“The future of the internet hangs in the balance”: the perception and framing of political opportunity and threat in the contentious politics of data

References

• Almeida, P. D. (2008). Waves of protest: Popular struggle in El Salvador, 1925-2005. University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• AnonNews. (2012). http://www.anonnews.org.
   Google Scholar
• Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beraldo, D. (2020). Movements as multiplicities and contentious branding: Lessons from the digital exploration of #occupy and #anonymous. Information, Communication & Society 25(8), 1098–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1847164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beraldo, D., & Milan, S. (2019). From data politics to the contentious politics of data. Big Data & Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719885967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg, B. L., Lune, H. 2012 Qualitative research methods for the social sciences 8th (Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.)9780205234967
   Google Scholar
• Beyer, J. L. (2014). Expect us: Online communities and political mobilization. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2006). Using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project. Field Methods, 18(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X06287602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cammaerts, B. (2012). Protest logics and the mediation opportunity structure. European Journal of Communication, 27(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323112441007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, G. (2012). Coding freedom: The ethics and aesthetics of hacking. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, G. (2014). Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy: The many faces of anonymous. Verso books.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, G. (2017). From internet farming to weapons of the geek. Current Anthropology, 58(S15), S91–S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/688697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daskal, E. (2018). Let’s be careful out there … : How digital rights advocates educate citizens in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 21(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1271903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Della Porta, D. (1995). Social movements, political violence, and the state: A comparative analysis of Italy and Germany. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeNardis, L. (2012). Hidden levers of internet control: An infrastructure-based theory of internet governance. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 720–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.659199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dencik, L., Hintz, A., & Cable, J. (2016). Towards data justice? The ambiguity of anti-surveillance resistance in political activism. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Deseriis, M. (2013). Is anonymous a new form of Luddism? A comparative analysis of industrial machine breaking, computer hacking, and related rhetorical strategies. Radical History Review, 2013(117), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-2210437
   Google Scholar
• Diani, M., & Bison, I. (2008). Organizations, coalitions, and movements. Theory and Society, 33(3/4), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RYSO.0000038610.00045.07
   Google Scholar
• Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2009). Movement societies and digital protest: Fan activism and other nonpolitical protest online. Sociological Theory, 27(3), 220–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01346.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• EFF. (2021). Effector. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/effector.
   Google Scholar
• Einwohner, R. L., & Maher, T. (2011). Threat assessment and collective-action emergence: Death-camp and ghetto resistance during the Holocaust. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 16(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.16.2.j263166u14286024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fish, A., & Follis, L. (2016). Gagged and doxed: Hacktivism’s self-incrimination complex. International Journal of Communication, 10, 20 https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flesher Fominaya, C., & Gillan, K. (2017). Navigating the technology-media-movements complex. Social Movement Studies, 16(4), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2017.1338943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, C. (2013). The anonymous movement in the context of liberalism and socialism. Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements, 5(2), 345–376.
   Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A., & Meyer, D. S. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 275–290). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528(1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716293528001009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. Pluto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstone, J. A., & Tilly, C. (2001). Threat (and opportunity): Popular action and state response in the dynamics of contentious action. In R. Aminzade, D. McAdam, W. H. Sewell, J. A. Goldstone, S. Tarrow, E. J. Perry, & C. Tilly (Eds.), Silence and voice in the study of contentious politics (Cambridge University Press) (pp. 179–194).
   Google Scholar
• Goode, L. (2015). Anonymous and the political ethos of hacktivism. Popular Communication, 13(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2014.978000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (1999). Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural bias of political process theory. Sociological Forum, 14(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021684610881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.
   Google Scholar
• Guidry, J., Kennedy, M. D., & Zald, M. N. (Eds.). (2000). Globalizations and social movements: Culture, power, and the transnational public sphere. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society T. Burger (Ed.). MIT Press. Original work published 1962.
   Google Scholar
• Highfield, T. (2016). Social media and everyday politics. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, M. (2017). From the national surveillance state to the cyber surveillance state. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13(1), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113701
   Google Scholar
• Johnson Andrews, S. (2019). The cultural production of intellectual property rights: Law, labor, and the persistence of primitive accumulation. Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. W., & Frickel, S. (2011). Ecological threat and the founding of US national environmental movement organizations, 1962–1998. Social Problems, 58(3), 305–329. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2011.58.3.305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, H. (2002). Verification and proof in frame and discourse analysis. In B. Klandermans & S. Staggenborg (Eds.), Methods of social movement research (pp. 62–91). University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kazansky, B., & Milan, S. (2021). Bodies not templates: Contesting mainstream algorithmic imaginaries. New Media & Society, 23(2), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820929316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopmans, R., & Olzak, S. (2004). Discursive opportunities and the evolution of right‐wing violence in Germany. The American Journal of Sociology, 110(1), 198–230. https://doi.org/10.1086/386271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lessig, L. (2006). CODEv2. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, S. (1984). Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution. Anchor Press/Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• MacMillan, K., & Koenig, T. (2004). The wow factor: Preconceptions and expectations for data analysis software in qualitative research. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303262625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maher, T. (2010). Threat, resistance, and mobilization: The cases of Auschwitz, Sobibór, and Treblinka. American Sociological Review, 75(2), 252–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410365305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martini, M. (2018). Mourning for a hacktivist: Grieving the death of Aaron Swartz on a digital memorial. Media, Culture & Society, 40(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717718254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930-1970. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCammon, H. J. (2013). Discursive opportunity structure Snow, D. A., Della Porta, D., Klandermans, B., McAdam, D. In The Wiley‐Blackwell encyclopedia of social and political movements. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, K. (2015). From Indymedia to anonymous: Rethinking action and identity in digital cultures. Information, Communication & Society, 18(8), 968–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1039561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McVeigh, R. (2009). The rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-wing movements and national politics. University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, D. S., & Minkoff, D. C. (2004). Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces, 82(4), 1457–1492. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, D. S., & Tarrow, S. (Eds.). (1998). The social movement society: Contentious politics for a new century. Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Milan, S. (2015a). From social movements to cloud protesting: The evolution of collective identity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(8), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1043135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milan, S. (2015b). When algorithms shape collective action: Social media and the dynamics of cloud protesting. Social Media + Society, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115622481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milan, S., & Ten Oever, N. (2017). Coding and encoding rights in internet infrastructure. Internet Policy Review, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14763/2017.1.442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milan, S., & van der Velden, L. (2016). The alternative epistemologies of data activism. Digital Culture & Society, 2(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2016-0205
   Google Scholar
• Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Park, S. S., & Einwohner, R. L. (2019). Becoming a movement society? Patterns in the public acceptance of protest, 1985–2006. Sociological Focus, 52(3), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2019.1624233
   Google Scholar
• Postigo, H. (2012). The digital rights movement: The role of technology in subverting digital copyright. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Samuel, A. W. (2004). Hackivism and the future of political participation. ( Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University).
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, E., & Cohen, J. (2014). The new digital age: Transforming nations, businesses, and our lives. Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Schradie, J. (2019). The revolution that wasn’t: How digital activism favors conservatives. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. 1985.Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25800379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shriver, T. E., Adams, A. E., & Longo, S. B. (2015). Environmental threats and political opportunities: Citizen activism in the North Bohemian Coal Basin. Social Forces, 94(2), 699–722. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), International social movement research (pp. 197–217). JAI.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D. Morris & C. McClurg (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133–155). Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soule, S. A., & Earl, J. (2005). A movement society evaluated: Collective protest in the United States, 1960-1986. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 10(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.10.3.730350353753l022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2007). Contentious politics. Paradigm Press.
   Google Scholar
• Treré, E. (2019). Hybrid media activism: Ecologies, imaginaries, algorithms. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Uitermark, J. (2017). Complex contention: Analyzing power dynamics within anonymous. Social Movement Studies, 16(4), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2016.1184136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
   Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, N., & Soule, S. A. (2002). Structural social change and the mobilizing effect of threat: Explaining levels of patriot and militia organizing in the United States. Social Problems, 49(4), 497–520. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2002.49.4.497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wills, J. (2017). Tug of war: Surveillance capitalism, military contracting, and the rise of the security state. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S. A. (2007). Patriots, politics, and the Oklahoma city bombing. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books.
   Google Scholar