IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/iprjir/214042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Internet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online: a comparative case study

Author

Listed:
  • Penney, Jonathon W.

Abstract

With internet regulation and censorship on the rise, states increasingly engaging in online surveillance, and state cyber-policing capabilities rapidly evolving globally, concerns about regulatory "chilling effects" online—the idea that laws, regulations, or state surveillance can deter people from exercising their freedoms or engaging in legal activities on the internet have taken on greater urgency and public importance. But just as notions of "chilling effects" are not new, neither is skepticism about their legal, theoretical, and empirical basis; in fact, the concept remains largely un-interrogated with significant gaps in understanding, particularly with respect to chilling effects online. This work helps fill this void with a first-of-its-kind online survey that examines multiple dimensions of chilling effects online by comparing and analyzing responses to hypothetical scenarios involving different kinds of regulatory actions—including an anti-cyberbullying law, public/private sector surveillance, and an online regulatory scheme, based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), enforced through personally received legal threats/notices. The results suggest not only the existence and significance of regulatory chilling effects online across these different scenarios but also evidence a differential impact—with personally received legal notices and government surveillance online consistently having the greatest chilling effect on people's activities online—and certain online activities like speech, search, and personal sharing also impacted differently. The results also offer, for the first time, insights based on demographics and other similar factors about how certain people and groups may be more affected than others, including findings that younger people and women are more likely to be chilled; younger people and women are less likely to take steps to resist regulatory actions and defend themselves; and anti-cyberbullying laws may have a salutary impact on women's willingness to share content online suggesting, contrary to critics, that such laws may lead to more speech and sharing, than less. The findings also offer evidence of secondary chilling effects— where users' online activities are chilled even when not they, but others in their social networks receive legal processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Penney, Jonathon W., 2017. "Internet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online: a comparative case study," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:214042
    DOI: 10.14763/2017.2.692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/214042/1/IntPolRev-2017-2-692.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.14763/2017.2.692?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Daniel L. & Yeh, Susan, 2014. "The construction of morals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 84-105.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Townend, Judith, 2014. "Online chilling effects in England and Wales," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 3(2), pages 1-12.
    4. Kevin E. Levay & Jeremy Freese & James N. Druckman, 2016. "The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440166, March.
    5. Kabir Dasgupta, 2019. "Youth response to state cyberbullying laws," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(2), pages 184-202, May.
    6. Christopher Parsons, 2015. "Beyond Privacy: Articulating the Broader Harms of Pervasive Mass Surveillance," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(3), pages 1-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Au, Cheuk Hang & Ho, Kevin K.W. & Chiu, Dickson K.W., 2021. "Stopping healthcare misinformation: The effect of financial incentives and legislation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 627-633.
    2. Strycharz, Joanna & Segijn, Claire M., 2024. "Ethical side-effect of dataveillance in advertising: Impact of data collection, trust, privacy concerns and regulatory differences on chilling effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rieder, Bernhard & Hofmann, Jeanette, 2020. "Towards platform observability," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-28.
    2. Deena A. Isom & Hunter M. Boehme & Toniqua C. Mikell & Stephen Chicoine & Marion Renner, 2021. "Status Threat, Social Concerns, and Conservative Media: A Look at White America and the Alt-Right," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, July.
    3. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    4. Chen, Daniel L. & Yeh, Susan, 2022. "How do rights revolutions occur? Free speech and the first amendment," TSE Working Papers 22-1396, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. Valentina A. Bali & Lindon J. Robison & Richard Winder, 2020. "What Motivates People to Vote? The Role of Selfishness, Duty, and Social Motives When Voting," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    6. Kutaula, Smirti & Gillani, Alvina & Leonidou, Leonidas C. & Christodoulides, Paul, 2022. "Integrating fair trade with circular economy: Personality traits, consumer engagement, and ethically-minded behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1087-1102.
    7. Alexsandros Cavgias & Raphael Corbi, Luis Meloni, Lucas M. Novaes, 2019. "EDITED DEMOCRACY: Media Manipulation and the News Coverage of Presidential Debates," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2019_17, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    8. Eugene Y. Chan & Jack Lin, 2022. "Political ideology and psychological reactance: how serious should climate change be?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-22, May.
    9. Carola Binder, 2020. "Coronavirus Fears and Macroeconomic Expectations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(4), pages 721-730, October.
    10. David J. Acheson & Ansgar Wohlschlegel, 2021. "Libel Bullies, Defamation Victims, and Litigation Incentives," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 177(2), pages 135-166.
    11. Michael Thaler, 2020. "Good News Is Not a Sufficient Condition for Motivated Reasoning," Papers 2012.01548, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    12. Soojong Kim, 2019. "Directionality of information flow and echoes without chambers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    13. Nikolaou, Dimitrios, 2017. "Do anti-bullying policies deter in-school bullying victimization?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-6.
    14. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.
    15. Chen, Daniel L., 2023. "Judicial compliance in district courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Chen, Daniel L. & Frankenreiter, Jens & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Judicial Compliance in District Courts," IAST Working Papers 16-55, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    17. Michael Kumove, 2022. "Does Language Foster Reconciliation? Evidence From the Former Yugoslavia," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(4-5), pages 783-808, May.
    18. Vincenz Frey & Arnout van de Rijt, 2021. "Social Influence Undermines the Wisdom of the Crowd in Sequential Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4273-4286, July.
    19. Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes, 2019. "Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2329-2347, October.
    20. Richard S. Henry & Paul B. Perrin & Erin R. Smith, 2022. "Religiosity, Religious Fundamentalism, Heterosexism, and Support for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights: A Moderated Mediation Approach," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:214042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://policyreview.info/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.