Abstract
Social media are now at the heart of political debate and discourse. Yet these media present challenges of epistemic justice because of the voices they may both amplify and suppress and the influence they wield. Contributions may be difficult to evaluate, especially if the identity of contributors is masked or unknown. Three approaches to these problems have predominated: regulating content, as in Germany; relying on the marketplace of open ideas to identify and criticize problems in contributions, as in the United States; and requiring transparency about the identity of social media users. This contribution sketches the epistemological disadvantages faced by consumers of social media and inquires whether they are different in kind from the disadvantages associated with more traditional media. It then sets out the epistemological difficulties of both content-regulation and the marketplace of ideas. It concludes with a defense of source transparency, tempered by the need to protect the identities of those who may be endangered by disclosure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Bar Association (ABA) (2018) ABA Legal Fact Check: When is it Illegal for Foreign Nationals to Influence U.S. Elections? https://lawandcrime.com/politics/aba-legal-fact-check-when-is-it-illegal-for-foreign-nationals-to-influence-u-s-elections/. Accessed 4 Sept 2019
Boxell L, Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM (2017) Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114(40):10610–10617
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Cor Clearing, LLC v. Investorshub.com, Inc., 2016 WL 3774127 (N.D. Fla. 2016)
Del Vicario M, Vivaldo G, Bessi A, Zollo F, Scala A, Caldarelli G, Quattrociocchi W (2016) Echo chambers: emotional contagion and group polarization on Facebook. Sci Rep 6:7825
Dendrite International v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. 2001)
Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 456 (Del. 2005)
Dotson K (2015) Inheriting Patricia Hill Collins’s black feminist epistemology. Ethnic Racial Stud 38(13):2322–2328
Fricker M (2007) Epistemic injustice: power & the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Human Rights Watch (2018) Germany: flawed social media law. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-media-law. Accessed 4 Sept 2019
In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2011)
Kidd IJ, Medina J, Pohlhaus G (eds) (2017) The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice. Routledge, New York
Kramer ADI, Guillory J, Hancock JT (2014) Experimental evidence of massive scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(24):8788–8790
Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
McMillan R (2014) What everyone gets wrong in the debate over net neutrality. https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/. Accessed 4 Sept 2019
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 138 S.Ct. 1876 (2018)
Müller K, Schwarz C (2017) Fanning the flames of hate: social media and hate crime. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972. Accessed 4 Sept 2019
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017)
Reader B (2005) An ethical “blind spot”: problems of anonymous letters to the editor. J Mass Media Ethics 20(1):62–76
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Rezaian J (2018) 2017 was the most dangerous year ever for journalists. 2018 might be even worse. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/01/2017-was-the-most-dangerous-year-ever-for-journalists-2018-might-be-even-worse/?utm_term=.ee69dc494892. Accessed 4 Sept 2019
Ronson J (2015) How the online hate mob set its sights on me. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/20/social-media-twitter-online-shame. Accessed 4 Sept 2019
Sauerbrey A (2017) How Germany Deals with Neo-Nazis. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/opinion/germany-neo-nazis-charlottesville.html. Accessed 4 Sept 2019
Signature Management Team, LLC v. Doe, 876 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2017)
Sullivan M (2012) Journalism ethics and the ethicist. The New York Times. https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/journalism-ethics-and-the-ethicist/. Accessed 4 Sept 2019
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale, 20 A.3d 364 (N.J. 2011)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
Yzer M, Southwell BG (2008) New communication technologies, old questions. Am Behav Sci 52(1):8–20
ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, 220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 569 (Cal App. 1st District, Division 4, 2017)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Francis, J., Francis, L. (2020). Identifying Political Participants on Social Media: Conflicts of Epistemic Justice. In: Navin, M.C., Nunan, R. (eds) Democracy, Populism, and Truth. AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43424-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43424-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43423-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43424-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)