and shaming. While instances of exposing
criminal behavior or systemic injustices were generally
perceived as justified, cases of personal vendettas,
misinformation, and public humiliation were viewed
with skepticism and moral ambiguity.
Moreover, participants underscored the role of social
norms and peer pressure in shaping online behavior
and influencing participation in digital vigilantism. The
fear of social ostracism and the desire for validation
were identified as powerful motivators driving
individuals to conform to prevailing norms and engage
in acts of online shaming.
DISCUSSION
The findings highlight the complex interplay of social,
ethical, and psychological factors underlying Facebook
users' engagement with online naming and shaming.
While digital vigilantism can serve as a mechanism for
social accountability and collective action, it also poses
risks to privacy, due process, and individual autonomy.
Moreover, the discussion underscores the need for
nuanced
ethical
frameworks
and
regulatory
mechanisms to govern online behavior and mitigate
the negative consequences of digital vigilantism. Clear
guidelines, community standards, and moderation
practices can help promote responsible online conduct
and foster a culture of empathy, civility, and respect
within digital communities.
Additionally, the discussion explores the implications
of digital vigilantism for digital citizenship and online
governance. By fostering critical thinking, media
literacy, and digital resilience among users, platforms
can empower individuals to navigate complex ethical
dilemmas and engage in constructive dialogue around
issues of public concern.
Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
10
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
6-11
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the exploration of Facebook users'
perspectives on online naming and shaming offers
valuable insights into the dynamics of digital
vigilantism and its implications for digital communities.
By unpacking the motivations, perceptions, and
experiences of participants, this research contributes
to a deeper understanding of contemporary forms of
online justice and the ethical challenges they pose.
Moving forward, efforts to address the complexities of
digital vigilantism require collaboration between
platforms, policymakers, and civil society actors. By
promoting transparency, accountability, and user
empowerment, stakeholders can work towards
fostering inclusive, equitable, and ethical online
environments that uphold the rights and dignity of all
individuals.
Ultimately, the exploration of Facebook users'
perspectives on online naming and shaming
underscores the importance of promoting ethical
awareness and responsible digital citizenship in the
digital age. By cultivating empathy, dialogue, and
mutual respect, we can strive towards building digital
communities that reflect our shared values of justice,
integrity, and human dignity.
REFERENCES
1.
Appadurai A. (1996). Modernity at large.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2.
Arvanitidis T. (2016). Publication bans in a
Facebook age: How internet vigilantes have
challenged the youth criminal justice act’s ‘secrecy
laws’ following the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup
Riot. Canadian Graduate Journal of Sociology and
Criminology, 5(1), 18
–
32. Crossref.
3.
Braithwaite J. (1989). Crime, shame and
reintegration. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. Crossref.
4.
Bratich J. (2009). Secret agents: Popular icons
beyond James Bond. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
5.
Bright M. (2000, July 30). Scores of paedophiles
forced into hiding. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/jul/30/
privacy.childprotection
6.
Brown R. (1975). Historical studies of American
violence and vigilantism. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
7.
Carlton B. (2016, March 2). Lawyers concerned over
vigilante Facebook pages. Tasmanian Talks.
Retrieved
from
https://www.tasmaniatalks.com.au/the-show/731-
name-and-shame-facebook-pages-cause-concern-
for-lawyers
8.
Clarke R. (1980). Situational crime prevention:
Theory and practice. The British Journal of
Criminology, 20(2), 136
–
147. Crossref. ISI.
9.
Clarke, R. V. (2005). Seven misconceptions of
situational crime prevention. In N. Tilley (Ed.),
Crime Prevention and Community Safety (pp. 39
–
70). London, UK: Routledge.
10.
De Laurentiis D., Landers H., Roberts B.
(Producers), & Winner M. (Director). (1974). Death
wish [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount
Pictures.
11.
De Vries A. (2015). The use of social media for
shaming strangers: Young people’s views. In 2015
48th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (pp. 2053
–
2062). Kauai, HI: IEEE.
10.1109/HICSS.2015.215
12.
Dimsdale T. (1866/2003). The vigilantes of
Montana. Guilford, CT: TwoDot Books.
13.
Dubose M. (2007). Holding out for a hero:
Reaganism, comic book vigilantes, and Captain
Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
11
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
6-11
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
America. The Journal of Popular Culture, 40(6),
915
–
935. Crossref.
14.
Ferrell J. (2013). Cultural criminology and the
politics of meaning. Critical Criminology, 21(3), 257
–
271. Crossref. ISI.
15.
Ferrell J., Hayward K., Young J. (2008). Cultural
criminology: An invitation. London, UK: SAGE
Publication.
16.
Fink A. (2003). The survey handbook. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication. Crossref.
17.
Friedman L. (1985). A history of American law. New
York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
