First Monday <p><em>First Monday</em> is one of the first openly accessible, peer–reviewed journals solely devoted to resarch about the Internet. <em>First Monday</em> has published 1,916 papers in 285 issues, written by 2,698 different authors, over the past 23 years. No subscription fees, no submission fees, no advertisements, no fundraisers, no walls.</p> en-US Authors submitting a paper to First Monday automatically agree to confer a limited license to First Monday if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication. This license allows First Monday to publish a manuscript in a given issue. Authors have a choice of: 1. Dedicating the article to the public domain. This allows anyone to make any use of the article at any time, including commercial use. A good way to do this is to use the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication Web form; see <a href=""></a>. 2. Retaining some rights while allowing some use. For example, authors may decide to disallow commercial use without permission. Authors may also decide whether to allow users to make modifications (e.g. translations, adaptations) without permission. A good way to make these choices is to use a Creative Commons license. * Go to <a href=""></a>. * Choose and select a license. * What to do next — you can then e–mail the license html code to yourself. Do this, and then forward that e–mail to First Monday’s editors. Put your name in the subject line of the e–mail with your name and article title in the e–mail. Background information about Creative Commons licenses can be found at <a href=""></a>. 3. Retaining full rights, including translation and reproduction rights. Authors may use the statement: © Author 2016 All Rights Reserved. Authors may choose to use their own wording to reserve copyright. If you choose to retain full copyright, please add your copyright statement to the end of the article. Authors submitting a paper to First Monday do so in the understanding that Internet publishing is both an opportunity and challenge. In this environment, authors and publishers do not always have the means to protect against unauthorized copying or editing of copyright–protected works. (Edward J. Valauskas) (Nancy John) Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:51:26 -0600 OJS 60 “We only have 12 years”: YouTube and the IPCC report on global warming of 1.5ºC <p>This article contributes to the study of climate debates online by examining how the <em>IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C</em> (<em>SR15</em>) played out on YouTube following its release in October 2018. We examined features of 40 videos that ranked the highest in YouTube’s search engine over the course of four weeks after the publication of the report. Additionally, this study examines the shifting visibility of the videos, the nature of the channels that published them and the way in which they articulated the issue of climate change. We found that media activity around <em>SR15</em> was animated by a mix of professional and user-led channels, with the former enjoying higher and more stable visibility in YouTube ranking. We identified four main recurrent themes: disaster and impacts, policy options and solutions, political and ideological struggles around climate change and contested science. The discussion of policy options and solutions was particularly prominent. Critiques of the <em>SR15</em> report took different forms: as well as denialist videos which downplayed the severity of climate change, there were also several clips which criticized the report for underestimating the extent of warming or overestimating the feasibility of proposed policies.</p> Liliana Bounegru, Kari De Pryck, Tommaso Venturini, Michele Mauri Copyright (c) 2020 First Monday Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:51:23 -0600 Report and repeat: Investigating Facebook’s hate speech removal process <p>Social media is rife with hate speech. Although Facebook prohibits this content on its site, little is known about how much of the hate speech reported by users is actually removed by the company. Given the enormous power Facebook has to shape the universe of discourse, this study sought to determine what proportion of reported hate speech is removed from the platform and whether patterns exist in Facebook’s decision-making process. To understand how the company is interpreting and applying its own Community Standards regarding hate speech, the authors identified and reported hundreds of comments, posts, and images featuring hate speech to the company (n=311) and recorded Facebook’s decision regarding whether or not to remove the reported content. A qualitative content analysis was then performed on the content that was and was not removed to identify trends in Facebook’s content moderation decisions about hate speech. Of particular interest was whether the company’s 2018 policy update resulted in any meaningful change.</p><p>Our results indicated that only about half of reported content containing hate speech was removed. The 2018 policy change also appeared to have little impact on the company’s decision-making. The results suggest that Facebook also had substantial issues including: removing misogynistic hate speech, establishing consistency in removing attacks and threats, an inability to consider context in removal decisions, and a general lack of transparency within the hate speech removal processes. Facebook’s failure to effectively remove reported hate speech allows misethnic discourses to spread and perpetuates stereotypes. The paper concludes with recommendations for Facebook and other social media organizations to consider to minimize the amount and impact of hate speech on their platforms.</p> Caitlin Ring Carlson, Hayley Rousselle Copyright (c) 2020 First Monday Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:51:24 -0600 PSNIRA vs. peaceful protesters? YouTube, sousveillance and the policing of the union flag protests <p>The decision to change the flag protocol at Belfast City Hall prompted a campaign of loyalist flag protests across Northern Ireland between December 2012 and March 2013. Although most passed off without incident, a small number ended in violent clashes between loyalists and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Activists uploaded footage to YouTube purporting to show ‘heavy-handed’ policing during these incidents. This paper uses a thematic analysis to examine 1,586 comments left by those who viewed 36 ‘sousveillance’ videos. Results indicate that these conformed to and reinforced competing narratives on policing within the deeply divided society. Those who perceived the ‘PSNIRA’ as being complicit in Sinn Fein’s ‘culture war’ against loyalists were likely to believe the claims of the protesters, even in the absence of corroborative evidence in these videos. The same was true for critics of the protests watching footage of loyalists threatening PSNI officers.</p> Paul J. Reilly Copyright (c) 2020 First Monday Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:51:24 -0600 Fear and loathing on Facebook? Tracking the rise of populism and platformization in viral political Facebook posts <p>Adopting a longitudinal ‘demand’ perspective to the study of online political campaigning, the present study details developments in supporter engagement on party Facebook Pages during three Swedish elections — 2010, 2014 and 2018. Specifically, the work presented here uncovers the roles of populism and platformization as ways of constructing political messages. Results indicate that over time, viral posts emerge as increasingly crafted based on the ever-changing affordances of the studied platform, evolving from text-based in 2010 to image-based in 2014 and emerging as primarily video-based in the 2018 elections. Implications for political campaigning are discussed.</p> Anders Olof Larsson Copyright (c) 2020 First Monday Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:51:24 -0600 Social network sites as empowerment tools in consensual non-monogamies. The case of polyamory in Italy <p>Consensual non-monogamies, where partners agree to pursue other romantic or sexual relationships, have gained greater visibility with the advent of online communication tools. How is the diffusion of social network sites linked to the spread of consensual non-monogamous relationships? This study is based on the analysis of 22 semi-structured interviews with people who define themselves as “polyamorous” and are active members of the two biggest polyamory groups on Facebook in Italy.</p><p>The results suggest that people come to the decision to engage in non-monogamous relationships before they join online groups dedicated to this topic. Moreover, specific online groups do not constitute a privileged base from which to recruit new romantic or sexual partners. However, the availability of shared online spaces is important for “giving things a name”, making it easier to share experiences with other group members and more generally off-line, sometimes helping in coming out.</p> Luciano Paccagnella Copyright (c) 2020 First Monday Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:51:25 -0600 Platform politics: Software as strategy in Apple’s platform ecosystem <p>In the past 10 years platform ecosystems have come to play a significant role in many aspects of human societies, bringing with them certain logics and practices that structure how people live and work. Operating such a platform ecosystem gives rise to certain strategies for creating and managing a distributed labor force that is not directly controlled by the platform owner. This paper explores some of those strategies by investigating Swift, a programming language created by Apple to facilitate third-party software development for its platform ecosystem. Through the story of its emergence and evolution I show how Apple wields Swift as a managerial tool and as a competitive weapon to maintain the generative potential of its platform ecosystem and to evolve it in profitable ways. In so doing this paper foregrounds the internal dynamics of software platforms and helps us better understand some of the politics at play in the constitution of everyday technologies.</p> Cole Stratton Copyright (c) 2020 First Monday Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:51:25 -0600 Assessing the cognitive and communicative properties of Facebook Reactions and Likes as lightweight feedback cues <p>The emergence of Facebook Reactions provides new opportunities to explore the nature of paralinguistic digital affordances (PDAs; lightweight one-click social media response cues). Guided by adaptive structuration theory and the concept of cognitive automaticity, a survey of 255 individuals aged 18–24 assessed the cognitive processes and communicative meanings associated with the provision of Facebook Reactions and Likes. Although Like and Reaction cues (excluding Angry) were all identified as more literal in meaning than not, specific results indicated: (a) Likes were perceived more faithfully than Reactions; (b) the Like and Love cues were labeled as the most faithful; and (c) Reactions were perceived as more deliberate and less automatic communicative behaviors than Likes. Collective results suggest social media platforms that offer multiple one-click response cues (<em>e.g.</em>, Facebook) can afford different communicative opportunities than platforms with a single PDA response option, presenting challenges for future cross-platform research addressing lightweight response cues.</p> Erin M. Sumner, Rebecca A. Hayes, Caleb T. Carr, Donghee Yvette Wohn Copyright (c) 2020 First Monday Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:51:25 -0600