Democracy in the Disinformation Age

Influence and Activism in American

Politics 1st Edition Regina Luttrell
(Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/democracy-in-the-disinformation-age-influence-and-a
ctivism-in-american-politics-1st-edition-regina-luttrell-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in

Global Politics 15th Edition Kenneth Janda

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-challenge-of-democracy-
american-government-in-global-politics-15th-edition-kenneth-
janda/

Public Relations Campaigns: An Integrated Approach - 2e

2nd Edition Regina M. Luttrell

https://ebookmeta.com/product/public-relations-campaigns-an-
integrated-approach-2e-2nd-edition-regina-m-luttrell/

Art and Activism in the Age of Systemic Crisis

Aesthetic Resilience 1st Edition Eliza Steinbock

https://ebookmeta.com/product/art-and-activism-in-the-age-of-
systemic-crisis-aesthetic-resilience-1st-edition-eliza-steinbock/

Pain and Politics in Postwar Feminist Art Activism in

The Work of Nancy Spero 1st Edition Rachel Warriner

https://ebookmeta.com/product/pain-and-politics-in-postwar-
feminist-art-activism-in-the-work-of-nancy-spero-1st-edition-
rachel-warriner/
Rhetorical Public Speaking: Social Influence in the
Digital Age 4th Edition Nathan Crick

https://ebookmeta.com/product/rhetorical-public-speaking-social-
influence-in-the-digital-age-4th-edition-nathan-crick/

The Social Life of Politics Ethics Kinship and Union

Activism in Argentina 1st Edition Sian Lazar

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-social-life-of-politics-ethics-
kinship-and-union-activism-in-argentina-1st-edition-sian-lazar/

Analyzing American Democracy: Politics and Political

Science, 5th Edition Jon R. Bond

https://ebookmeta.com/product/analyzing-american-democracy-
politics-and-political-science-5th-edition-jon-r-bond/

Heritage Movements in Asia Cultural Heritage Activism

Politics and Identity 1st Edition Ali Mozaffari

https://ebookmeta.com/product/heritage-movements-in-asia-
cultural-heritage-activism-politics-and-identity-1st-edition-ali-
mozaffari/

Disinformation in the Global South 1st Edition Herman

Wasserman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/disinformation-in-the-global-
south-1st-edition-herman-wasserman/
“From filter bubbles to trolls, and election fraud to misinformation, perhaps
never before have our classrooms and workspaces needed to address and con-
sider the central role of social media in our world. This text provides an in-
valuable and timely collection from thought leaders and social scientists with
the aim of providing a foundation for the critical analysis of the ever-evolving
and disruptive role of digital communication in democracy. Addressing key
dialogue in the public sphere the research provides educators, scholars, and
students an empirically driven resource for the discussions we should be having
about the path forward and the role we all play.”
Geah Pressgrove, Associate Professor,
West Virginia University

“This volume offers a fresh take on a seminal topic – how social media plat-
forms navigate their emerging and conflicting roles as both venues of social
activism and hotbeds of false information. The book offers critical insights into
the impact of social media on today’s American democracy.”
Gina M. Masullo, Associate Professor,
The University of Texas at Austin

“Disinformation and propaganda have a long history in the field of communi-

cation research, and social media is the latest tool to present an opportunity for
political operatives and malicious actors alike to shape public opinion to meet
their respective needs. Democracy in the Disinformation Age: Influence and
Activism in American Politics is a timely and essential text that brings together
notable theorists and scholars currently engaged in the study of the impact of
social media and disinformation on modern political communication. These
contributors present critical conversations about the impact of social media
on American political discourse, and its study. In the course of discussing the
impact of social media sites and the responsibilities of those companies in re-­
shaping political discourse, the contributors also offer insights on how best to
study this impact and what lies ahead for communication theorists, political and
strategic communication scholars, and educators in our discipline.”
Christopher J. McCollough, Associate Professor,
Jacksonville State University
DEMOCRACY IN THE
DISINFORMATION AGE

In this book established researchers draw on a range of theoretical and em-

pirical perspectives to examine social media’s impact on American politics.
Chapters critically examine activism in the digital age, fake news, online in-
fluence, messaging tactics, news transparency and authentication, consumers’
digital habits, and ultimately the societal impacts that continue to be created
by combining social media and politics. Through this book readers will better
understand and approach with questions such as:

• How exactly and why did social media become a powerful factor in politics?
• What responsibilities do social networks have in the proliferation of fac-
tually wrong and hate-filled messages? Or should individuals be held
accountable?
• What are state-of-the-art computational techniques for measuring and de-
termining social media’s impact on society?
• What role does online activism play in today’s political arena?
• What does the potent combination of social media and politics truly mean
for the future of democracy?

The insights and debates found herein provide a stronger understanding of the
core issues and steer us toward improved curriculum and research aimed at a
better democracy. Democracy in the Disinformation Age: Influence and Activism in
American Politics will appeal to both undergraduate and postgraduate students,
as well as academics with an interest in areas including political science, media
studies, mass communication, PR, and journalism.

Regina Luttrell is Associate Dean of Research and Creative Activities

and Assistant Professor of public relations at Syracuse University within the
S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications where she researches, pub-
lishes, and discusses public relations, social media for strategic communication,
Gen Z and the Millennial generation, and the intersection of social media
within society. Dr. Luttrell’s research has been published in several books and
in academic journals.

Lu Xiao is an Associate Professor within the School of Information Studies at

Syracuse University. She obtained a Ph.D. degree from the College of Informa-
tion Sciences & Technology, Pennsylvania State University. Broadly speaking,
Dr. Xiao is interested in how people reason in social media, the major factors
that affect the process and outcome of these reasoning activities, and the main
effects imposed on people by the activities.

Jon Glass is a Professor of Practice for Magazine, News and Digital Journal-
ism at Syracuse University within the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Com-
munications where he focuses on current news industry issues, social media
and digital storytelling. He is executive producer of TheNewsHouse.com, an
award-winning, student-produced news, sports and entertainment website for
the SU community. Prior to joining the Newhouse School in 2007, Glass was
the online content director for PalmBeachPost.com, where he spent 11 years
in the newsroom and online departments.
DEMOCRACY IN THE
DISINFORMATION AGE
Influence and Activism
in American Politics

Edited by
Regina Luttrell, Lu Xiao and Jon Glass
First published 2021
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
The right of Regina Luttrell, Lu Xiao, and Jon Glass to be identified
as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their
individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections
77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Luttrell, Regina, 1975– editor. | Xiao, Lu (Associate
professor), editor. | Glass, Jon, editor.
Title: Democracy in the disinformation age : influence and activism in
American politics / edited by Regina Luttrell, Lu Xiao, Jon Glass.
Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. | Includes
bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2021002126 (print) | LCCN 2021002127 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367442927 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367442903 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003008828 (ebook) | ISBN 9781000390759 (adobe pdf ) |
ISBN 9781000390780 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Communication in politics—United States. |
Social media—Political aspects—United States. |
Disinformation—United States.
Classification: LCC JA85 .D425 2021 (print) | LCC JA85 (ebook) |
DDC 320.97301/4—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021002126
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021002127

ISBN: 978-0-367-44292-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-44290-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-00882-8 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by codeMantra
To Avery, Emma, and Todd – For you. For us. For our exhilarating
political conversations. All my love.
Regina Luttrell

To my children Jay Lu, Iris Lu, and Selina Lu. I love you all forever!
Lu Xiao

To Megan, Kate and Ben for your love, support and

encouragement.
Jon Glass
CONTENTS

The Editor Team xi

About the Contributors xiii

Democracy in the Disinformation Age: Influence and
Activism in American Politics 1
Editors’ Introduction
Regina Luttrell, Lu Xiao, and Jon Glass

PART 1
Awakening of Activism 7

1 Social Media for Social Good through a Public Policy

Lens: What Role Does Social Media Play in the Creation
and Sustainability of Social Movements? 9
Adrienne A. Wallace

2 “Woke” Culture: The Societal and Political Implications

of Black Lives Matter Digital Activism 37
Jasmine Roberts

3 Outreach and Empowerment: Civic Engagement,

Advocacy, and Amplification of the Women’s Movement 58
Regina Luttrell
x Contents

PART 2
Disruptions in the Digital Age 77

4 Fake News, Reality Apathy, and the Erosion of Trust and

Authenticity in American Politics 79
Cindy S. Vincent and Adam Gismondi

5 The Volume Inside of this Bus Is Astronomical: Political

Communication and Legitimacy on TikTok 99
Teri Del Rosso

6 The Legal Landscape: The First Amendment, Section

230, and Online Liability 119
Frank LoMonte

PART 3
Misinformation and Disinformation:
Spread and Influence 145

7 Infowars and the Crisis of Political Misinformation on

Social Media 147
Michelle M. Maresh-Fuehrer and David Gurney

8 Combating Misinformation in Risk: Emotional Appeal in

False Beliefs 165
Jiyoung Lee, Tanya Ott and Danielle Deavours

9 From Russia with Love: A Social Psychological Analysis

of Information Warfare in the Social Media Age 182
Rosanna E. Guadagno

10 Fighting Disinformation in Social Media: An Online

Persuasion Perspective 201
Lu Xiao

Glossary 221
Index 227
THE EDITOR TEAM

Regina Luttrell, Ph.D. is associate dean of research and creative activities and
assistant professor of public relations at the S.I. Newhouse School of P ­ ublic
Communications at Syracuse University where she researches, publishes, and
discusses public relations, social media for strategic communication, Gen Z
and the Millennial generation, and the intersection of social media within
society. A TOW Fellow, Luttrell’s research has been published in several book
chapters and in academic journals including the Journal of Public Relations Edu-
cation, the Journal of Mass Communication Education, and Communication Teacher.
She has authored: Social Media: How to Engage, Share, and Connect, Gen Z: The
Superhero Generation, The Millennial Mindset: Unraveling Fact from Fiction, Public
Relations Campaigns: An Integrated Approach, The PR Agency Handbook, and A
Practical Guide to Ethics in Public Relations. Most recently she edited and con-
tributed to the volume Trump Tweets, the World Reacts: Understanding What Is
Relevant and Why.

Lu Xiao, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the iSchool at Syracuse University.

Xiao’s primary research interest focuses on understanding and supporting the
social media users’ reasoning behavior such as how they argue, how they per-
suade others in the social media environments, and how they cope with the
persuasion attempts from the others. She uses a variety of research methods and
approaches in this research, ranging from the use of natural language process-
ing and machine learning techniques to analyze social media content, to lab
experiments, and to traditional content analysis method. Her other research
interests include the development of computational techniques to support the
analysis of large collections of interview data and community-based informal
learning design.
xii The Editor Team

Jon Glass is a professor of practice for magazine, news, and digital journal-
ism at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
where he focuses on current media industry issues, social media, and digi-
tal storytelling. He teaches “Digital News & Innovation” and “Digital News
Leadership” for undergraduate and graduate students, plus teaches the “So-
cial Media for Communicators” course in Newhouse’s online graduate pro-
gram. Glass is executive producer of TheNewsHouse.com, an award-winning,
student-­produced news, sports, and entertainment website for the SU commu-
nity. Prior to joining Newhouse in 2007, Jon was the online content director
for The Palm Beach Post, where he spent 11 years in the newsroom and online
departments. He is a graduate of the University of Florida, where he earned a
B.S. in journalism and minor in education.
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Danielle Deavours is a multimedia journalism instructor at the University of

Montevallo, and a doctoral candidate at the University of Alabama. She is an
Emmy and Murrow award-winning broadcast journalist. Her research focuses
on media sociology, including the nonverbal communication of journalists
during crisis coverage.

Teri Del Rosso, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Department of Journal-

ism & Strategic Media at The University of Memphis where she teaches public
relations and writes about advocacy and activism, pedagogy, and PR.

Adam Gismondi, Ph.D. is Director of Impact at the Institute for Democracy &
Higher Education at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Civic Life. As a schol-
ar-practitioner, his focus is on advancing college student political learning and
engagement, digital environments, news and media literacy, and higher educa-
tion’s role in democracy.

Rosanna E. Guadagno, Ph.D. directs the Information Warfare Working group

at Stanford University. Her research examines social influence and persuasion,
mediated communication, and gender. She is the author of Psychological Processes
in Social Media: Why We Click.

David Gurney is an associate professor of Media Studies at Texas A&M

University-­Corpus Christi where his research focuses on digital media forms,
aesthetics, and politics. He is currently working on a manuscript dealing with
the fluidity of form, authorship, and distribution of media content through
digital networks.
xiv About the Contributors

Jiyoung Lee, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at the University of Alabama’s De-

partment of Journalism and Creative Media. Her research focuses on emerging
media effects on the flow of (mis/dis)information through psychological routes
including cognition and emotion in diverse risky settings including public
health crises, natural/man-made disasters, and political dividedness.

Frank LoMonte, J.D. is a professor of media law at the University of Florida

where he runs the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, a think-tank
focused on developing solutions that facilitate public access to civically essential
documents and data.

Michelle M. Maresh-Fuehrer, Ph.D. is a professor of public relations at Texas

A&M University-Corpus Christi. She is an award-winning educator who
teaches courses in crisis communication, public relations, and social media and
has authored a variety of publications in these areas including three textbooks.

Tanya Ott is a doctoral student in the College of Communication and Informa-

tion Sciences at the University of Alabama where her research interests include
newsroom diversity, audio storytelling, and media effects.

Jasmine Roberts is a lecturer at The Ohio State University’s School of Com-

munication. Her areas of expertise include public relations writing, campaign
strategy, digital activism, open education, global marketing, feminist media,
and media effects.

Cindy S. Vincent, Ph.D. is an associate professor in Salem State University’s

Department of Media and Communication where she teaches media studies
and public relations. Her research focuses on the power of civic media to fa-
cilitate self-empowerment, agency, and civic engagement within historically
marginalized populations.

Adrienne A. Wallace, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at Grand Valley State

­ niversity where her research and writing focus on the intersection of public
U
relations with digital media, pedagogy, and public affairs.
DEMOCRACY IN THE
DISINFORMATION AGE
Influence and Activism in American Politics

Editors’ Introduction
Regina Luttrell, Lu Xiao, and Jon Glass

There has not been a more powerful and disruptive force in modern political
history than social media. Candidates, organizers, and activists have turned to
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, and a constantly revolving
set of digital platforms as their primary vehicles for communication, rather
than rely on legacy media outlets and advertising. Social networks themselves
have faced enormous scrutiny since being compromised by foreign troll facto-
ries that gamed their systems to wreak havoc in the 2016 and 2020 elections
and have continued to find ways to infiltrate the political systems ever since.
Voters who once considered their social networks a reliable source of news
and friendly endorsements instead have been deluged with a steady stream of
misinformation, vicious battles between the left vs. right, and barrage of memes
and videos intended to upend political careers, counter movements, and destroy
faith in the American political system.
Without social media, however, some of the most powerful movements
of the 21st century would not have thrived online or exist in real life. The
Black Lives Matter and #MeToo efforts leveraged social media’s communica-
tion utilities to transform from hashtag-driven online discussions into fully
organized collective action aimed at achieving social justice in the United
States in ways not seen in half a century. At the same time, the convenience
of social media for many users can create a backlash for so-called slacktiv-
ism, or casually supporting a cause by merely liking an Instagram post or
sharing a tweet. Successful activism in the digital age requires engagement,
advocacy, and amplification as the Women’s Movement has utilized since its
earliest days in the late 1800s and early 1900s through the social media mo-
bilizing and networking that has energized millions of supporters regularly
since 2017.
2 Regina Luttrell, Lu Xiao, and Jon Glass

Movements and political parties are constantly seeking to expand their bases
of supporters, and TikTok found itself primed to launch the next generation
of social and political activism. The same teens and pre-teens who embraced
the short music video service to showcase their lip-synching talents and dance
moves started engaging with political campaigns leading up to the 2020 elec-
tions, even if they were years away from actually voting. With the emergence
of each new platform like TikTok, new issues continually arise, forcing con-
gressional officials and the White House to propose oversight measures and
legislation that inevitably lead to legal challenges. Section 230 of the Com-
munications Decency Act provides liability immunity to online hosts. How-
ever, controversies over privacy breaches and censorship claims have frequently
put social media founders like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack
Dorsey in the hot seat on Capitol Hill and the legal protections for their com-
panies in the crossfires of politicians.
Among the reasons social media companies have come under fire are their
roles in the proliferation of falsehoods, especially when it comes to politics.
Misinformation and disinformation propagate like wildfire on any given day,
fraying the trust citizens have in the government, institutions, and media, as
well as their motivation to engage politically. Social media companies have
faced a particular reckoning in ultra-conservative and far-right radio host Alex
Jones’s abilities to stoke widespread misinformation through his fringe con-
spiracy theories using his Infowars outlets accessible by millions across a num-
ber of platforms. Then, what happens during a politically charged crisis when
misinformation is thrown into the mix? It becomes even harder for people to
distinguish truth from rumor, leading them to share posts that create another
wave of misinformation injected into social media streams. Intentional or not,
this flood of misinformation is explicitly bound to the public’s growing mis-
trust about news and information and ultimately results in “reality apathy” –
the point that individuals are so uncertain of what to believe, they opt to not
believe anything at all.
If even one American voter succumbs to this form of apathy, it’s indicative
of how social media has bruised and battered our country’s political struc-
tures. Aspiring communications practitioners and information professionals
need to understand the core issues related to social media’s roles in inspiring
and supporting activism, the distribution of misinformation, and influence
on the minds of voters. The future of America’s democracy just may depend
upon it.

Organization of the Text

This series of original research and critical essays unequivocally articulates the
intimate connection between theories presented in communication and the
impact of social media on modern democratic society. Drawing on a range of
 Influence and Activism in American Politics 3

theoretical and empirical perspectives, this collection examines how multiple

transformations and the various implications social media has impacted Amer-
ican democracy. To that end, Democracy in the Disinformation Age: Influence and
Activism in American Politics is divided into three parts:

Part 1: Awakening of Activism

Part 2: Disruptions in the Digital Age
Part 3: Misinformation and Disinformation: Spread and Influence

This organization provides connections to activism, fake news, language anal-

ysis, online influence, messaging tactics, news transparency and authentication,
consumers’ digital habits, and, ultimately, the societal impacts that continue to
be created by the overlap of social media and politics. Each chapter opens with
learning objectives to guide learners and closes with critical thinking questions
and key concepts that can assess a comprehension of vital materials that readers
can bookmark for future use. The insights and debates found within the pages
of this book will provide a stronger understanding of the core issues and move
toward improved curriculum and research aimed at a better democracy.

Chapter Summaries

Part 1: Awakening of Activism

Chapter 1: Social Media for Social Good through a Public Policy Lens:
What Role Does Social Media Play in the Creation and Sustainability
of Social Movements?
Adrienne A. Wallace
This first chapter illustrates the role social media plays in new social move-
ments and collective action through movement formation, movement or-
ganization, and movement sustainability examining Black Lives Matter and
#MeToo.
Chapter 2: “Woke” Culture: The Societal and Political ­I mplications
of Black Lives Matter Digital Activism
Jasmine Roberts
In this chapter, the author critically examines the implications of digital
activism demonstrated through the #BlackLivesMatter movement and its in-
fluence on the public’s awareness of racial injustices in the United States and
other “hashtag” activism campaigns. The chapter also discusses critiques of
digital activism, such as “slacktivism,” and claims this form of action does not
produce tangible change.
Chapter 3: Outreach and Empowerment: Civic Engagement, Advocacy,
and Amplification of the Women’s Movement
Regina Luttrell
4 Regina Luttrell, Lu Xiao, and Jon Glass

Weaving together the past and the present, this chapter examines the public
relations (PR) efforts implemented by the women that led first-wave feminism
from the early days of the National Woman’s Party to fourth-wave feminism,
which is being experienced today through movements such as the Women’s
March organization. The chapter is structured around three broad themes: en-
gagement, advocacy, and amplification – specific areas that are used when de-
veloping and implementing a PR campaign.

Part 2: Disruptions in the Digital Age

Chapter 4: Fake News, Reality Apathy, and the Erosion of Trust and
Authenticity in American Politics
Cindy S. Vincent and Adam Gismondi
This chapter examines the varying conceptions and definitions of the term
“fake news.” It outlines the current literature on how fake news has influenced
modern American politics and recent studies analyzing the potential influence
of fake news on the 2020 U.S. presidential election. This study also explores the
factors contributing to the proliferation and effectiveness of fake news through
strategies such as online influencers, algorithmic authority, the creation of echo
chambers, and the use of microtargeting. Case studies are incorporated to more
deeply examine the influence of fake news on young adult political engagement
in the United States. Lastly, to address the potential for reality apathy and to
stave off disinterest in news and political engagement, this study looks at effec-
tive strategies for fake news literacy through a media literacy case study that
moves students from a place of critical apathy toward a sense of civic agency
and political engagement.
Chapter 5: The Volume Inside of This Bus Is Astronomical: ­Political
Communication and Legitimacy on TikTok
Teri Del Rosso
This chapter assesses American politically driven hashtags on TikTok to
determine how the viral nature of the app provides a platform for users to le-
gitimize their political stances. Using van Leeuwan’s theory of legitimization,
this information illustrates how TikTok users build legitimacy on the often
parody-driven platform through the use of established, viral social trends, and
connections (e.g., memes and popular songs). Given that power and legitimacy
are rooted in discourse, the chapter illuminates which discourses are most fre-
quently implemented to (re)construct legitimacy on TikTok and drive conver-
sations and social connection around U.S. political movements.
Chapter 6: The Legal Landscape: The First Amendment, Section
230, and Online Liability
Frank LoMonte
This information investigates and critiques leading theories of responsibility,
including the concept of social media companies as “information fiduciaries”
 Influence and Activism in American Politics 5

with heightened professional responsibilities to protect the best interests of their

users, concluding that no preexisting concept of tort liability is a suitable fit
for the way that user-generated information is transmitted in contemporary
society. It also addresses the idea that any notion of governmentally enforced
“information quality policing” portends a proverbial “cure” that could kill the
patient as rapidly as the illness.

Part 3: Misinformation and Disinformation: Spread and Influence

Chapter 7: Infowars and the Crisis of Political Misinformation on
Social Media
Michelle M. Maresh-Fuehrer and David Gurney
The spread and consequences of political misinformation on social media
using the Alex Jones/Infowars case as a primary example are explored in this
chapter. Implications for social media consumers, political leaders, and PR
practitioners are also discussed.
Chapter 8: Combating Misinformation in Risk: Emotional Appeal
in False Beliefs
Jiyoung Lee, Tanya Ott, and Danielle Deavours
Enhancing the understanding of misinformation during crises and how to
take coping strategies to prevent and overcome emotional misinformation even
before the crisis begins are the focus of this chapter. The hope is that as scholars
consider the particular characteristics and processing strategies audiences use as
they encounter misinformation, targeted messages can be curated and shared to
correct the rapid spread of misinformation during crisis events.
Chapter 9: From Russia With Love: A Social Psychological Analysis
of Information Warfare in the Social Media Age
Rosanna E. Guadagno
This chapter examines the complex relationship between people’s social me-
dia use and their susceptibility to fake news and information warfare campaigns
intended to sow chaos and disinformation. To accomplish this, the social psy-
chological literature on social influence and persuasion is reviewed, focusing
on the role that commitment and consistency, scarcity, liking, perceived social
norms, and the viral spread of social media content play on people’s willingness
to believe disinformation. It concludes with a discussion of potential strategies
that individuals, policy makers, and technology companies can adopt to aid in
protecting unsuspecting people from these types of influence operations.
Chapter 10: Fighting Disinformation in Social Media: An Online
Persuasion Perspective
Lu Xiao
This conceptualizes how a piece of disinformation presented to users in social
media (e.g., in the form of fake news) can mark a persuasion act – to successfully
convince the user to believe in the content, to agree with the presented view,
6 Regina Luttrell, Lu Xiao, and Jon Glass

and to spread it. From this perspective, the chapter reviews persuasion theories
and models to explain what makes someone vulnerable to disinformation. By
presenting a modified persuasion knowledge model, this information illustrates
persuasion episodes in the context of online disinformation and identifies re-
search gaps for future exploration.
PART 1
Awakening of Activism
1
SOCIAL MEDIA FOR SOCIAL GOOD
THROUGH A PUBLIC POLICY LENS
What Role Does Social Media Play in
the Creation and Sustainability of Social
Movements?

Adrienne A. Wallace

Learning objectives

• Understand and apply characteristics of political and social justice objec-

tives through social media messaging on a variety of platforms.
• Analyze the creation of social movements through various frameworks in
communication and public policy theory.
• Evaluate the role of social media in social movements.
• Identify the characteristics used in social movements for sustainability or
failure potential.

Introduction
Political participation is not a new concept. However, digital technologies have
introduced new opportunities to engage in a full range of civic activity that
can lead to a more equal engagement of democracy within a system.1 While
prominent social movements mediated online are not difficult to come by
now, one only has to login to Twitter and check out what’s trending. Some
have more lasting impact than others. Movements in the last few years that will
be examined in this chapter are Black Lives Matter, an African American led
movement campaigning against violence and systemic racism, and the MeToo
movement, which has been used to empower women through empathy and
strength in female numbers.
Both of these campaigns have illustrated highly sophisticated methods of
collective action (CA) without formal channels of communication to sup-
port their political and social objectives. The use of social media channels like
10 Adrienne A. Wallace

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Tumblr, blogs, and photo sharing sites
illustrates the flexibility of information communication technology (ICT)
platforms in supporting CA and social movements.2 While the mediums them-
selves are both inexpensive to operate and instantaneous, multiple messages can
be conveyed clearly and consistently over the course of movement evolution.
As more of the world becomes connected online, revolutionaries3 across
the globe are empowered to take political action. The use of ICTs is critical in
developing, sustaining, and executing modern social movements.4,5 This chap-
ter examines the role social media plays in social movement organization and
formation through CA, identifying the use of social media to generate press
and sustainability factors to demonstrate success or lack thereof in these popular
social movements.

Theories of Social Movements and Social Media

Political science researcher Sidney Tarrow defines a social movement as col-
lective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups, or cultural codes] by
people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with
elites, opponents, and authorities. He specifically distinguishes social move-
ments from political parties and advocacy groups.6 CA is a political science and
economics theory developed by American economist Mancur Olson in 1965
that can be defined as all activity of common or shared interest among two or
more individuals. It is concerned mostly with concentrated efforts versus diffu-
sion of cost.7 Olson’s classic work is set to explain and illustrate how collective
failure occurs when individuals pursue self-interest. The argument assumes that
every person individually acts rationally, but if everyone chooses not to act –
in respect to individual costs and benefits – no CA would occur.8 Collective
identity and frame alignment were developed from CA theory to demonstrate
how individuals communicate to frame or analyze grievances that are part of
the collective. Though these frameworks predate the internet, it is of interest to
use them to assess online assembly through social media for illustrating social
media’s impact on social movements.
ICTs are critical in developing and executing modern social movements but
have mixed outcomes regarding sustainability. Prolific proponent of the net-
worked society, notable sociologist Manuel Castells describes mass media being
displaced by mass self-communication in altering the communication model
from one-to-one to many-to-many.9 Social media tends to be decentralized,
nonmarket, peer-produced, nonproprietary, open-sourced, commons-based,
and provide free or inexpensive access and distribution.10 In order for a social
movement driven by social media to live or to be an event, the activism must be
displayed not only through social media but also have a presence in the world
on public display in plain view. As a result of the change in power dynamics
between traditional media and social media, activist groups advocating social
 Social Media for Social Good 11

change have strained relationships with traditional mainstream media. Yet, so-
cial movements still rely on mainstream media for legitimacy of actions.11
Tarrow12 reminds us that, as shown in the daily news cycle, the notion of
social movements, which he defines as “collective challenges, based on com-
mon purposes and social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, oppo-
nents, and authorities” performing “sequences of contentious politics that are
based on underlying social networks and resonant collective action frames, and
which develop the capacity to maintain sustained challenges against powerful
opponents.”13 Sustaining this activity, however, defines the social movement.
Tarrow maintains four characteristics, or what he calls prerequisites of sustain-
able social movements: (1) political opportunities, (2) diffuse social networks,
(3) familiar forms of CA, and (4) cultural frames that can resonate throughout
a population.14
A grievance in of itself cannot create a movement as there are “free riders” or
those who cannot be excluded from obtaining the benefits of a collective good
once the good has been produced and then has little incentive to be a voluntary
contributor to attainment of that good.15,16 To Tarrow, social movements are
“collective challenges, based on common purposes and social solidarities, in
sustained interaction with elites, opponents, and authorities.”17 Riots aren’t a
social movement – movements are triggered and sustained by the ebb and flow
of political struggle.18 He discusses the cycles of contention as information
spreads about the susceptibility of a polity to challenge, additional activists
and also “ordinary people” may “begin to test the limits of social control.”19
Meaning, the success of one movement contributes to greater opportunities of
success for other movements. When the resulting cycles of contention spread
to an extreme, revolution may occur. “The difference between movement
cycles and revolutions is that, in the latter, multiple centers of sovereignty are
created, turning the conflict between challengers and members of the polity
into a struggle for power.”20
In addition to multifactored models of social movement formation, re-
sources, organization, political opportunities, and consistent grievances are all
requisites for CA.21 While Tarrow emphasizes the “sudden” nature of revolu-
tions and social movement in acquisition of resource, the history of the griev-
ance is of lesser significance than is the political opportunity, which, in this
case, is for mobilization of actors.
The nature of these episodes, while similar, is not beyond empirical expla-
nation; as identified in sociologist Neil Smelser’s work,22 interdeterminacy is
not an explanation for CA. Agitation by a minority against a majority in the
name of a generalized belief is the very core of social movements, revolutions,
and what Smelser calls norm-oriented movement,23 where actors attempt to
affect change with social movement at the epicenter. Norm-oriented move-
ments are a precursor for collective outburst (i.e., revolutions) and general social
movements in Smelser’s opinion.24
12 Adrienne A. Wallace

Tarrow25 demonstrates that political alliances and processes help shape suc-
cess and failure of social movements, while sociologist J. Craig Jenkins26 argues
that formal organization is not incompatible in creating a social movement.
However, he wouldn’t agree that it is the most important scalable variable
needed to issue success to the movement. It stands to mention, particularly in
the cases illustrated in this chapter, that at minimum, it does aid in the efficacy
of social movement sustainability. Their impact on Tarrow is noted; formal
organization is not incompatible in the creation of social movements and nor
is it obvious for their impact on CA,27,28 wherein rational choice and eyes on
greater good are well supported in Black Lives Matter and MeToo.
Complexity is the one area that social movement theorists do agree on. After
that, opinions and reports clash on this topic from one theorist to another. Tra-
ditionally, the problem has been explaining individual participation in social
movements. Jenkins29 says that traditional theories share the assumptions that
movement participation was relatively rare, discontents were transitory, move-
ment and institutionalized action were sharply distinct, and movement actors
were arational, if not outright irrational. Social movements are traditionally
seen as having roots in personal and institutional change.30 Olson attempted
to make the case for economy based on the actions of an individual (rational
choice). In the Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups,
Olson provides an important analysis of the problems of public good cost based
on activity of a single actor and his/her collaboration. The economic theory
of CA is concerned with, among other things, the provision of public goods
through the collaboration of individuals and the impact of externalities on
group behavior. It is more commonly referred to as “public choice” and can
be seen as an influencer to the study of social movements through resource
mobilization theory.
Olson’s controversial claim is that individual rational choice leads to sit-
uations where the affluent carry a higher burden in the provision of the
public good than the poor, who are left with little choice but to opt for the
free rider strategy (i.e., benefit from the public good without contributing
to its provision). This may also encourage the under-production (inefficient
production) of the public good. 31 While Olson’s use is pejorative, others
characterize CA as a rational choice (e.g., groups, associations, unions) in the
power of the disadvantaged, allowing them to participate in democracy by
collaboration, not just benefiting from the actions without representation or
participation.
Mass behavior is demonstrated at varying levels in societies based on the
enabling or stifling of behavior from above and below the social hierarchy.
The nature of these episodes Smelser discussed in Theory of Collective Behav-
ior.32 Seemingly spontaneous, they are dependent on the variable combinations
present similar to Doug McAdam, Jackie Smith, John McCarthy, and Mayer
Zald’s take on emerging synthesis of social movements and revolutions. That is,
 Social Media for Social Good 13

they consider the range, variety, and diversity of mobilizing structures formal,
informal, and hybrid in social movement organizations wherein the level of
mobilization and framing are essential to understanding movement.33,34

Introduction of Social Media as an Alternative Free Press

Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) has created shared spaces
where people can discover and share information across time, space, social,
and cultural boundaries. If social media can increase perceived social and pub-
lic equity, users are more likely to engage in active participation – bringing
marginalized people and communities together to magnify social movement
and create opportunities for CA. For this reason, social media has become an
integral part in grassroots communication and political participation.35,36
Everyone is a reporter of the news, or so it seems. Through citizen jour-
nalism, activists can directly reach their audiences, supporting and permitting
the bypass of the traditional media channels with messages in real time.37 Jay
Rosen, a faculty member at New York University and the founder of the now
defunct crowd-sourced journalism experiment, Assignment Zero, re-affirmed
the complicated nature of citizen journalism and new media. Rosen suggests
that because the lines between the spheres of consensus, legitimate debate,
and deviance have been blurred, it has complicated things for the practice of
journalism in the United States.38 Journalists have been taught to uphold the
profession’s virtues of objectivity and balance, as well as the basic American
ideologies of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while rejecting those
who challenge these beliefs.
Bloggers and civilian journalists threaten to expose the unwillingness of
some traditional journalists to delve deeper into stories that go against legiti-
mate debate and consensus. Such exposure weakens the authority of traditional
journalists and makes readers less likely to trust their impartiality. Modern
culture has even gone so far to dub this idea “fake news” in a post-2016 U.S.
election cycle.39 “By being able to connect with each other and share the sto-
ries and accounts, citizen journalists are learning that “the sphere of legitimate
debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition.”40
In the past, there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects,
solidifies, and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and
serve demand. Rosen has long upheld that citizen journalism promotes social
democracy.41 More recent researchers have confirmed the precarious relation-
ship between these two areas in Western culture,42 modifying early concepts
of journalism function, which scholar Harold Lasswell primarily defined as
surveillance, correlation, transmission, and entertainment.43
In most modern cases of social media backed social movements like Black
Lives Matter and MeToo, the main message started out as simply as hashtagging
a grievance. Tarana Burke’s MeToo movement unofficially began in 1997, when
14 Adrienne A. Wallace

she counseled a young survivor of sexual abuse. However, the movement offi-
cially launched in 2006 from a statement posted on the now defunct Myspace
social network from her living room. The movement gained a resurgence of
energy in 2015 with Ambra Gutierrez reporting the exposure of widespread
sexual-abuse allegations against film mogul Harvey Weinstein, which contin-
ued through 2017 when actress Alyssa Milano wrote a blog post in attempt
to draw attention back to the movement. Also, in 2017, an investigation into
sexual assault allegations against a former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State
University Athletics teams’ doctor shocked the world when more than 150
victims testified against Larry Nassar and sent the doctor to prison for life.
These two punctuating events took MeToo from social movement to social
programming almost overnight, sustaining the movement across many groups,
including the women’s marches following the 2016 United States presidential
election.
In an interview with The Guardian, Tarana Burke credited social media for
the long-standing awareness and interest, “If it’s possible to galvanize people
starting with a hashtag, to get them to stand up and raise their voices and be
counted and be a part of this global community, then so much more is possi-
ble,”44 she said. This directly addresses the sustainability of the online social
movement, as does her ability to move it offline to create the MeToo program
that helps girls share their stories of sexual violence. This is not just a slogan or
rally cry into the ether. It is now a bonafide movement backed by foundations,
fundraising, and public policy worldwide sparking the Congressional Account-
ability Act of 1995 Reform act, also known as the MeToo bill, proposed by
Jackie Speier in the United States Congress as an amendment to the Congres-
sional Accountability Act of 1995, thus changing the way the legislative branch
of the U.S. federal government treats sexual harassment cases.
In the summer of 2013, following Zimmerman’s acquittal for his role in the
shooting death of Martin the previous year, three Black community organizers,
Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Cullors, began a movement with the
hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. According to their website,

Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world

where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.
It is an affirmation of Black folks’ humanity, our contributions to this
society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.45

This movement now consists of 40 member-led chapters in a global network

that organizes and builds local minority power to “intervene in violence in-
flicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.”46
The movement became nationally recognized for populous street demonstra-
tions in 2014 following the deaths of two African Americans, Michael Brown
in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City. These protests
 Social Media for Social Good 15

focused on the role of police brutality in policy actions while in police custody.
In 2016, the movement expanded into a national network and call to action
surrounding the presidential election with the founders calling for voting reg-
istration drives and increased political activity within the action network. The
movement then returned to national prominence and international attention in
2020 following the deaths of Black Americans George Floyd and Breonna Tay-
lor at the hands of law enforcement officers, and the shooting death of Ahmaud
Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man chased by armed White residents through a
south Georgia neighborhood. In each case, immediate legal action was not to
be found. It was only after the organizing of protests and resurgence of #Black-
LivesMatter were arrests made, fueling the fire for lack of recognized justice for
Black Americans. These deaths continue to raise valid questions about racial
profiling, use of excessive police force, the interpretation of self-defense laws,
and the so-called wisdom of citizen policing in residential areas.
The four officers responsible for the death of Floyd were arrested and
charged. The three men who participated in the harassment and killing of
Arbery were arrested and charged for his death. The Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation launched an investigation into the killing of Taylor.47 Georgetown
University law professor Paul Butler, a former prosecutor and author of “Choke
Hold: Policing Black Men,” discussed in a podcast that the prosecution has a
tough case, in that throughout the history of policing roughly 150 officers have
been charged with murder, but only 10 have ever been convicted of murder.
However, the array of charges lends to the possibility of a charge sticking to
an officer with a stronger case and multiple charges.48 Sustained protests have
positioned Floyd as the turning point in the accountability of law enforcement
for racial justice, sometimes leading to law enforcement actually continuing
investigations that had been previously ignored. This has galvanized a move-
ment for constructive reform in that a federal bill was passed making lynching
a federal crime in 2020.
As the public outcry to these cases has shown, social media offers opportu-
nities to citizens all over the world to share information and ideas, potentially
providing “long-term tools that can strengthen civil society and the public
sphere.”49 Not surprisingly, there is growing scholarly interest in the mediation
of activism and political campaigning. However, the novelty of the topic, the
unique qualities of available data, and the often unwieldy size of data sets have
limited existing accounts to analyses of a single case.50,51 This makes it diffi-
cult to generalize from the findings, limiting the ability to build theory about
the uses of social media in moments of political activism, though many have
tried.52,53,54,55
Further, as protest movements grow more diverse, so must the theoretical
framework and investigations of the nature of protest movements in online
spaces.56,57 One important aspect of this potential public sphere is its facili-
tation of social and political activism. Social media allows activists to reach a
16 Adrienne A. Wallace

substantial portion of the public, enabling a range of tactics beyond appeals to

the established media and raising questions of whether traditional social move-
ment theories can adequately explain these protests.58 Likewise, it can offer the
look and feel of activism support while simply creating a message from one’s
mobile device, all while not being bothered to do anything more. This action,
or lack of action, results in a phenomenon known as “slacktivism,” or the prac-
tice of support online but characterized as involving very little commitment or
effort in the actual.59,60
In classic accounts, the problem of achieving effective coordination within
movements was so great as to be central to the structuring of activism.61 The
solution was the creation of bureaucratic organizational forms that could for-
malize members’ participation and direct their actions.62,63 The rise of in-
expensive, networked digital media with marginal costs of communication
approaching zero arguably means major changes for the nature of mobilization
and engagement.64,65 At the same time, traditional political movements – those
linked to candidates or issue campaigns – have responded to opportunities
­presented by the new media environment by becoming hybrid organizations,
centrally managed but enabling a relatively entrepreneurial base.66
Simultaneously, broader social changes have also contributed to new activist
forms. Residents of “late modern” society find themselves increasingly respon-
sible for elements of life such as economic security, risk management, and iden-
tity maintenance that once were delivered by social institutions.67 The result is
a new set of tasks on the agendas of late modern citizens that enable the creation
and continual maintenance of a personally satisfying sense of self – or “personal
identity project.”68 These conditions act as consequence to activism, as polit-
ical identities are expressed via lifestyle, consumption choices, and tastes, and
become highly personalized in nature.69 At the extreme of these networked
individualized conditions, individual potential collaborators drop in and out
of specific mobilizations as they please70, 71 taking their networks, alternative
and free media with them. These large, loosely knit social circles of networked
individuals expand opportunities for learning, problem solving, decision mak-
ing, and personal interaction. The new social operating system of “networked
individualism” liberates from the restrictions of regimented groups, requiring
networking skills and strategies to maintain ties and balance multiple overlap-
ping networks.72

Social Media as a Tool for Change

Social media as a change agent is less about the tools and more about the ap-
plication of (and power in) these tools to create, maintain, or end CA. So-
cial media is a tactic for supporting, not supplanting, existing strategies, as it
rarely works in a vacuum.73 The irony is that the best way to get people away
from their computers is through the computers; you can’t organize thousands
 Social Media for Social Good 17

without the web.74,75 Researchers Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia proposed

four stages to social movements that use social media: (1) a triggering event,
(2) media response, (3) viral organization, and (4) physical response.76 Through
the use of simple and free tools like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, pas-
sionate individuals can build networks of people and take action to the streets.
Whether this is the beginning of actual change is debatable (due to the diffi-
culty of measurement). Social media undeniably amplifies efforts for change
all over the world. These efforts don’t work solely because of social media.
While it is common for groups to be enthusiastic about ICT, it is still important
to utilize mainstream media through primary activist accounts through social
media to send the messaging to those other than protestors in order to involve
and sustain the social movement.
Some countries attempt to control, censor, and monitor social media, but
are unlikely to be successful in the long run, as these are durable tools that can
strengthen civil society and the public sphere.77,78 The Black Lives Matter and
MeToo movements specifically were born on the internet, diffused by the in-
ternet, gained critical support via the internet, and have successfully maintained
a hearty presence on the internet. The digital origins of the movements either
created or sustained street protests. That is not to say that the internet or ICT
created the movement, rather the disbursement movement’s message spurred
CA. These movements engaged people, starting in living rooms through de-
vices and moving to the streets in large-scale protests and boycotts, but all done
through CA by way of ICT.
Authors Clay Shirky and Malcolm Gladwell are two prominent theorists
who specialize in the topic of social media but who take sides contrary to each
other. Shirky argues that the political use of social media ultimately enhances
freedom:

Social tools create what economists would call a positive supply-side

shock to the amount of freedom in the world. […] To speak online is to
publish, and to publish online is to connect with others. With the arrival
of globally accessible publishing, freedom of speech is now freedom of
the press and freedom of the press is freedom of assembly.79 And that it
is a catalyst for social change through collective action principles: as the
communication landscape gets denser, more complex, more participa-
tory, the networked population is gaining greater access to information,
more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability
to undertake collective action.80

Gladwell81 argues that activists in revolutions and rebellions risk their lives,
which requires courage derived from strong social ties and friendships with
others in the movement. “The kind of activism associated with social media
isn’t like this at all. The platforms of social media are built around weak ties.”82
18 Adrienne A. Wallace

Facebook and Twitter activism would only succeed in situations that do not
require individual actors “to make a real sacrifice,”83 such as registering in a
bone-marrow database or getting back a stolen phone. “The evangelists of so-
cial media,” [such as Clay Shirky],

seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend and
that signing up for a donor registry in Silicon Valley today is activism in
the same sense as sitting at a segregated lunch counter in Greensboro in
1960.84

Social media does “make it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder
for that expression to have any impact.”85 Social media platforms “are not a
natural enemy of the status quo” and “are well suited to making the existing
social order more efficient.”86
American writer, researcher, and intellectual Evgeny Morozov87 who stud-
ies the political and social implications of technology speaks in line with Glad-
well’s argument of slacktivism as:

feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact. It gives
those who participate in “slacktivist” campaigns an illusion of having a
meaningful impact on the world without demanding anything more than
joining a Facebook group. […] “Slacktivism” is the ideal type of activism
for a lazy generation: why bother with sit-ins and the risk of arrest, po-
lice brutality, or torture if one can be as loud campaigning in the virtual
space?88,89

Morozov 90 argues that the notion of “Twitter revolution” is based on a belief

in cyberutopianism – “a naive belief in the emancipatory nature of online
communication that rests on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its down-
side”91 that combined with internet-centrism forms a “techno-deterministic
ideology.”92
In response to this criticism, Shirky 93 (mentioning naysayers Gladwell and
Morozov) acknowledges that the use of social media “does not have a single
preordained outcome.” Social media would be “coordinating tools for nearly
all of the world’s political movements, just as most of the world’s authoritar-
ian governments (and, alarmingly, an increasing number of democratic ones)
are trying to limit access to it.” 94,95 Shirky admits that there are attempts to
control, censor, and monitor social media, but argues at the same time that
these attempts are unlikely to be successful over time, and that social media
consists of “long-term tools that can strengthen civil society and the public
sphere.” 96
Shirky argues that the positive side overdetermines the negative one, and
that, in the last instance, social media has positive effects on democracy.
 Social Media for Social Good 19

Though acknowledging contradictions make his argument more complex,

Shirky postulates the techno-deterministic equation: social media = more
democracy = more freedom. He argues that the slacktivism argument is irrel-
evant because “the fact that barely committed actors cannot click their way to
a better world does not mean that committed actors cannot use social media
effectively.” 97
Shirky’s Promise, Tool, Bargain states that “each success story of using social
tools to form groups contained within the book is an example of the complex
fusion of ‘a plausible promise,’ an effective tool, and an acceptable bargain with
the users.”98
Promise: The first challenge to creating an effective promise is that the
claim on the users’ time for an activity must be greater than the activity the
users are already doing. A second challenge is that social tools be satisfying
to the individual user. Shirky 99 suggests three strategies for handling these
challenges:

• Make joining the group easy

• Create personal value
• Subdivide the community

Tool: Overcoming challenges to coordination of the group. A social media

tool is only as good as the job it is meant for. Here, Shirky switches focus away
from the types of tools to the types of groups (large and small) that the tools
are designed to support. Small groups tend to be more tightly knit and conver-
sational than large groups.100 In the theoretical literature, this could be akin to
resources and the mobilization of those resources.
Bargain: Shirky argues that the bargain is the most complex characteristic
of the successful forming of groups using social media tools, because it is both
less explicit than promise and tool, and it requires more input by the user.101
Here framing comes into play. Contextual framing refers to conceptual and
theoretical perspectives on the way social movement organizations arrange,
review, communicate, react, and review reality. Framing processes have come
to be regarded since the 1980s, alongside resource mobilization and political
opportunity processes, as a central dynamic in understanding the character and
course of social movements.102
The framing process seems to allow for comparison or explanation of a
particular event or social movement to be considered across multiple schools
of thought, which can provide for multiple conversations to occur about the
same social movement in multiple fields in collaboration. Additionally, this
gives added insight to social movement, which can prove deeply significant
to history, culture, and, most important to armchair political activists, media
coverage. Likewise, framing is an area where new media can be brought into
the social movement fold with relative ease.
20 Adrienne A. Wallace

Role of Social Media in the Black Lives Matter and the MeToo
Movements
Social media has played an integral role in both the Black Lives Matter move-
ment and MeToo.

Social Media as an Organizational Tool

The original MeToo movement predated the phenomenon of using social me-
dia for social activism, as Twitter and the movement were both born in the
same year, 2006. The modern MeToo movement had a different approach to
social media as an organizing tool. Using empowerment through empathy,103
through a combination of survivor stories and the response MeToo, victims
could add their shared experiences with or without going into detail, yet lend-
ing support to the cause or to the individual story that was posted. Researchers
call this a “network of acknowledgment,” which supported and sustained Me-
Too activism based on the logic of CA.104
In a viral tweet, actress and activist Milano (@alyssa_milano) took to Twitter
on October 15, 2017, and said, “If you have been sexually harassed or assaulted
write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet,” and, just like that, the movement had
been rekindled with more than 85,000 replies and over 50,600 likes, which
included fellow celebrities105 fostering empowerment through connection of
survivors and supporters. In creating a network surrounding trauma, the public
can aid in recovery, as Clark mentions “a hashtag’s narrative logic – its abil-
ity to produce and connect individual stories – fuels its political growth.”106
The Twitter platform and brand aided the MeToo trend by promoting it on
Moments,107 its signature platform of expertly curated stories and highlights,
saying it was “proud to empower and support the voices on our platform, espe-
cially those that speak truth to power.”108 Twitter founder Jack Dorsey109 used
the opportunity to open discussion about the platform’s efforts to decimate abuse
on the site, and the company also reacted under the account @TwitterSafely110
in a response to actress Rose McGowan’s Twitter account being locked as a result
of a violation of the terms of service when she included a private phone number.
Black Lives Matter, much like the other examples listed, has operated on a
model that has scaled from just living online to offline via protests, rallies, and
impacting policy change. In this movement, social media is used for building
connections, mobilizing participants and other resources, building coalitions
among members, and amplification of narratives. The use of social media broad-
ens and expands the impact of the movement through accessibility to “facilitate
collective meaning-making and creation of support networks and expanding
the movement, specifically by enabling local Black Lives Matter groups to form
coalitions and to amplify and disseminate non-dominant discourses about po-
lice brutality in Black liberation.”111 Social media lends the movement access
 Social Media for Social Good 21

to this social issue outside of just one locale, allowing for global support of this
mission and broader mobilization of efforts on a grand scale.
Following the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman, labor organizer Ali-
cia Garza responded on her Facebook page to the tragedy, and the movement
#BlackLivesMatter was born. Black Lives Matter is a decentralized but coordi-
nated effort for social change – there are no “top-down” mandates.112 In 2016,
Twitter published its ten most popular hashtags of its ten-year anniversary on-
line. It probably comes as no surprise that most of these prominent hashtags
were social movement-related with two of the top three related to Black Lives
Matter with #BlackLivesMatter at number three, and #Ferguson (Missouri),
the location of one of the first Black Lives Matter protests, at number one.113

How Social Media Generated Press

Leaders construct “collective action frames”114 that accentuate grievances to
mobilize (even where the grievances existed without action before) by magni-
fying injustice and creating emotional pivots. The media can be used to trans-
mit these symbols and frames toward constructing consensus among those who
are meant to be mobilized. Framing theory emphasizes the intentional ways
in which movement activists seek to construct their self-presentations so as to
drawing support from others’ points to critical processes in social movements
proves critical in the case of Black Lives Matter and MeToo movements for
what seemed to be constant media coverage.
The Black Lives Matter and MeToo movements, decentralized and leader-
less, have mobilized thousands of people around the world, almost exclusively
via the internet through the framework of those who are powerless. Still, it
must be considered that created cultural frames and “inherited cultural frames
are combined with strategic choices within the process of contention”115 to
evolve within contentious acts themselves. To move beyond one-time con-
tention into social movements, lasting frames and symbolisms must be con-
structed that maintain those already mobilized and mobilized new adherents.
These must amplify shared values and goals, while papering over differences
that could lead to demobilization.
It turns out, with enough momentum and a keen sense of how to use social
media, it is possible to create a social movement and lead one’s own media
coverage. Media frames suggest the contours and meanings of groups, such as
Black Lives Matter and MeToo, and of actions, such as protests.116 The role of
framing is necessary in constructing meaning through media and perhaps even
creates the social reality, but is it sustainable?
Tarrow117 explains the strategic logic undergirding claims-making processes:

social movements are deeply involved in the work of “naming” griev-

ances, connecting them to other grievances, and constructing larger
22 Adrienne A. Wallace

frames of meaning that will resonate with a population’s cultural pre-

dispositions and communicate a uniform message to power holders and
others.

Soon after MeToo began to spread online, a 2016 Indianapolis Star 118 article
resurfaced wherein victim Rachael Denhollander called out USA Gymnastics
and Michigan State University team physician Larry Nassar for sexual abuse
allegations. While nothing was done immediately after this article published,
the insurgence of #MeToo lifted this one article into an investigative series, and
soon more than 150 victims came forward to serve as witnesses to these crimes.
No one had to look far to discover more social media turned press coverage,
turned mainstream justice cases.
Following that, singer Kesha accused her producer, Dr. Luke, of abuse that
began at the beginning of her musical career and culminated in the song Pray-
ing, which she performed at the 2018 Grammys.119 Next, a Lifetime documen-
tary, Surviving R. Kelly, that aired in 2019 and later on Netflix for streaming
and a second season, also described women’s accusations of sexual abuse by the
R&B singer. He was later arrested for sexual abuse of minors, unraveling a
deep culture of abuse in the music industry.120 As was seen in these cases, so-
cial media, social justice, and journalism can be intertwined. Accusations, like
those raised through #MeToo online, are often fleshed out through journalistic
viewpoint and standards. Writers and editors create another data point in me-
dia for which to examine reports. This aids victims who may have otherwise
struggled to gain assistance through regular channels, like police departments
or the court systems, but also lends an alternative lens other than “she said, he
said” to the allegation.121,122
In 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement became nationally recognized
for heavy demonstrations in the streets following the deaths of Michael Brown
in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City.123,124 Participants
demonstrated against the deaths of these two Black men at the hands of law en-
forcement officials. In 2015, the activists then also became involved in the 2016
United States presidential election,125 which catapulted the movement into a
network of over 40 chapters worldwide. Increased media coverage as a result of
these incidences compelled journalists and researchers to publish Whose Death
Matters? A Quantitative Analysis of Media Attention to Deaths of Black Americans
in Police Confrontations, 2013–2016,126 which revealed a phenomenon of “news
waves” that aligned with Black Lives Matter activist efforts and predominantly
online organizing following deaths of people of color at the hands of police.
The analysis goes on to suggest a mechanism “for tracking effectiveness of
activist efforts to change the framing of important social phenomena in the
news.”127 This study offers a relationship between press and online movement
efforts in that one helps the other introduce new narratives into media cov-
erage, but that news likely helps add lift to the connected story through the
movement of Black Lives Matter online. While not yet published, these authors
 Social Media for Social Good 23

also are examining the dynamics surrounding MeToo with application likely
forthcoming.128

Sustainability Factors or Lack Thereof

Black Lives Matter and MeToo have harnessed what Tarrow describes as “mo-
bilizing structures” as a resource that allows acts to be better sustained as social
movements and “bring people together in the field, shape coalitions, confront
opponents, and assure their own future after the exhilaration of the peak of
mobilization has passed.”129 It is these structures that institutionalize CA for
the movement. Tarrow finds that there is “no single model of movement orga-
nization”130 that operates better than another, and that the type of organization
can have varied yet powerful effects on the success of the movement as illus-
trated above. Of course, a formal hierarchical organization is more sustainable
when faced with interaction with allies, authorities, and supporters, but hierar-
chies that fully internalize their base (e.g., grassroots activists) lose their ability
to disrupt.
Fully autonomous groups, however, lack coordination and continu-
ity. Tarrow suggests “a delicate balance between formal organization and
­autonomy – one that can only be bridged by strong, informal, nonhierarchi-
cal connective structures.”131 The most successful movements will have this
“informal connective tissue operating within and between formal movement
organizations.”132
This is where it seems that MeToo and Black Lives Matter have succeeded
with both formal and informal connectivity. On the more formal side, both
of these movements have transcended into bonafide nonprofit global organi-
zations that seek to impact policy change at the top level of governance. Next,
in terms of virality, MeToo and BlackLivesMatter have informal connectivity
through social media, but also lasting power as a result of a strong connec-
tion to world events highly covered by members of the media. As opposed to
trendy hashtags spiking and then fading away, sustainable activism in social
media often means a resurgence of hashtag popularity around major news
events, such as new cases that apply to the hashtag, anniversaries of founding
experiences, and issues connected to surrounding or ancillary events related
to the founding hashtagged event.133 For example, the Pew Research Center
analysis of publicly available tweets using the data tool formerly known as
Crimson Hexagon demonstrates punctuating events for #BlackLivesMatter
that coincide with police-related deaths in major areas in a U.S. analysis.
Additionally, Pew Research found that 69 percent of Americans believe so-
cial media is useful in bringing issues to politicians attention, while an addi-
tional 67 percent see it as effective for creating sustained movements, showing
that the medium responsible for these movements has indeed shown purpose
for ongoing communications, gathering, mobilizing, and sustaining a mission’s
purpose.134
24 Adrienne A. Wallace

Use of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag hits record levels amid global protests over
George Floyd’s death while in police custody
Number of public Twitter posts mentioned the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, Jan. 1, 2013, June7, 2020

10 million
MAY 25, 2020 MAY 28, 2020
George Floyd 8.8 million uses of
dies in police #BlackLivesMatter as
9 custody in national and global
Minneapolis protests spread

10 M
8
8
6
JULY, 7, 2016
7 4
Five police officers killed in
attack following protests in 2
Dallas. The protests in the
city were against recent
6 police shootings of Philando May 23 June 7
Castlle and Alton Sterling in
other states

JULY, 13, 2013 JUNE 16, 2017 MAY 5, 2020

5
George Zimmerman Minnesta
Minnesotapolice
police Video is posted of
acquitted in the Florida officer who shot and the killing of Ahmad
shooting death of killed castile acquitted Arbery in Georgia
4 Trayvon Martin

JULY, 17, 2014 SEPT, 22, 2017

3 Eric Gamer dies in President Trump calls on NFL
police custody in owners to fire players who protest
Staten Island, N.Y. during the national anthem

2 NOV, 24, 2014

Ferguson, Mo., police
officer not indicted in MARCH 18, 2018
shooting death of Stephon Clark is shot and
1 Michael Brown killed by Sacramento, Calif.,
police officers

Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 7

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020

May 1
New Pew Research Center
analysis begins

Source: Pew Research Centre analysis of publicly available tweets using Crimson Hexagon. Data for Jan 1, 2013, May 1, 2018
collected in June 2018: data for May 1, 2018, June 7, 2020 collected in June 2020. The latter data collection phase was used for
May 1, 2018.

PEW RESEARCH CENTER

FIGURE 1.1 As the Pew Research Center noted in an analysis, periodic spikes in
response to major news events can preserve a hashtag into the future
sustaining a social media social movement.135

Dynamic Movements
Movements are dynamic and hard to control because they are a loose associ-
ation of individuals. Internally, the movement cannot control its participants.
Externally, political opportunities and constraints continue to shift.136 As one
movement widens and “information spreads about the susceptibility of a polity
to challenge,” additional activists and also “ordinary people” may “begin to
test the limits of social control.”137 When the resulting “cycles of contention”
spread to an extreme, revolution may occur.
According to Tarrow, “The difference between movement cycles and revo-
lutions is that, in the latter, multiple centers of sovereignty are created, turning
the conflict between challengers and members of the polity into a struggle for
 Social Media for Social Good 25

power.”138 Tarrow further argues “that contention is more closely related to oppor-
tunities for and limited by constraints upon collective action than by the persistent
social or economic factors that people experience.”139 Nevertheless, “changing op-
portunities must be seen alongside more stable structural elements like the strength
or weakness of the state and the forms of repression it habitually employs.”140

Why #MeToo Has Lasting Power

For a moment, recall researchers Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia proposed four
stages to social movements that use social media: (1) a triggering event, (2) me-
dia response, (3) viral organization, and (4) physical response, when considering
the final two movement paradigms.141 The data for #MeToo hashtag was really
different. The Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington
University created the Public Echoes of Rhetoric in America Project to assess as its
main project the impact of the worlds that political candidates use to establish cam-
paign messaging. This project looks at the main channels through which the elec-
torate is reached, the message reception data, and the ideas of both mainstream and
social media traction through data. A project that the PEORIA Project took on in
2018 was to examine the unique virality of the #MeToo hashtag, which revealed
that the overall movement has “cemented itself as a movement on social media.”142
The movement has achieved virality by two separate key measurements: (1)
how many people saw the posts, (2) and how many people the posts reached.
Additionally, “the data collected also demonstrates quantifiable support for one
of the more popular theories behind #MeToo’s explosive growth, that it wasn’t
until powerful and influential celebrities like Milano and Ashley Judd shared
their own stories on social media that the movement truly took hold,” said
Stephanie Newby, Crimson Hexagon’s chief executive.143 Other famous Wein-
stein accusers were not hard to locate and willingly shared their stories as well.
This celebrity aspect made the Weinstein accusations different to other “big”
accusations where the perceived fame of the individual was only as a result of
the high-profile perpetrator. In this case, the victims were of high profile, and
the defendant was powerful, but not as “internet famous” as today and yester-
day’s brightest and best female stars.144 By most accounts, this serves at the very
least as the path to systemic change through litigation and policy.

Black Lives Matter Re-engaged through Protests

Scholar Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s analysis of public policy and public rhetoric
in her book, #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, outlines how Black radicalism
in the United States has been rekindled by the Black Lives Matter movement.
In an interview, Taylor, quoting Malcolm X, says, “You can’t have capitalism
without racism,” referring to an economic system that relies on oppression for
the system survival.145 She mentions that historically, even pre-COVID-19, the
United States has relied on minimum-wage working class people as “essential
26 Adrienne A. Wallace

workers,” that a political economy that is based on minimum wage slavery is

an extension of slavery itself, and that a country founded on slavery can only be
challenged by those that see Black liberation as part of human liberation from
capitalism [oppression].146 Black Americans are overrepresented among poorer
classes and also targeted disproportionality, and those that benefit are not usu-
ally mentioned in the conversation – which is no accident.147
Black Lives Matter has not only gained support in the United States. It
has also gained momentum in countries where police shootings are rare like
United Kingdom. Racism is a worldwide issue. The Black Lives Matter orga-
nization is a global network that is chapter-based and member-led, part of the
mission is “to build local power and to intervene in violence inflicted on Black
communities by the state and vigilantes.”148 Part of the reason that online social
movements fail is the lack of viral organization and physical presence, which
seems to be an issue that was remedied very shortly into the existence of the
Black Lives Matter movement. Addressing the need for structure-based change
in the wake of a viral online movement is essential for sustaining the move-
ment. Taylor’s analysis also pulls from Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor People’s
March to discuss coalition building as a momentum builder for the Black Lives
Matter movement in that “we have to build multiracial, independent, radical
social movements if we really want to change the things that we want to see
change.”149 In building multiracial, independent, radical social movement to-
gether, like Black Lives Matter has done and will continue to do, the movement
must seek to bring so many people together that it actually shuts down the gov-
ernment until it yields. In another essay, Taylor calls upon leadership of Black
Lives Matter to consider the establishment, the rule of law, and civil rights:

What is the value of protecting the “rule of law” when the law itself pri-
oritizes what is valued by the elite, while ignoring what is valued by most
of us? In other words, neither the law nor law enforcement is on our side,
and that ultimately makes the movement to reform either extremely dif-
ficult. It is usually the case, then, that we get the kind of change we desire
when we pressure and coerce the political class, their establishment, and
their laws, to see and hear us. And to do that, it matters how we organize,
what we think, what we demand, and what we imagine and hope for.150

Critical of the Black Lives Matter movement, which claims to have no leaders,
Taylor says that:

The lack of accountability to the ordinary people who made up the mass
of the movement could cause confusion or hard feelings. But the in-
sistence that there was no leadership even as people are brandished as
leaders by the political establishment obscured how decisions were being
made and who was to account for them. These problems deepened when
 Social Media for Social Good 27

it began to feel as if the movement was going in the wrong direction

or was stagnant, as it became difficult to determine who to look to for
guidance.151

While previous analysis by Taylor maintained that the Black Lives Matter cause
has stalled five years after Garner’s death during a confrontation with a police offi-
cer in the Staten Island borough, “the increased demand for a struggle to not only
change the police but to change the world that relies on the police to manage its
unequal distribution of the necessities of life”152 is alive and well with one-in-ten
Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults reporting they have attended a rally or protest
focused on racial inequality in the last 30 days as of June 2020. Additionally,

roughly half of Black adults who use social networking sites (51 percent)
say they have posted or shared content related to race or racial equality in
the last month, higher than the shares of White (34 percent) and Hispanic
(38 percent) social media users who say they have done the same. Some
41 percent of Asian social media users also say they have posted or shared
content related to these issues.153

And, 37 percent of adults who use social networking sites say they have posted or
shared content on those sites related to race or racial equality in the last month.154

FIGURE 1.2 About one in ten Black (10 percent), Hispanic (9 percent), and Asian
(10 percent) adults said in June 2020 they attended a rally or protest
­focused on race or racial equality in the prior month; 5 percent of
white adults said the same.155
28 Adrienne A. Wallace

Movement founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors was interviewed on the five-year

anniversary of the movement by Newsweek and said she believes Black Lives
Matter will only continue to grow to become a “formidable institution inside
the US, but also outside of the U.S,” and that “in five years, we’ll have launched
a multinational campaign, one [goal] of which will be to adequately support
Black folks with mental illness so that they don’t end up being vulnerable and
killed by law enforcement.”156 She went on to say,

and looking at mass criminalization and really challenging the war on

drugs and really challenging the ways in which there has been a deep
investment into policing and criminalization. So, we’ll be continuing
to call for divestment, and we’ll be seeing the realities of what that looks
like in five years.157

What Khan-Cullors didn’t know then was that the next chapter of Black Lives
Matter would be to engage voters in a transformation campaign aimed to max-
imize the impact of the movement. This was poised to happen by galvanizing
Black Lives Matter supporters and allies to the polls in the 2020 United States
presidential election through protest of additional Black lives lost, as well as
lead the masses to large-scale police reform with calls to “defund the police”
through a generation that has witnessed the possibility of protest live on the
internet and in their living rooms since 2013,158 using video and social media
as a means of self-defense against policy brutality.
Black Lives Matter organizers have emerged from what were tensions rising
within the organization. Through these tensions and a global pandemic, Black
Lives Matter moved its mission forward with transformation on the minds of
more than just the Black community, owning a watershed movement that tran-
scends and transforms with a commitment of change. An estimated 15–26 mil-
lion people participated in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the United
States, making Black Lives Matter one of, if not, the largest movements in U.S.
history.159

Conclusion
According to researchers Dustin Kidd and Keith McIntosh

the best empirical evidence is that revolutionary movements today

will certainly include social media, and may even need it, but will
also need much more than that. Protests in the streets are no less im-
portant today than they have been for movements in the past, and it
may actually be harder to get people into the streets in an age of social
media.160
 Social Media for Social Good 29

While the Black Lives Matter movement may disagree with the last state-
ment, sparking over 26 million people to leave the comfort of their homes
for the streets, it’s true that social media social movements are complicated.
However, viable goals, a rich mixture of new media and traditional media,
as well as computer-mediated communication and face-to-face repre-
sentation help maintain healthy collective identity and CA, which can lead
to sustainable social movements via computer-mediated ICT platforms such
as social media.161 Digital technologies have improved the ability for citizens
to engage in civic-related activities both online and in person. Two popular
movements discussed in this chapter have used these elements with various
levels of success through social media, allowing for inexpensive and instanta-
neous operations that are flexible and can quickly evolve over time to fit the
needs of the movement and have proven to be fundamental in developing,
executing, and sustaining social movements demonstrating various levels of
efficacy within the movement. As is clear from this chapter, social movements
are strengthened by organizing online building momentum for both online
and offline action, and creating a movement online is much easier than sus-
taining a movement.

End of Chapter Questions

1 Choose a modern social movement. Identify some of the characteris-
tics of the movement as found through a quick hashtag (#) search across
platforms. Is the messaging consistent across platforms? Are there differ-
ences in messaging? Is this planned or spontaneous with regard to the
movement?
2 Slacktivism was identified in this chapter as a very low-level commitment
toward supporting a social or political cause. Examine your own social
media activities. Are you a slactivist or an activist? Support your [honest]
reveal with evidence from your channels and your life.
3 A few frameworks were presented from political science and public admin-
istration theory through which to examine social media and social move-
ments. Choose a mass communications theory or framework and examine
a modern social movement of your choice through the lens of your selected
model. Does it provide any answers into the logic model of the movement?
Could you improve the current social media messaging through your new
model? Create a few new example tweets or diagram a 15-second video
with this framework in mind.
4 Assess social media use and characteristics in any modern social movement
with the framework provided in this chapter. Does the movement you
chose have characteristics that lean toward sustainability or failure? Explain
your answer with evidence.
30 Adrienne A. Wallace

Key Concepts
• Black Lives Matter
• Collective Action
• Computer-mediated Communication
• Cycles of Contention
• Free Rider
• Information Communication Technology (ICT)
• MeToo
• Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT)
• Revolution
• Social Movement

Notes
1 Darren G. Lilleker and Karolina Koc-Michalska. “What drives political partici-
pation? Motivations and mobilization in a digital age.” Political Communication 34,
no. 1 (2017): 21–43.
2 Felix Brünker, Magdalena Wischnewski, Milad Mirbabaie, and Judith Meinert.
“The role of social media during social movements–observations from the #me-
too debate on Twitter.” In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, 2020.
3 Jackie DiSalvo. “Occupy Wall Street: Creating a strategy for a spontaneous move-
ment.” Science & Society 79, no. 2 (2015): 264–287.
4 Brünker et al. “The role of social media during social movements–observations
from the #metoo debate on Twitter.”
5 Carmen Leong, Shan L. Pan, Shamshul Bahri, and Ali Fauzi. “Social media em-
powerment in social movements: Power activation and power accrual in digital
activism.” European Journal of Information Systems 28, no. 2 (2019): 173–204.
6 Sidney Tarrow, Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics, 2nd ed.
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 16.
7 Mancur Olson, The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), 5–21.
8 Olson, The logic of collective action, 5–21.
9 Kevin DeLuca, Sean Lawson, and Le Sun. “OWS on the public screens
of social media.” Communication, Culture, & Critique 5 (2012): 483–509.
doi:10.1111/j.1753-9137.2012.01141.x.483-509.
10 Yochai Benkler. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and
freedom (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006), 151.
11 Robert McChesney. Rich media, poor democracy (New York: The New Press, 1999),
15–78.
12 Tarrow, Power in movement, 2.
13 Tarrow, Power in movement, 2.
14 Tarrow, Power in movement, 259–274.
15 Olson, The logic of collective action, 26–52.
16 Elinor Ostrom. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 138, 141.
17 Tarrow, Power in movement, 16.
18 Tarrow, Power in movement, 16.
19 Tarrow, Power in movement, 24.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 J. AND W. RIDER, PRINTERS, LONDON

Corrections

The first line indicates the original, the second the correction.
p. 154

husband’s commercial allies of the past—the Wigzell’s,

husband’s commercial allies of the past—the Wigzells,

p. 192

a great many parties among the Wizgell, Timperley,

a great many parties among the Wigzell, Timperley,
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN OPEN
VERDICT ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.