Communication Monographs Why Do Virtual …docs.business.auckland.ac.nz/Doc/Working-paper-Why-do-virtual... · Why Do Virtual Communities Regulate Speech? Cecil Eng Huang Chua Virtual

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland]On: 21 September 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907452848]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication MonographsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713695619

Why Do Virtual Communities Regulate Speech?Cecil Eng Huang Chua

To cite this Article Chua, Cecil Eng Huang(2009) 'Why Do Virtual Communities Regulate Speech?', CommunicationMonographs, 76: 2, 234 — 261To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03637750902828420URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750902828420

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713695619

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750902828420

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Why Do Virtual Communities RegulateSpeech?Cecil Eng Huang Chua

Virtual community research argues that regulations restricting the kinds of speech in a

virtual community decrease the utility to members. However, many virtual communities

enact regulations on speech within the virtual community. This research explores the

contradiction through a cross-case analysis of virtual communities. It explains the

contradiction between research and practice using the theory of collective identity.

Communication is important for creating collective identity in virtual communities.

However, multiple collective identities can arise. When one collective identity within a

virtual community defines itself as adversarial to another, silencing speech emerges as

adversarial collective identity creates enduring noise and flames. When the target

collective identity creates formal regulations suppressing the adversarial collective

identity, communication to foster the target collective identity emerges.

Keywords: Virtual Communities; Moderation; Censorship; Hate Speech; Regulation

Research generally argues that virtual communities should allow members to speak

freely (Axelrod, 1984; Godwin, 1994; Kollock, 1996; Ostrom, 1990), as this helps the

virtual community form a cohesive collective identity (Polletta, 1998; Weiss, 2003),

which leads to the ‘‘success’’ of the virtual community. Curiously, many virtual

communities intentionally regulate speech within community boundaries. Such

virtual communities create a board of moderators that screen, reject, and/or remove

problematic messages.

Cecil Eng Huang Chua is an Assistant Professor at Nanyang Technological University. He received a PhD in

Information Systems from Georgia State University, a Masters of Business by Research from Nanyang

Technological University, and both a BBA in Computer Information Systems and Economics and a Masters

Certificate in Telecommunications Management from the University of Miami. His research has been published

in such journals and magazines as Communications of the AIS, Data and Knowledge Engineering, Decision Support

Systems, IEEE Computer, Journal of the AIS, the Journal of Database Management, the MIS Quarterly, and the

VLDB Journal. He was the runner-up for the 2004 ICIS best doctoral dissertation competition. Correspondence

to: Cecil Eng Huang Chua, Information Technology & Operations Management Department, Nanyang Business

School, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798. E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 0363-7751 (print)/ISSN 1479-5787 (online) # 2009 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/03637750902828420

Communication Monographs

Vol. 76, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 234�261

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 02:14 21 September 2010

This study explores why many virtual communities act in a way that research

suggests they should not. The study examines situations where virtual communities

regulate speech and when such regulations encourage the success of the virtual

community, i.e., encourage members to speak about topics relevant to the community.

To investigate this issue, an in-depth, exploratory cross-case analysis of two moderated

virtual communities and unmoderated counterparts was conducted followed by a

third case study to enhance generalizability. The theory of collective identity is applied

to explain findings, which suggest three things:

. Virtual community identity may map to more than one collective identity. It is

possible for two separate groups in a virtual community to adopt two distinct,

mutually exclusive collective identities, for example, one group identifies with

Judaism, and the other comprises Christian missionaries. The virtual community’s

identity is a function of the interaction between the collective identities of

members.. The existence of silencing speech. Communication is critical to the manifestation of

a collective identity (Hardy, Lawrence, & Grant, 2005; Polletta, 1998; Weiss, 2003).

Silencing speech emerges when one collective identity in the virtual community

becomes defined as the adversarial target collective identity. The adversarial

collective identity utters silencing speech, instantiated as enduring noise and

flames focused on the target collective identity. Noise inhibits the target collective

identity’s ability to search and read messages, and flames inhibit member

willingness to post. As communication in many virtual communities comprises

posting and reading, this reduces communication, hindering the manifestation of

the target collective identity. Silencing speech creates a virtual community identity

of conflict. As one collective identity defines itself as an adversary, and the target

community does not, conflict reinforces the adversary’s collective identity while

diminishing the collective identity of the target.. Regulating speech is the only way to control silencing speech. The only way members

of the target group can speak, and manifest collective identity, is to bar members of

the adversarial collective identity from uttering silencing speech. Thus, when

adversarial collective identities exist, the virtual community can only manifest the

collective identity of the adversary or its target. Ironically, diversity in virtual

community identity is realized when two communities emerge, one where the

target group regulates speech, thereby manifesting its collective identity, and one

where both groups can speak, thereby allowing the manifestation of the adversarial

group’s collective identity.

This research proceeds as follows. Research on community governance is first

presented, after which research methodology is discussed. Case site backgrounds are

then presented. Case sites are subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Theory on collective identity is then introduced to explain and interpret the findings.

Virtual Community Speech Regulation 235


Related Research

One fundamental question of virtual community research concerns how virtual

communities should be governed. Definitely some form of governance is necessary for

a virtual community to succeed (Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, 2003; Castelfranchi &

Tan, 2002; Goodman & Darr, 1998; Rothaermel & Sugiyama, 2001; Stanoevska-

Slabeva, 2002). Research has demonstrated that online speech can be disruptive

(Sternberg, 2000). Incidents of cyber-harassment (Dibbell, 1993; Herring, 1999),

deception and fraud (Castelfranchi & Tan, 2002; Chua & Wareham, 2004), flaming

(Aiken & Waller, 2000; Alonzo & Aiken, 2004; Reinig, Briggs, & Nunamaker, 1997/

1998), hazing (Honeycutt, 2005), impersonation (Donath, 1998), noise (Hiltz &

Johnson, 1990; Hiltz & Turoff, 1985; Wasko & Faraj, 2000), trolling (Campbell, 2004;

Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler, & Barab, 2002), and others (Greenhill, Campbell, &

Fletcher, 2002; Kahai & Cooper, 1999; Phillips, 1996; Suler & Phillips, 1998) have been

documented.

Such actions can be potentially harmful not only to individuals in the virtual

community, but to the community itself. Cyber-harassment, for example, can cause

individuals to leave a community (Herring, 1999; Herring et al., 2002). The impact

on the community can be especially devastating when opinion leaders leave (Dutton,

1996). Thus, some level of governance is required for virtual communities.

In online communities, moderation is the standard method of formal governance.

In moderation, individuals called moderators screen postings. Most research argues

that moderation is not a desirable method of virtual community governance (Dutton,

1996). Disputes and concerns should be resolved directly by members of the

community rather than a governing body (Axelrod, 1984; Godwin, 1994; Kollock,

1996; Ostrom, 1990). Owners of the virtual community infrastructure should let

members devise rules, and self-monitor (Baker, 2001; Poor, 2005). Some research

opposes the use of any authority on virtual communities (e.g., moderation) (Cothrel

& Williams, 1999; Rheingold, 1993).

Research generally argues that where moderators must exist, they should lead by

example rather than impose their will (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996; Koh & Kim, 2001).

They should help guide new members in proper community behavior (Andrews,

Preece, & Turoff, 2002), thereby encouraging continuous renewal in the community

(Williams & Cothrel, 2000). Governors should also seed discussions and foster

interest in community activities instead of forcing community members to conform

to expectations (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996; Koh & Kim, 2001). Thus, the literature

generally argues that socially constructed governance mechanisms rather than rules

imposed by the moderator should be developed to manage the topics people discuss

(Blanchard, 2004).

Curiously, many virtual communities prefer formal governance mechanisms that

regulate speech. Why? This research attempts to: (a) determine why virtual

communities regulate speech, and (b) ascertain whether such regulations encourage

community success.

236 C. E. H. Chua


Methodology

A combined qualitative/quantitative cross-case methodology with influences from

multiple streams of research was employed to explore the research question. Research

proceeded in five phases, which are presented and justified in Table 1.

Virtual community is operationalized as all conversations and actions occurring

within a well-defined posting forum. Soc.culture.singapore is a virtual community, as

is soc.culture.jewish. Conversations that occur within the forum are treated as within

the virtual community. However, conversations that occur outside the forum, for

example, in talk.politics.mideast, that are not cross-posted to the community are

outside the community.

Case Sites

Variational sampling (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Yin, 1984) was employed to maximize

differences between case sites (see Table 2). Two case sites comprising two virtual

communities each were selected. Each case site comprised both a moderated and

unmoderated virtual community. The first case site (Jewish culture newsgroup)

contained a successful moderated community. The second case site (Singapore

culture newsgroup) contained a moderated community that failed. These four virtual

communities enabled a simultaneous comparison of moderation with no modera-

tion, and moderation success with failure. These four virtual communities are

soc.culture.jewish (SCJ), soc.culture.jewish.moderated (SCJM), soc.culture.singapore

(SCS), and soc.culture.singapore.moderated (SCSM).

The ‘‘success’’ of a virtual community is difficult to define. Success was measured

in three ways. First, a virtual community no longer in existence (i.e., SCSM) was a

candidate for ‘‘failure.’’ But, second, community members must perceive the virtual

community as a success/failure. Such perceptions were assessed through: (a)

community member comments about the virtual community and (b) number of

posts and replies to posts in various virtual communities. Finally, a statistical content

analysis of posts over a 10-day period on the newsgroup was employed to assess the

Table 1 Data Collection/Analysis Phases

Phase/methodology Reasoning

Case-site selection/variational sampling Select case sites to maximize differences inconstructs of interest (i.e., speech regulationand virtual community success).

Immersive-exploratory/ethnographic observation Obtain a sense for why virtual communitiespreferred/did not prefer regulating speech.

Theoretical refinement/open sampling Affirm and refine existing conceptualization.Internal validity/statistical testing Test conceptualizations made and refined

during immersive and theoretical refinementphases.

External validity/confirmation and criterionsampling

Identify a case similar to those in case-siteselection where culture was not an issue.



diversity of posts. A newsgroup with few posts was indicative that the newsgroup

failed.

After comparing and contrasting the Singapore and Jewish case sites, it was

important to ascertain that findings existed outside of these two communities.

Multiple social/religious/cultural newsgroups had the same situation as the Jewish

community including soc.culture.palestine (moderated version on Yahoo groups),

soc.culture.islam, soc.culture.african-american, and soc.culture.japan.

However, it was also important to ensure that these phenomena were generalizable

beyond cultural and religious virtual communities. To some degree, science and

culture are opposites. Cultures can be different, but science aims to achieve objective

truths. Thus, stronger generalizability could be established if phenomena discovered

in moderated culture virtual communities were found in moderated science virtual

communities. Moderated newsgroups in the sci.* (i.e., science) hierarchy were

investigated and the newsgroup sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated was

uncovered.

Immersion Phase

The immersion phase was employed to identify issues and concerns that encouraged

the regulation of speech. Thus, methodologies associated with ethnographic research

were employed. Several years’ worth of postings were reviewed to obtain a cultural

awareness of the various virtual communities (Myers, 1999).

A neutral observer role was adopted principally because the author is not Jewish,

and did not want to accidentally insult subjects. However, the author was not

invisible to the communities. Postings were sent to case sites disclosing the fact that

they were under observation. E-mail interviews were also requested. Drafts of this

document were prepared and circulated to community members for review and

commentary. All postings disclosed the author’s e-mail address and identity.

Table 2 Case Sites Visited

Case site Speech is Success or failure

soc.culture.jewish (SCJ) Not regulated Jewish members of the newsgroupfelt it did not enable them to say whatthey wanted

soc.culture.jewish.moderated(SCJM)

Regulated Community members regard as‘‘successful’’

soc.culture.singapore(SCS)

Not regulated Frequent posts on a wide variety oftopics relevant to Singaporeans

soc.culture.singapore.moderated (SCSM)

Regulated Site had low posting volumes andultimately died

sci.psychology.psychotherapy(SPP)

Not regulated, usedto generalize findings

Site principally about the legitimacyof psychotherapy rather than aboutspecific issues withinpsychotherapy

sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated (SPPM)

Regulated, used togeneralize findings

Site principally used for discussion ofspecific issues withinpsychotherapy

238 C. E. H. Chua


Open Sampling Phase

In the open sampling phase (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), data was gathered to test and

refine ideas generated in the immersion phase. To strengthen construct validity, data

was collected from three separate sources (Klein & Myers, 1999; Yin, 1984):

. Postings on formation of newsgroups. Data on the creation of the moderated

newsgroups was collected by searching Google groups for the keywords ‘‘CFP,’’

‘‘RFP,’’ ‘‘CFV,’’ and the name of the moderated group. The three acronyms (call for

proposal, request for proposal, and call for votes. respectively) refer to formal

procedures necessary for creating new Usenet newsgroups. This allowed an

examination of justifications and reasons behind the creation of the moderated

newsgroups.. Interviews. E-mail interviews and discussions with moderators and newsgroup

participants from both the Jewish and Singapore newsgroups were solicited. Over

a dozen Jewish newsgroup participants volunteered input. Interviews with four

members of the original Singapore moderation team were obtained.. Postings on governance of newsgroups. The Google group archive of these

newsgroups was searched for ‘‘moderated,’’ and ‘‘moderator.’’ Snowball sampling

(Kuzel, 1992) was employed to extend the search with additional keywords. For

example, e-mail addresses of advocates for moderation were employed as search

keys. It was possible to use these e-mail addresses to search the Google group

archive for events and experiences that shaped advocates’ positions.

Techniques from Straussian grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) were

employed both for the immersion and open sampling phases. Specifically, data was

coded using open coding techniques that were later collapsed into subgroups (i.e.,

axial coding). Codes were assigned based on posting topic (i.e., this was a content

analysis).

Internal Validity Phase

To affirm that findings were inherent in the case sites, and not the author’s subjective

interpretation, three independent raters were recruited to systematically code all posts

in the newsgroups for two 10-day periods. The first period encompassed a time just

before the formation of the moderated newsgroup. The second period encompassed a

time when both the moderated and unmoderated newsgroup coexisted. This enabled

a cross-comparison of speech patterns in the various communities. Specifically, all

postings on SCJ/M for February 19�28, 2003 and February 19�28, 1999, and all

postings on SCS/M for February 19�28, 1998 and February 19�28, 1996 were

obtained. The Jewish newsgroups were sampled in 2003, because data collection for

this phase began in 2003. As SCSM expired in 2001, a year midway between SCSM’s

creation and expiry was selected (i.e., 1998). It was assumed that the midpoint would

reflect a time when SCSM was most active. Each rater independently coded every

posting. Table 3 summarizes data collected for the systematic coding phase.



To make the analysis tractable, the original summarized codes were further

collapsed into six speech categories comparable across the two case sites. Table 4

presents the categories and example postings, which were:

1. Anticulture posts denigrated the culture within the virtual community or were a

response to such denigration.

2. On-topic posts discussed culture within the virtual community. In the Jewish

newsgroups, the post concerned Jewish faith, practices, experiences (e.g., the

Holocaust), or life. In the Singapore newsgroups, Singapore life, politics, or shows

in Singapore were considered relevant. Politics was not relevant for Jewish

newsgroups, because the FAQ and moderation charter stated that such were

irrelevant.

3. Off-topic politics posts were political discussions that did not center on virtual

community culture.

4. Newsgroup governance posts were about how to make the newsgroup a better

place, or how newsgroup governance worked.

5. Denigration of other culture posts specifically attacked another culture.

6. Other off-topic posts could not fit in another category.

An inter-rater reliability analysis was performed before rater codings were

analyzed. Table 5 presents this analysis and demonstrates that reliability was above

accepted thresholds. Most scores were above .6, and Raters 1 and 3 did not have an

agreement level below .67. Typical recommendations are that a kappa above .6/.7 is

acceptable for exploratory/confirmatory research respectively (Landis & Koch, 1977;

Miles & Huberman, 1994).

After codes were reconciled, nonparametric tests of differences were performed

across the six community periods (e.g., SCJ 1999, SCJ 2003, SCJM 2003).

Nonparametric tests were necessary, given that codes were on a nominal scale

(Lehman, 1988).

Table 3 Data Collected for Systematic Coding

Virtual communityTime

period Reason for collection

soc.culture.jewish (SCJ1999)*526 posts Feb 19�28,1999

Before formation of moderated group

soc.culture.jewish (SCJ2003)*1715 posts Feb 19�28,2003

Without regulated speech afterformation of moderated group

soc.culture.jewish.moderated(SCJM2003)*152 posts

Feb 19�28,2003

With regulated speech after formationof moderated group

soc.culture.singapore (SCS1996)*1462posts

Feb 19�28,1996

Before formation of moderated group

soc.culture.singapore (SCS1998)*1422posts

Feb 19�28,1998

Without regulated speech after for-mation of moderated group

soc.culture.singapore.moderated(SCSM1998)*46 posts

Feb 19�28,1998

With regulated speech after formationof moderated group

240 C. E. H. Chua


As the research underwent refinement, summarized drafts were circulated in the

virtual communities studied (Mason, 1996). Data can be validated as much of it

originates from publicly available sources, and can be retrieved through Internet

searches employing fragments of the quoted text as a search string (Miles &

Huberman, 1994).

Case Sites

The Jewish and Singapore case groupings had different reasons for moderation.

In the Jewish case grouping, moderation was intended to block discussions

perceived as harmful to Jews, such as those on Middle-East Politics, advocacy

for non-Jewish religions, and anti-Semitic attacks. Users supporting moderation

felt it generates honest and healthy discussions on Jewish topics. In the Singapore

case grouping, advocates for moderation wanted to lower the signal-to-noise

ratio. Few, if any, individuals felt that Singapore or Singaporeans were under

threat.

Table 4 Examples for Each Type of Code

Example quotes

Code Jewish Usenet Singapore Usenet

Anticulture Crude for us; solar panels for Jews. 54years of these parasites, and now theywant us to die for them again (Feb. 28,2003)

Why is Singapore called the lion city?Because the wimps that replaced thelions didn’t want the rest of the worldto know what kind of city this really is!(Feb. 28, 1996)

On-topic Look into the biographies of some ofthem, and start with, say, Maimonides.I think you’ll find they ‘‘got out,’’ as youput it, quite a bit more than you seemto think. (Feb. 25, 2003)

They mentioned about being able toidentify with the characters from thatlocal sitcom Under One Roof whichended its season just today. (Feb. 28,1996)

Off-topicpolitics

Syria is one of the states where the USat some point lost its position. But it ishard to say that it got it back. (Feb. 23,1999)

If it’s any consolation, a lot of the stuffstolen by my great-great-great-grand-father is now in the British Museum(Feb. 28, 1996)

Newsgroupgovernance

soc.culture.jewish FAQ: Introductionto the FAQ and s.c.j Newsgroups (1/12)(Feb. 28, 2003)

YPAP is on the lookout so that theycan make recommendations to SBA sothat guidelines and actions can beformulated for this newsgroup. (Feb.28 1996)

Denigrationof otherculture

When everyone realizes that we are allin this together, and that Muslimextremists are the new Nazis . . . (Feb.28, 2003)

Cantonese was started by southernbarbarians watching pigs squeel andvietnamese by sows screaming. (Feb.25, 1996)

Otheroff-topic

Played by a Canadian (he [is]Canadian, isn’t he?) and played tomake the English hero look like acomplete ditz! (Feb. 28, 2003)

. . . I got to Wishsong and discoveredthe ugly truth that Brooks was run-ning out of ideas and strangling a deadgolden goose . . . (Feb. 26, 1996)



An initial review of the case sites revealed their particular characteristics.

Specifically, the unmoderated Jewish virtual community (SCJ) was characterized by

attacks from other sources, e.g., neo-Nazis, Christian missionaries, and anti-Jewish

Muslims. In contrast, negative statements in the Singapore community were generally

not targeted at average Singaporeans, but instead focused primarily on (often

Singaporean) political leaders. The moderated Jewish virtual community (SCJM) was

characterized by discussions on Jewish topics. The moderated Singapore community

had relatively light discussion with few replies. Figures 1�4 present exemplars of

activity in the four virtual communities.

Jewish Case Site

Soc.culture.jewish (SCJ) was formed in February 1984 for the discussion of Jewish

topics, including the various recognized movements within Judaism, and debates

over Halacha, and Torah interpretations. SCJ began to attract irrelevant discussions

such as those on Middle-East politics, advocacy for non-Jewish religions, and anti-

Semitic attacks on other newsgroup users by 1987. These topics were explicitly stated

under the FAQ as inappropriate.

What topics are *not* appropriate for S.C.J? Middle East politics, especiallyinternational issues concerning Israel, belong in talk.politics.mideast, not S.C.J. . . .Readers of S.C.J are committed to their religion; it is inappropriate to ‘‘witness’’ orpreach . . . Lastly, . . . Don’t write ‘‘Lashon Hara’’, derogatory information aboutpeople or groups. (May 10, 1993)

By 1990, SCJ users began advocating moderation to control objectionable posts.

After reading all the garbage from [name withheld] and [name withheld], I proposethat s.c.j becomes a moderated group. This is not an attempt to block critisism [sic]of Israel or Jews, but to generate an honest and healthy discussions on topics ofinterest, devoid of hate and slime. (September 24, 1990)

Soc.culture.jewish.moderated was finally created on July 9, 2000. The new

newsgroup was put to a public vote, which passed 212 to 34.

Singapore Case Site

The first Singapore Usenet newsgroup, soc.culture.singapore (SCS) was created in

January 1993 to discuss topics relevant to Singaporeans and to provide a resource for

Table 5 Interrater Scores

Kappa

Case sites Raters 1 & 2 Raters 1 & 3 Raters 2 & 3

SCJ1999 .59 .75 .59SCJ2003 .70 .80 .65SCJM2003 .72 .83 .65SCS1996 .72 .83 .63SCS1998 .80 .68 .73SCSM1998 .80 .72 .86

242 C. E. H. Chua


general information about Singapore. SCS was formed from soc.culture.asean, as

many contributors in the latter were Singaporeans studying overseas.

SCS quickly took on its own special character. Local Singaporeans, Singaporeans

overseas, and foreigners (often Malaysian and Indonesian) shared conversations

about everything from current news events, to the characteristics of local politicians,

to local television shows. The virtual community was marked by its diversity, which

many people enjoyed.

Figure 1 Postings to SCJ: February 22, 1999.

Figure 2 Postings to SCJM: February 22, 2003.



Would not this scsm be like eating ‘‘Rojak’’ without the ‘‘Prawn paste’’? I find, apart

from those occasional junks, scs as itself is very informative and dynamic. It reflects

the Singapore that we are in, multi-EVERYTHING. (July 16, 1996)

(Rojak is a south-east Asian salad. The Malay version uses prawns in the salad

dressing.)

In 1995, SCS members advocated the creation of soc.culture.singapore.moderated

(SCSM) as an additional newsgroup for Singapore because of (1) congestion in SCS,

(2) the low signal-to-noise ratio caused by irrelevant commercial and test posts, and

(3) rude and obscene posts.

Figure 3 Postings to SCS: February 22, 1996.

Figure 4 Postings to SCSM: February 20�24, 1998.

244 C. E. H. Chua


. . . I totally agree that moderation would be a good idea. It’s so difficult to get

around to reading the follow-ups of serious posts when you have to strain out all

the junk along the way. (October 4, 1996)

SCSM was created on October 8, 1996 through a public vote, which passed 192

to 48.

Analysis

This section presents the results of the open sampling and internal validity phases. It

is demonstrated that both soc.culture.jewish.moderated and soc.culture.singapore.

moderated blocked problematic postings. However, soc.culture.jewish.moderated be-

came popular as a venue for ‘‘relevant’’ discussions, whereas soc.culture.singapore.

moderated did not. Qualitative evidence for why these events occurred is presented

and then triangulated with statistical analysis (Klein & Myers, 1999). All quotes below

originate in the forums.

Open Sampling

Jewish virtual communities. The creation of soc.culture.jewish.moderated (SCJM)

partitioned Jewish Usenet into two virtual communities. SCJM became a venue for

discussions on Jewish culture and SCJ became a venue for discussions on anti-Jewish

culture. Although some Jews remained in SCJ to rebut anti-Semitic posts, most

elected to migrate to SCJM:

I haven’t been in that sewer since SCJM came on-line. (June 25, 2003)

SCJ attracted substantial discussions on Middle East politics, advocacy for non-

Jewish religions, and anti-Semitic attacks on newsgroup members. SCJ members

initially tried various methods to remove these forms of speech: (a) They developed

alternate unregulated newsgroups such as talk.politics.mideast to address non-Jewish

cultural issues. (b) A committee of 25 newsgroup members developed a FAQ

detailing acceptable and unacceptable newsgroup behavior. (c) Alternate, unregulated

newsgroups were created to address issues of interest to Jews. For example,

alt.personals.jewish was intended to help Jews find marriage partners. (d) Finally,

filtering technology (i.e., Killfiles) was used to screen undesirable postings.

All methods were ineffective because they did not address the ‘‘sticky’’ nature of the

problematic postings. Undesirable elements wanted to remain close to community

members to harass and intimidate them. Posts were cross-posted (i.e., postings were

sent to multiple newsgroups) frequently, and ignored guidelines in the FAQ.

Technical filters were especially ineffective. Senders of problematic postings had

strong incentives to ensure that posts were read and employed multiple tactics to

overcome technical filtering. For example, some senders would periodically switch

identities.

When I put him in my kill file, he re-emerged with a last name added to the

[identity withheld]. (August 3, 2000)



Alternately, senders hijacked posts, subverting the original intent of a message. In

the example below, a holocaust events discussion was subverted to accuse Jews of

creating communism.

The jew Jucov Kurovsky on the orders of the new Trotsky, shot and then bayoneted

to death The Tsar, his wife, 5 children, their doctors, servanats [sic] and even their

little pet spaniel in the cellar where they had been held since their arrest by the

bolsheviks. (Re: Holocaust Calendar: February 20, February 19, 2003)

As a result, users of technical filters and senders of hurtful speech engaged in an

arms race. Technical filters would screen for a particular tactic, whereupon senders of

problematic postings would innovate new deceptive strategies. Thus, Killfiles became

highly complex, which effectively prevented new community users from using them.

Every newsgroup needs new posters, and new posters don’t know what to killfile.

(April 20, 1999)

Furthermore, it was expensive for every virtual community member to block these

posts, as they would miss important discussions because Killfiles accidentally filtered

them. These tactics made moderation useful. Moderators block postings that

contravened the rules of SCJM. The moderators thus absorbed the cost of such

screening from every virtual community member.

Singapore virtual communities. Various problems inhibited the growth of soc.cul-

ture.singapore.moderated (SCSM). First, few people know or care about Singapore.

As a result, SCS required few of the controls necessary to ensure survival of the Jewish

Usenet community. Second, speech in Singapore is tightly regulated and many in

Singapore wanted an outlet free of speech regulations. The anonymous, unregulated

SCS provided such a venue. Finally, the initial set of moderators of SCSM was

perceived as a ‘‘biased’’ governing body. This initial panel belonged to ‘‘Sintercom,’’ a

semiformal organization devoted to encouraging Singaporean participation in virtual

communities. Sintercom furthermore provided the infrastructure for SCSM includ-

ing the server used for moderation. As a result, many members of SCS felt that SCSM

favored certain kinds of Singaporean postings over others:

She has also told me about the moderator’s favouritism. (April 29, 1997)

No actual evidence of bias emerged. SCSM moderators took pains to ensure

transparency, for example, placing all rejected postings on a separate website, with a

public statement as to why each post was rejected. That all moderators were initially

from Sintercom could be explained by their prior familiarity with Usenet. At the time

of soc.culture.singapore.moderated’s inception, most Singaporeans outside Sinter-

com were unfamiliar with the technical and bureaucratic issues surrounding creating

a moderated newsgroup. Also, few outside Sintercom volunteered to be moderators.

SCSM officially closed in 2001 when Sintercom was declared a political

organization by the Singapore government. To avoid censure under Singapore laws,

Sintercom moved its servers overseas. However, SCSM did not move with the

Sintercom servers, and no one moderates the forum today.

246 C. E. H. Chua


Internal Validity Phase

Given that interrater agreement was sufficiently strong, raters reconciled their codes,

and reconciled codes were analyzed for distributional differences. Table 6 presents

codes for the Jewish newsgroups and shows that SCJM was able to filter out off-topic

posts. Only 6, 12, and 24 anti-Jewish, Mid-East Politics, and off-topic posts appeared

in SCJM for the sampling period. In contrast, 544, 753, and 339 such posts,

respectively, appeared in SCJ.

The data suggests that SCJM’s ability to filter such posts encouraged Jewish

participation. SCJM has a higher percentage (67.8%) of Jewish posts compared to

both its predecessor (SCJ 1999*22.8%), and its current nonmoderated competitor

(SCJ 2003*2.4%). Furthermore, SCJM attracts more Jewish posts than SCJ 2003

(103 vs. 41). Although SCJ 1999 has a greater quantity of posts than SCJM 2003 (120)

members of the Jewish community had a harder time accessing posts from SCJ 1999.

Only 22.8% of posts are on-topic. In contrast, three in five posts in SCJM are on-

topic.

Furthermore, the data suggests that the ‘‘flavor’’ of SCJM and SCJ were different.

Both a chi-square and a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with a Bonferroni adjustment

were employed to test for differences in posting distribution across groups (Tooth-

aker, 1993). All tests on the Jewish sites were significant (pB.05), suggesting that

SCJM and SCJ had separate ‘‘characters.’’ Table 7 presents relevant statistics.

SCSM likewise filtered non-Singaporean postings (see Table 8). Only 14 off-topic

posts appeared for the sampling period (2 Asian politics, 12 other off-topic). In

contrast, SCS had 986 such posts (35 anti-Singaporean, 100 political, and 851 other

off-topic).

However SCSM only attracted 30 Singapore culture posts. In contrast, fully 418

appeared in SCS. Thus, although the percentage of relevant posts in SCSM was higher

(65.2% vs. 29.4%), this difference can be discounted by disparities in the total posting

volumes.

Distributional differences in the Singapore newsgroups were weaker than those in

the Jewish newsgroups. When SCSM was compared against SCS for the identical time

period, the results were significant. In contrast, when SCSM was compared with SCS

1996, the results were not significant (p�.17/.11). These numbers contradict each

other. One (SCSM 1998 vs. SCS 1998) suggests that posts to SCSM were of a different

Table 6 Content Distribution of SCJ and SCJM: Feb. 19�28, 2003/Feb. 19�28, 1999

SCJM SCJ SCJ % SCJM % SCJ % SCJCategory 2003 2003 1999 2003 2003 1999

Anticulture 6 544 215 3.9% 31.7% 40.9%On-topic 103 41 120 67.8% 2.4% 22.8%Off-topic politics 12 753 124 7.9% 43.9% 23.6%Newsgroup governance 7 1 1 4.6% 0.0% 0.2%Denigration of other culture 0 37 8 0.0% 2.2% 1.5%Other off-topic 24 339 58 15.8% 19.8% 11.0%Total 152 1715 526



tenor than posts to SCS. The other (SCSM 1998 vs. SCS 1996) does not. Results

suggested that SCSM filtered off-topic posts, but such posts were so infrequent that

filtering was unnecessary. Table 9 presents relevant statistics.

To evaluate this interpretation, the effect size of the distributional differences

were measured. As Table 10 demonstrates, the effect sizes of posting distribution

differences in the Jewish newsgroups ranged from .36 to .70, whereas those for

the Singapore newsgroups ranged from .09 to .15. Cohen (1988) suggests that a W

of .1, .3, and .5 is weak, moderate, and strong, respectively. Thus, posts in SCJM were

strongly different from those in SCJ, and therefore attracted a different community.

In contrast, posts in SCSM were weakly different from SCS, and hence the SCS/SCSM

communities overlapped to a great extent.

Generalizability

The results of the first study suggested that moderation appeared necessary in a

situation where distinct factions within a virtual community were opposed to other

factions. The Jewish community was beset by missionaries, neo-Nazis, and

representatives from countries with antagonistic relationships with Israel. However,

one open question was whether this was only true for cultural virtual communities,

or whether this finding was more general.

Table 7 Tests of Distributional Differences between SCJ and SCJM

Chi-square Bonferroniadjustment

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Bonferroniadjustment

Test Statistic p p Statistic p p

SCJM 2003vs. SCJ2003

x2�926.17, df�5 B.01 B.01 Z�4.44 B.01 B.01

SCJM 2003vs. SCJ1999

x2�16.23, df�5 B.01 B.01 Z�4.01 B.01 B.01

SCJ 1999 vs.SCJ 2003

x2�305.14, df�5 B.01 B.01 Z�5.93 B.01 B.01

Table 8 Content Distribution of SCS and SCSM: Feb. 19�28, 1998/Feb. 19�28, 1996

SCSM SCS SCS % SCSM % SCS % SCSCategory 1998 1998 1996 1998 1998 1996

Anticulture 0 35 32 0.0% 2.5% 2.2%On-topic 30 418 612 65.2% 29.4% 41.9%Off-topic politics 2 100 71 4.3% 7.0% 4.9%Newsgroup governance 2 17 32 4.3% 1.2% 2.2%Denigration of other culture 0 1 9 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Other off-topic 12 851 706 26.1% 59.8% 48.3%Total 46 1422 1462

248 C. E. H. Chua


The sci.psychology.psychotherapy/moderated newsgroups were studied to answer

this question. The charter (i.e., intent) of sci.psychology.psychotherapy was

the discussion of all different modalities of psychotherapy, their efficacy, and theiracceptance within the scientific psychology community. (March 15, 1995)

Sci.psychology.psychotherapy suffered a number of problems. First, various groups

and individuals had antipsychology agendas and employed the unmoderated

newsgroup as a platform to air their views.

The name? Psychiatry. In the name of helping to clear engrams, it has brutalizedmany millions of individuals, hacking at their brains, searing them with electricity,numbing them with drugs or using other sick and twisted mind-control techniques.(January 28, 1996)

(The speaker in the quote is a scientologist. ‘‘Engrams’’ refer to a belief that

scientologists have. The term should not be confused with the homonym used by

Psychologists.)

Others employed the newsgroup to raise particularly contentious topics such as

pedophilia (sexual desire for children). In 1994, the American Psychological

Association dropped pedophilia as a psychiatric disorder from its diagnostic and

statistical manual (DSM-IV). Since then, advocates for pedophilia used the

unmoderated psychotherapy newsgroup as a platform to argue that pedophilia was

not harmful to children.

Table 9 Tests of Distributional Differences between SCS and SCSM

Chi-square Bonferroniadjustment

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Bonferroniadjustment

Test Statistic p p Statistic p p

SCSM 1998vs. SCS1998

x2�32.42, df�5 B.01 B.01 Z�2.26 B.01 B.01

SCSM 1998vs. SCS1996

x2�12.57, df�5 .03 .17 Z�1.52 .02 .11

SCS 1996 vs.SCS 1998

x2�65.55, df�5 B.01 B.01 Z�3.27 B.01 B.01

Table 10 Effect Sizes

Newsgroups Contingency coefficient W

SCJ2003 vs. SCJM .58 .70SCJ2003 vs. SCJ1999 .35 .37SCJ1999 vs. SCJM .44 .49SCS1998 vs. SCSM .15 .15SCS1998 vs. SCS1996 .15 .15SCS1996 vs. SCSM .09 .09



Many felt that these problems could only be addressed by moderation, and

discussion began on the creation of a moderated newsgroup.

In the last few weeks whe [sic] have been raided by the self-indulgent, scientologist,

pedophiles, the mentally ill, and the ritual-satanic-abuse-repressed-memory-move-

ment crowd. Is it not time to begin talking about a moderated forum? (April 22,

1996)

Several individuals voiced that the current atmosphere in sci.psychology.psy-

chotherapy was inhibiting their willingness to speak and read the messages of others:

I lurk, mostly because I am reluctant to expose my comments to insensitive

criticism by [name withheld]. I would never send messages in the sort of tones he

uses, even if I disagree with someone. I often feel relieved when reading one of his

tasteless, insensitive (sometimes incoherent) responses, that it wasn’t me who

originally posted. (June 3, 1996)

A petition to transform the newsgroup to a moderated one failed on July 13, 1996.

There were 125 yes votes, and 48 no votes. The petition failed, because a change to a

Usenet newsgroup must obtain at least 100 more yes votes than no votes.

Most who abstained or voted no agreed there were substantial problems with the

existing newsgroup. However, they wanted a way to speak without fear of censorship.

Proponents of moderation proposed an alternative moderated group to sci.psycho-

logy.psychotherapy. Those who felt that posting rules in the moderated group were

harsh or unfair could post to the unmoderated newsgroup. Sci.psychology.psy-

chotherapy.moderated was put to a public vote on August 13, 1997 and passed with

171 yes votes, and 34 no votes.

Figures 5�7 present typical examples of discussions on sci.psychology.psychother-

apy/moderated for the period before its creation and in 2004. A comparison of

Figures 5 and 6 against Figure 7 demonstrates that although more posts appear on the

unmoderated newsgroup, posts about psychology and psychotherapy (e.g., psycho-

pharmacology) go unanswered. Ad hominem attacks (e.g., ‘‘Shut up, child

molester’’), or provocative (e.g., ‘‘aliens are stealing my thoughts’’) dominate. On

the moderated forum, questions about psychotherapy obtain replies.

Discussion

The previous analysis presented three cases. One case (SCS/SCSM) reflects an

expected outcome. In the moderated community, speech was successfully regulated,

and the moderated community failed. Two cases (SCJ/SCJM and SPP/SPPM) reflect

an unexpected outcome. Specifically, these virtual communities thrive while being

moderated.

The data suggests that the successful regulation of virtual community speech

requires two factors: (1) the presence of an adversarial collective identity, i.e., one

opposed to the existence of another collective identity, and (2) the presence of a target

collective identity that does not define itself adversarially. This combination creates

silencing speech, which inhibits the expression and thus formation of the target

250 C. E. H. Chua


collective identity. To survive, the target collective identity must create a virtual

community where speech is regulated. Figure 8 summarizes the argument.

Collective identity refers to a group’s cognitive, moral, and emotional connection

with each other (Polletta & Jasper, 2001). Collective identity is similar to social

identity in that both are concerned with the self-concept of individuals and their

Figure 5 Posts on sci.psychology.psychotherapy: Nov. 27�Dec. 2, 1995.

Figure 6 Posts on sci.psychology.psychotherapy: Nov. 29�Dec. 2, 2004.



feelings of belongingness to a group (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &

Wetherell, 1987). However, whereas social identity is concerned with determining

how individuals form this self-concept, collective identity is concerned with choice

among potential social identities (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004). For

example, a homogeneous group could define itself as women (Ray & Korteweg,

1999), mothers (Ray & Korteweg, 1999), bisexuals (Slagle, 1995), Indians (Bacon,

1999), South Asians (Bacon, 1999), or Asians (Bacon, 1999). Furthermore, collective

identity focuses on the group. A collective identity endures beyond the life of any

individual member (Ashmore et al., 2004; Triandafyllidou & Wodak, 2003). Most

research focuses on its role in social movements, be they worker (Brown &

Humphreys, 2002), homosexual (Slagle, 1995), racial (Bacon, 1999; Ogden & Hilt,

2003; Suleiman, 2002), feminist (Ray & Korteweg, 1999), or political (Bernstein,

2005; van Aalst & Walgrave, 2002).

Figure 7 Posts on sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated: Nov. 6�Dec. 14, 2004.

Formation ofsuccessful

moderated virtualcommunity

Silencingspeech

Adversarialcollectiveidentity

Non adversarialtarget collective

identity

Figure 8 Factors predicting successful moderated virtual communities.

252 C. E. H. Chua


The particular collective identity an individual affiliates with depends on the

company kept, and more importantly, what is communicated in that social circle

(Hardy et al., 2005). Communication shapes not only identification with the group,

but also an understanding of what it means to be a member of the group (Polletta,

1998; Weiss, 2003). For example, the self-concept of first and second generation Asian

Indian-Americans is markedly distinct. First-generation Indian-Americans separate

themselves into religious and caste lines partly because language in the social groups

they inhabit reinforce those distinctions. In contrast, the social groups of second-

generation Indian-Americans emphasize and reinforce that all Indian-Americans are

together, regardless of religion or caste (Bacon, 1999).

A disruption of communication processes caused by formal regulation leads to a

dysfunctional collective identity. For example, the fall of the Berlin Wall has been

attributed to an East German realization of a collective identity. Prior to 1989, formal

regulations against public speech meant East Germans did not realize that the

majority shared their dissatisfaction with the communist government (Fulbrook,

2002). The mass migration of young East German workers to West Germany in 1989

communicated this collective identity precipitating the Leipzig demonstrations that

resulted in German reunification (Pfaff, 1996).

Arguments against the use of formal governance in virtual communities follow this

logic. As virtual communities are experienced only on screen, the sole method of

communication is via posters’ speech in the form of text and images. The formal

suppression of speech inhibits the formation of collective identity, because concepts

inherent to the collective identity cannot be communicated. However, this chain of

reasoning is problematic for two reasons. First, such reasoning assumes a virtual

community identity is equivalent to the collective identity of the members of the

virtual community. Virtual communities, like any other human-defined institution,

can have multiple, distinct, collective identities (Simon & Klandermans, 2001). An

American virtual community, like soc.culture.usa, could have members who vote

Democrat or Republican.

Second, that a policy has negative implications does not necessarily mean the

policy should not be deployed. For example, doctors amputate limbs to save patients

from gangrene. In the same way, a policy with negative implications should be

deployed if a failure to deploy the policy results in a worse outcome.

One danger of collective identity is that it is by nature dualistic. Collective identity

requires an ingroup and an outgroup. Those who share the collective identity are the

ingroup, and those who do not are the outgroup (Lamont & Molnar, 2002). In most

cases, this property of collective identity is inconsequential. There are Indians and

non-Indians, just as there are mothers and nonmothers. However, in some cases, the

‘‘us’’ vs. ‘‘them’’ nature of collective identity manifests so that ‘‘they’’ are adversaries

(Bernstein, 2005; Kozinets & Handelman, 2004; Simon & Klandermans, 2001). White

supremacists, for example, define ‘‘them’’ with antipathy (Adams & Roscigno, 2005).

It is therefore possible for a virtual community to have members belonging to two

separate, mutually exclusive collective identities, one adversarial to the other. In such



a situation, the virtual community identity formed from the interaction between the

collective identities may be undesirable to one of the collective identities.

The research findings suggest that this dualistic conflict between collective

identities explains when moderation and formal governance help virtual commu-

nities succeed. For SCJM, restricting Mid-East political, non-Jewish religious, and

anti-Semitic speech suppressed the anti-Jewish collective identity and allowed Jewish

members to more freely discuss Jewish ideas. However, regulating speech does not

work when dualistic collective identities are absent. Although SCSM filtered ‘‘noise,’’

most Singapore Usenet participants felt that was insufficient justification for its

existence. Three major themes on why virtual communities regulate speech emerged

from the analysis: (a) community identity versus collective identity, (b) how silencing

speech works, and (c) addressing silencing speech.

Community Identity and Collective Identity

The three virtual communities studied here vividly illustrate that a virtual

community can have multiple collective identities. SCJ was frequented not only by

Jews, but also neo-Nazis, Christian missionaries, and anti-Jewish Muslims. SCS

similarly was frequented not only by local Singaporeans, but overseas Singaporeans,

and non-Singaporeans. There was, for example, noticeable Malaysian and Indonesian

participation. Finally, SPP was inhabited by psychotherapists, the mentally unstable,

pedophiles, and Scientologists. The identity of these unmoderated communities was

characterized by the interactions of these separate collective identities.

The virtual communities that enacted moderation successfully (SCJM/SPPM) were

distinguished from the one that did not mainly by the identity of their unmoderated

equivalents. Both SCJ and SPP were marked by substantial conflict between collective

identities. Statistically, SCJM and SCJ had their own posting distributions, suggesting

they had separate identities. In SCJ, the identity was marked by conflict. In SCJM, by

Jewish discussion. In SCS, there would be sporadic conflict, but generally, a wide

variety of separate topics would be discussed. Furthermore, the statistical analysis

suggests the nature of conflict in SCS and SCSM were not materially different.

One key factor differentiating virtual communities that enact moderation

successfully is conflict between collective identities. In SCJ and SPP, some collective

identities defined themselves as adversaries of other (target) collective identities in the

virtual community. Neo-Nazis, and anti-Jewish Muslims were opposed to Jewish

existence. Christian missionaries wanted to convert Jews, i.e., transform the Jewish

collective identity into a Christian one. Similarly, Scientologists were opposed to

psychotherapy. Pedophiles, although not opposed to psychotherapy, opposed a

psychotherapy tenet. Specifically, they deliberately misrepresented psychotherapists as

recognizing pedophilia as a legitimate life choice. Psychotherapists recognized that

pedophilia was immoral and illegal, but felt it was not a disease.

Interestingly, the target collective identities did not define themselves as opposed to

their adversaries. The Jewish identity exists separately from the neo-Nazi, Christian,

and anti-Jewish Muslim identity. Similarly, psychotherapists do not define themselves

in relation to Scientologists or pedophiles.

254 C. E. H. Chua


Collective identity requires that the beliefs and concepts of the collective be

articulated. Furthermore, a demonstration of adversarialness requires a collective

identity to articulate its beliefs in the presence of target collective identities. The

target collective identity does not view itself in relation to the adversary, so this

articulated belief is viewed as noise (i.e., irrelevant) or a flame (i.e., offensive).

Somehow, this speech of the adversarial collective identity is silencing. It disrupts the

conversations of the target group thereby inhibiting the manifestation of the target

collective identity. As seen with SCJM and SPPM, when no adversarial relationship

exists, target collective identities manifest.

Adversarial collective identities need not hate their targets. Christian missionaries,

for example, do not hate Jews. Instead, the adversarial collective identity is opposed

to the existence of the target collective identity. A Christian missionary’s mission is to

transform the Jewish collective identity into a Christian one.

In the Singapore community, the various collective identities did not define other

collective identities as permanent adversaries. Malaysians and Singaporeans may

occasionally be in opposition*typically because of current political tensions.

However, once tensions ease, the conflict ceases. Similarly, some members of the

community oppose some collective identities. One quote in Table 4 demonstrates

anti-Cantonese and anti-Vietnamese sentiment. However, in no case did a collective

identity define itself as adversarial to another one; the anti-Cantonese/anti-

Vietnamese member never identifies with a group.

The presence of the adversarial collective identity and nonadversarial target causes

virtual communities to reject research advice and regulate speech. A virtual

community’s identity is normally defined by members. Over time, the virtual

community evolves a ‘‘sense of community,’’ as participants’ beliefs shape and are

shaped by community participation (Koh & Kim, 2001, 2003). If there is insufficient

overlap between the identity of the virtual community and a particular collective

identity, that collective identity emigrates and forms a new virtual community. For

example, when the Singapore Usenet community grew sufficiently large, it broke

from soc.culture.asean.

However, there can be no ‘‘sense of community’’ if the community space is

characterized by eternally opposing collective identities. Furthermore, emigration

fails to be a viable strategy when one collective identity defines itself by its adversaries.

To assert its collective identity, the adversarial group must pursue the emigre to its

new cyber-settlement. Thus, without soc.culture.jewish.moderated, Jewish Usenet

would largely be characterized by endless debate between Jews and non-Jews. The

creation of groups like talk.politics.mideast and alt.personals.jewish provide vivid

examples. The former group was created to remove topics of tangential interest to

Jews; the latter was created to provide a new private space for Jews. Neither helped

Jews talk about Jewish topics. In contrast, soc.culture.jewish.moderated enabled

cultural discussion on Jewish matters to continue, and various Jewish vs. non-Jewish

debates continue on soc.culture.jewish. Thus, moderation is necessary for the target

collective identity to assert itself.



How Silencing Speech Works

One unanswered question in the above discussion is how an adversarial collective

identity can inhibit speech by the target collective identity. Individuals participate in

virtual communities because virtual communities provide them with some kind of

utility, be it knowledge, social relationships, recreation, or transactional opportunity

(Armstrong & Hagel, 1996). To achieve such utility in a virtual community,

individuals must participate in conversations. In online forums, there are only two

ways to participate: by (1) reading conversations, or (2) posting conversations.

Silencing speech disrupts speech and therefore collective identity by making both

these activities unpleasant. Reading is made unpleasant, because the reader must filter

threads containing the silencing speech, which are both the majority of topics, and

difficult to do automatically. Once such topics are eliminated, the reader must deal

with topics hijacked by the adversary collective identity.

Posting is made unpleasant, because it requires that the poster relinquish some of

the poster’s anonymity. Even when a post is under an assumed name, the poster

reveals his or her existence. Furthermore, one generally posts with the expectation

that one receives replies. Members of the adversary collective identity reply to the

post with unpleasant speech. As demonstrated in the psychotherapy case, these replies

are sufficiently unpleasant that they not only deter existing posters, but potential

posters from contributing to the collective identity.

The problem is aggravated because silencing speech is enduring and targeted.

Virtual communities without silencing speech encounter noise, which makes reading

difficult, and flames, which make posting difficult. However, because the noise is not

targeted at a particular collective identity, it has a degree of randomness, and thus can

be filtered. Similarly, flames are relatively short-lived and have a narrow focus. When

interest in the issue that caused the flame dies, the flame dies as well. Similarly, over

the life of the virtual community, flames will target a range of groups and individuals.

Thus, a representative of a random group in the virtual community will take offense

at some flame, but will read others and feel amusement. Harm, if any, done to a

collective identity is minimal. Occasionally, animosity may develop between

individuals so that one individual leaves. However, although the loss of small

numbers of individuals may influence the virtual community identity, the magnitude

of the loss in no way equals that associated with an assault on a collective identity.

With silencing speech, noise is targeted at disrupting the speech of a collective

identity. It cannot be filtered, because the silencing speech changes to overcome the

filter. Similarly, flames created by the adversarial collective identity are targeted at a

collective identity. Any member of the target group is negatively affected when he/she

reads the flame.

Furthermore, adversarial collective identities desire that the virtual community

identity be characterized by conflict. Conflict reinforces the adversarial aspect of the

collective identity. Thus, unlike the transient flames that occur in most virtual

communities, the flames of silencing speech are enduring. In short, the eternal

disruption of reading (via noise) and posting (via flames) by the adversarial collective

256 C. E. H. Chua


identity destroys communication by the target collective identity, preventing the

formation of the target collective identity.

Addressing Silencing Speech

It is therefore not possible for the target collective identity to embrace silencing

speech, ignore silencing speech or establish technical barriers against it. The target

collective identity cannot embrace silencing speech, because it does not define itself as

an adversary. Conflict diminishes the collective identity. Likewise, it cannot ignore the

silencing speech, because such speech silences the speech of group members, thereby

reducing collective identity. Finally, silencing speech desires to overcome technical

barriers, and harasses virtual community members until it cannot be ignored. In the

Jewish case, disseminators of hate speech would hijack discussions, or change

usernames. Human intervention is necessary.

Furthermore, individual-level protections against silencing speech are needlessly

costly. Every member of a virtual community must update him-/herself each time

silencing speech innovates. Human-driven filters like moderation are thus more

attractive, because only one individual or group must update him-/herself to address

innovation.

Ironically, the best way for both an adversarial and target collective identity to

emerge is to form two virtual communities. One virtual community is moderated to

prohibit the silencing speech. The other is unmoderated to allow the adversarial

collective identity to utter its adversarial speech. A few members of the target

collective identity and supporters of the target collective identity will participate in

the unmoderated community, allowing the conflict to continue.

Note that the above discussion should not be construed as advocacy for regulation

of virtual communities by country governments. On the contrary, this research has

demonstrated that the virtual communities themselves have a mechanism (modera-

tion) sufficient for protecting themselves against silencing speech.

Conclusion

The research literature advocates that virtual communities should impose minimum

authority to promulgate speech. However, many virtual communities enact and

enforce rules specifically to regulate speech in the community (i.e., moderation). This

paper explains moderation via a cross-case analysis of virtual communities. A

successful and an unsuccessfully moderated virtual community are contrasted and

both are compared against their unmoderated equivalents. A third case demonstrates

that findings were generalizable.

The analysis revealed that moderation is necessary to preserve collective identity in

virtual communities. It is argued that a virtual community’s identity comprises

multiple collective identities. Ordinarily, the virtual community’s identity is a function

of the interaction between these collective identities. In virtual communities, collective

identity is created and reinforced through conversation. In some cases, collective

identities define themselves as adversaries of target collective identities. When these



adversarial collective identities create and reinforce their identities online, they create

conversations that target collective identities view as flames and noise. Because the

flames and noise are enduring, they silence the speech of the target group thereby

disrupting its collective identity. It was shown that alternate methods to screen

silencing speech such as technological filters, and ignoring suppressive speech do not

work. Formal governance is the only mechanism that works for silencing speech.

This research has identified silencing speech as one reason for moderation, and

suggests that distinct governance mechanisms must be deployed for separate virtual

communities. Future research must be performed to classify virtual communities and

identify appropriate governance mechanisms for each classification. For example,

should hate speech be governed in a manner distinct from polar political speech, or

missionary speech?

Acknowledgements

This paper received assistance from numerous sources. I would like to thank Pok

Hongling, Tay Yi Pei, and Tin Pay Yng for coding. I would also like to thank Andrew

Burton-Jones, Boh Wai Fong, Suay Bah Chua, Goh Kim Huat, Lim Wee Kiat, Mark L.

Gillenson, Cindy Levey, Mark Keil, Ron Rice, and Christina Soh for comments and

insights on earlier drafts of this paper. I benefited from comments from various

individuals at OASIS 2004 especially Lynette Kvasny, and Noriko Hara. I am also

grateful to members of the Jewish Usenet community for reading and commentary

including Jonathan Baker, Ken Bloom, Henry Goodman, Chanoch Kesselman, Dan

Kimmel, David Roth, Moshe Schorr and those who wish to remain anonymous.

Finally, I am grateful for interviews with members of the Singapore Usenet

community including Wynthia Goh, Tan Chong Kee, William Anthony Timmins,

and Xiao Jinhong. Any mistakes or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author.

References

Adams, J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2005). White supremacists, oppositional culture and the World Wide

Web. Social Forces, 84(2), 759�778.

Aiken, M., & Waller, B. (2000). Flaming among first-time group support system users. Information

and Management, 37(2), 95�100.

Alonzo, M., & Aiken, M. (2004). Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems,

36(3), 205�213.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th

Edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Andrews, D., Preece, J., & Turoff, M. (2002). A conceptual framework for demographic groups

resistant to online community interaction. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3),

9�24.

Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual

knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64�77.

Armstrong, A., & Hagel, J., III. (1996). The real value of on-line communities. Harvard Business

Review, 74(3), 134�140.

258 C. E. H. Chua


Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective

identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1),

80�114.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Bacon, J. (1999). Constructing collective ethnic identities: The case of second generation Asian

Indians. Qualitative Sociology, 22(2), 141�160.

Baker, P. (2001). Moral panic and alternative identity construction in Usenet. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 7(1), 4.

Bernstein, M. (2005). Identity politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 47�74.

Blanchard, A. (2004). Virtual behavior settings: An application of behavior setting theories to

virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(2), 4.

Brown, A. D., & Humphreys, M. (2002). Nostalgia and the narrativization of identity: A Turkish

case study. British Journal of Management, 13(2), 141�159.

Campbell, T. (2004). Internet trolls. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://members.aol.

com/intwg/trolls.htm

Castelfranchi, C., & Tan, Y.-H. (2002). The role of trust and deception in virtual societies.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 55�70.

Chua, C. E. H., & Wareham, J. (2004). Fighting internet auction fraud: An assessment and proposal.

IEEE Computer, 37(10), 23�29.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cothrel, J., & Williams, R. L. (1999). Online communities: Helping them form and grow. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 3(1), 54�60.

Dibbell, J. (1993). A rape in cyberspace. Village Voice, 38. Retrieved May 4, 2003, from http://

www.ludd.luth.se/mud/aber/articles/village_voice.html

Donath, J. S. (1998). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In P. Kollock & M. Smith

(Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 27�58). London: Routledge.

Dutton, W. H. (1996). Network rules of order: Regulating speech in public electronic fora. Media,

Culture, and Society, 18(2), 269�290.

Fulbrook, M. (2002). History of Germany 1918�2000: The divided nation. San Francisco, CA: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Godwin, M. (1994, June). Nine principles for making virtual communities work. Wired, 2.

Retrieved May 4, 2003, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.06/vc.principles.html

Goodman, P. S., & Darr, E. D. (1998). Computer-aided systems and communities: Mechanisms for

organizational learning in distributed environments. MIS Quarterly, 22(4), 417�440.

Greenhill, A., Campbell, J., & Fletcher, G. (2002, August). Tribalism and conflict: Conflict as a social

unifier in a technologically enabled community. Paper presented at the eighth Americas

Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, TX.

Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role of

conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 58�77.

Herring, S. C. (1999). The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment online. The Information

Society, 15(3), 151�167.

Herring, S. C., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online:

Managing ‘‘trolling’’ in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18(5), 371�384.

Hiltz, S. R., & Johnson, K. (1990). User satisfaction with computer-mediated communication

systems. Management Science, 36(6), 739�764.

Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1985). Structuring computer-mediated communication systems to avoid

information overload. Communications of the ACM, 28(7), 680�689.

Honeycutt, C. (2005). Hazing as a process of boundary maintenance in an online community.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), 3.

Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (1999). The effect of computer-mediated communication on

agreement and acceptance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(1), 165�188.



http://members.aol.com/intwg/ trolls.htm

http://members.aol.com/intwg/ trolls.htm

http://www.ludd.luth.se/mud/aber/articles/village_voice.html

http://www.ludd.luth.se/mud/aber/articles/village_voice.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.06/vc.principles.html

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive

field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67�94.

Koh, J., & Kim, Y.-G. (2001). Sense of virtual community: Determinants and the moderating role of the

virtual community origin. Paper presented at the twenty-second international conference on

Information Systems, New Orleans, LA.

Koh, J., & Kim, Y.-G. (2003). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and empirical

validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75�93.

Kollock, P. (1996). Design principles for online communities. Paper presented at the Harvard

conference on the Internet and Society, Cambridge, MA.

Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements,

activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691�704.

Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing

qualitative research (Vol. 3, pp. 31�44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of

Sociology, 28, 167�195.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Biometrics, 33(1), 79�94.

Lehman, R. S. (1988). Statistics and research design in the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Myers, M. D. (1999). Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Communica-

tions of the AIS, 2(23), 1�19.

Ogden, D. C., & Hilt, M. L. (2003). Collective identity and basketball: An explanation for the

decreasing number of African-Americans on America’s baseball diamonds. Journal of Leisure

Research, 35(2), 213�227.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Pfaff, S. (1996). Collective identity and informal groups in revolutionary mobilization: East

Germany in 1989. Social Forces, 75(1), 91�118.

Phillips, D. J. (1996). Defending the boundaries: Identifying and countering threats in a Usenet

newsgroup. The Information Society, 12(1), 39�62.

Polletta, F. (1998). Contending stories: Narrative in social movements. Qualitative Sociology, 21(4),

419�446.

Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of

Sociology, 27, 283�305.

Poor, N. (2005). Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 10(2), 4.

Ray, R., & Korteweg, A. C. (1999). Women’s movements in the third world: Identity, mobilization,

and autonomy. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 47�71.

Reinig, B. A., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1997/1998). Flaming in the electronic classroom.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(3), 45�59.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Rothaermel, F. T., & Sugiyama, S. (2001). Virtual Internet communities and commercial success:

Individual and community-level theory grounded in the atypical case of TimeZone.Com.

Journal of Management, 27(3), 297�312.

Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity. The American Psychologist,

56(4), 319�331.

Slagle, R. A. (1995). In defense of queer nation: From identity politics to a politics of difference.

Western Journal of Communication, 59(2), 85�102.

260 C. E. H. Chua


Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. (2002). Toward a community-oriented design of Internet platforms.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 71�95.

Sternberg, J. (2000). Virtual misbehavior: Breaking rules of conduct in online environments. Paper

presented at the Media Ecology Association, New York.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suleiman, R. (2002). Perception of the minority’s collective identity and voting behavior: The case

of the Palestinians in Israel. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(6), 753�766.

Suler, J. R., & Phillips, W. (1998). The bad boys of cyberspace: Deviant behavior in multimedia chat

communities. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 1, 275�294.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Toothaker, L. E. (1993). Multiple comparison procedures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Triandafyllidou, A., & Wodak, R. (2003). Conceptual and methodological questions in the study of

collective identities. Journal of Language and Politics, 2(2), 205�223.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the

social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Van Aalst, P., & Walgrave, S. (2002). New media, new movements? The role of the Internet in

shaping the ‘‘anti-globalization’’ movement. Information, Communication and Society, 5(4),

465�493.

Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). ‘‘It is what one does’’: Why people participate and help others in

electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2/3), 155�173.

Weiss, M. (2003). The ‘‘chosen body’’: A semiotic analysis of the discourse of Israeli militarism and

collective identity. Semiotica, 145(1/4), 151�173.

Williams, R. L., & Cothrel, J. (2000). Four smart ways to run online communities. Sloan

Management Review, 41(4), 81�91.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.



Documents

Communication Monographs Why Do Virtual …docs.business.auckland.ac.nz/Doc/Working-paper-Why-do-virtual... · Why Do Virtual Communities Regulate Speech? Cecil Eng Huang Chua Virtual