Re-Shaming the Debate: Social Norms, Shame, and Regulation in an Internet Age
Advances in technology communication have dramatically changed the ways in which social norm enforcement is used to constrain behavior. Nowhere is this more powerfully demonstrated than through current events around online shaming and cyber-harassment. Low cost, anonymous, instant, and ubiquitous access to the Internet has removed most — if not all — of the natural checks on shaming. The result is norm enforcement that is indeterminate, uncalibrated, and often tips into behavior punishable in its own right — thus generating a debate over whether the State should intervene to curb online shaming and cyber-harassment.A few years before this change in technology, a group of legal scholars debated just the opposite; discussing the value of harnessing the power of social norm enforcement through shaming by using State shaming sanctions as a more efficient means of criminal punishment. Though the idea was discarded, many of their concerns were prescient and can inform today’s inverted new inquiry: whether the State should create limits on shaming and cyber-bullying. Perhaps more importantly, the debate reintroduces the notion of thinking of shaming within the framework of social norm enforcement, thus clarifying the taxonomy of online shaming, cyber-bullying, and cyber-harassment. This article ties together the current conversation around online shaming and cyber-bullying and cyber-harassment with the larger legal discussion around social norms and shaming sanctions. It argues that the introduction of the Internet has altered the social conditions in which people speak and thus changed the way we perceive and enforce social norms. Accordingly, online shaming is (1) an over-determined punishment with indeterminate social meaning; (2) not a calibrated or measured form of punishment; and (3) of little or questionable accuracy in who and what it punishes. In thus reframing the problem, this article looks at the viability of the legal, normative, private, and State solutions to controlling online shaming. It argues that looking only to State regulation will be an inefficient and ineffective solution. Instead, it proposes using the realizations from the shame debate, successful uses of online norm enforcement, and private remedies to inform the debate around State intervention.
Lawless: the secret rules that govern our digital lives
Lawless is about the power that technology companies have over our lives and how we can develop a new constitutionalism to better protect our rights.Social media platforms, search engines, and other technology companies influence what we can see and say online. These giant companies govern our behavior online without real accountability, and they are at the centre of fierce battles between governments, lobby groups, the media, and grassroots campaigns from activists. Drawing on ten years of research, this book shows how our social lives, our news, and our information environments are shaped by a complex web of legal, technical, and social forces.This is a book about the future of our media and our shared social spaces. We are now at a constitutional moment—a time when we can all demand better from the companies that govern our lives. This book provides a guide to a new constitutionalism: real limits on power that protect human rights in a decentralized environment. Ultimately, it provides a comprehensive argument about how we should expect the governance of online social spaces to be more legitimate – and particularly, how we might develop new forms of due process for the algorithmic and human decision making systems that rule our digital lives.
La inseguridad jurídica en normas de contratación estatal
It is established by different studies that the issue of government procurement has been marred by several factors, the test objective to publicize these factors, we take as starting point the constant conflict between the branches of government to try and organize this subject; will collect and analyze diverse regulatory and case material in order to achieve evidence and demonstrate the different concepts of constant change that produces excessive regulation of the subject procurement and is in turn causing rapid changes that result in legal uncertainty for our law on the Contract Status.