'All Women Are Like That': Men Going Their Own Way: Understanding the Interplay Between Online Platforms and Counterpublic Dynamics

(1)

i

‘All Women Are Like That’

Men Going Their Own Way: Understanding the Interplay Between

Online Platforms and Counterpublic Dynamics

Emma Aler

Master’s Thesis, 30 Credits

Master’s Programme in Political Science, Autumn Term 2020 Uppsala University, Department of Government

Supervisor: Malin Holm Word count: 19 961

(2)

ii

Abstract

This thesis examines the role of online platforms in relation to anti-progressive counterpublic dynamics. Counterpublics are understood as alternative discursive arenas that form in response to exclusion from the wider public sphere. The relevance of counterpublics derives both from their ability to influence mainstream political discourse and from how anti-progressive counterpublics have been found to contribute to real-life violence. As the internet becomes an increasingly important venue for political discussion and contestation, the public sphere is extended online. This study explores how platforms can be seen as enabling (or constraining) the dual function of online counterpublics, i.e. as both inward and outward-oriented in relation to opposing publics, by examining the anti-feminist online community known as “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW). The role of platforms is understood in terms of platform affordances, and netnographic methods were used to study these in relation to two online platforms. The results show that the two platforms presented different opportunities for the MGTOW counterpublic to some extent, suggesting that this counterpublic is able to utilise platforms for different purposes. Twitter was found to be particularly suitable for the outward-oriented function, i.e. for interacting with and opposing other publics, while mgtow.com was shown to be fertile ground for the inward-oriented function, and in that sense enabled contact between members in a way that contributed to the development of anti-progressive counterdiscourse.

Key words: counterpublics, online platforms, platform affordances, netnography, public sphere, anti-feminism

(3)

iii

Introduction

The struggle between feminists and anti-feminists, or Men’s Rights Activists (MRA’s), has drawn a lot of attention in recent years. With the emergence of social media platforms, this “culture war” has spread to most corners of the internet. Online MRA communities are often associated with online harassment, usually directed towards women and feminists (Van Valkenburg 2018). However, there have also been instances of “real-life” violence derived from anti-feminist mobilisation, as exemplified by “Gamergate” and the “Isla Vista-shootings” (Gray et al. 2017; Rodger 2014; Van Valkenburg 2018, p. 2). Together, these communities are often referred to as the “Manosphere”. The Manosphere contains several different communities that all have their roots in the MRA movement, despite otherwise having somewhat different philosophies and goals. It can be found all across the internet and on an array of different platforms. Importantly, previous studies of online-based movements have highlighted how the internet as a platform for social mobilisation presents new opportunities for equal participation in political discourse (Lindgren 2017). However, certain platforms have been shown to instead enable the development of anti-progressive communities, such as the ones found in the Manosphere (see Holm 2019; Massanari 2017). As more political discourse takes place online, we need to understand the workings of anti-progressive communities which otherwise risk becoming a hotbed for extremism.

A way of understanding these online social communities is as counterpublics; as social and discursive entities competing for power and influence in the online sphere. Counterpublics are understood in relation to the wider concept of the public sphere (as described by Habermas, 1989), as important spaces for the formation of alternative political discourse1_{(Fraser 1990).}

It is used to describe how new discursive entities have developed within the public sphere, as a response to exclusion from “mainstream” publics (Asen 2000, p. 424). With the internet and online platforms becoming increasingly important political venues, the public sphere has been extended online. The function of counterpublics is twofold: As venues for formulating counterdiscourses, and as spaces from which other publics can be targeted. Studies of counterpublics have up until recently been focused on marginalised or oppressed groups, that strive for progression and equality. In this sense, progressive counterpublics have functioned

1_{Discourse is here understood as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world” (Jorgensen}

(5)

2 as spaces for political innovation and mobilisation. Although online platforms have given new opportunities for open discussion and inclusion, we also see how anti-progressive communities such as the Manosphere become more influential in these spaces. We therefore need to explore both how anti-progressive groups are targeting mainstream discourse in online spaces, and how online platforms affect anti-progressive discourses and thus possibly provide the opportunities for these to grow and be sustained.

There are thus both empirical and theoretical justifications for studying different parts of the Manosphere as counterpublics. The Manosphere is, despite its relative size and importance, fairly understudied. The increasingly hostile and violent misogynistic discourse of the Manosphere has been shown to not only shape the beliefs of its members, but to have had very real consequences for women who have been targets of threats, harassment and acts of violence both online and offline (see e.g. Gray et al. 2017). These developments call for the need to study the Manosphere further. Similarly, it has been instrumental for discourses of men’s rights, anti-feminism and masculinity, which has been developing as a response to the progression of gender equality and changing gender roles and norms in recent years (see Alani et al. 2019; Ging 2019; Marwick and Caplan 2018; Van Valkenburgh 2018).

This thesis is hence interested in how the dual function of counterpublics is affected by online platforms, specifically exploring how platforms can be said to enable or constrain dynamics within counterpublics. The aim is to provide novel perspectives in relation to previous research, by studying these dynamics within one community and comparing its presence on two different online platforms. This relation is usually understood through the concept of platform affordances (see Holm 2019, Hutchby 2001, Massanari 2017). Platform affordances either enable or constrain certain behaviour in relation to a specific platform. As previous research has shown that certain platforms are favourable environments for anti-progressive counterpublics (see e.g. Massanari 2017), this should be investigated further. However, studies of counterpublics have mostly been focused on subaltern or marginalised groups, which form in response to exclusion from the wider public sphere. The focus for this thesis is however on how counterpublics might form as a consequence of perceived exclusion rather than an actual subaltern position in relation to dominant publics (Asen 2000)2_{. There is a small but growing}

number of studies concerned with counterpublics in online environments, mostly focused on

(6)

3 progressive communities (e.g. boyd 2010; Salter 2018; Travers 2003), while only a few have studied anti-progressive counterpublics (see Holm 2019; Törnberg & Wahlström 2018). Studies of the Manosphere have mostly focused on understanding how masculinities are constructed in this context (see e.g. Banet-Weiser & Miltner 2016; Ging 2019; Marwick & Caplan 2018; Van Valkenburgh 2018), as well as how different communities within the wider Manosphere have formed a common identity (see e.g. Burgess & Matamoros-Fernández 2018; Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020). However, we need to learn more how platform affordances affect counterpublic dynamics, if we are to understand how these publics increase their influence on online platforms.

The analysis will be focused on a specific Manosphere counterpublic with an anti-progressive and anti-feminist agenda, namely “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW). MGTOW is a group dedicated to avoiding all relationships (or even general contact) with women as a reaction to what they believe is the “gynocentric” world order. The group is understood as privileged3

in relation to the publics that they oppose. This is motivated by how members describe their own situation and status, which is usually as heterosexual, well-educated and with material and monetary resources (which will be elaborated upon below). While there have been a few studies that have specifically studied the MGTOW community, these have been focused on either mapping the content of discussions through quantitative methods or using textual analysis to look more closely at a single platform, rather than how it functions as a counterpublic. This study can therefore hopefully contribute with a small piece to the puzzle of how online environments affect non-equitable discourses, and how we can see counterpublics as spaces for anti-progressive discursive formation as well as progressive.

Aim and Research Question

The aim of this thesis is to explore the role of platforms in mediating counterpublic dynamics. This thesis does not seek to make causal claims, but to study behaviour and actions in relation to, and in the context of the platforms. The analysis will be focused on the MGTOW community, understood as a part of the so-called “Manosphere”. The relevance of this case stems primarily from links between the Manosphere and real-life violence, and the importance

3_{Privilege is understood as having “social, economic, cultural, and political advantages” which others are}

denied, as a consequence of social structures shaping norms and ideals in terms of social grouping (Sparks 2020).

(7)

4 of online political discourse for the public sphere (see Dahlgren 2005; Paparacharissi 2002). The study is further motivated by how certain online platforms have been shown to provide support for already privileged groups, such as different Manosphere communities, as a consequence of their design (see Holm 2019; Massanari 2017). The overarching research question is therefore: How do platform affordances enable (or constrain) the dual function of online counterpublics with anti-progressive agendas?

The emerging field concerned with anti-progressive counterpublics has so far been dominated by in-depth case studies. Subsequently, comparisons across platforms have been few. MGTOW will therefore be studied in relation to two different online platforms. The purpose of this is to further explore how platform affordances affect the dual function of counterpublics, i.e. as both outward- and inward-oriented discursive spaces. Two different platforms have been selected for analysis: Twitter and the “official” MGTOW website (mgtow.com). Finally, the analysis will be conducted using netnography (Kozinets 2010), which can provide us with novel perspectives of the relationship between online platforms and political discourse, considering that this is not a method that is commonly used in political science. Thematic analysis is then used to sort and categorise the material in accordance with the analytical framework, which will be presented below.

Thesis Outline

The structure of this thesis is as follows: Firstly, previous research of relevance to this study is presented and discussed, focusing on studies of the Manosphere. A theoretical overview is then presented, where the concepts of the public sphere, counterpublic theory and platform affordances are introduced. This section is concluded with an analytical framework, which serves as the basis for the analysis. This is followed by a section devoted to research design, with a discussion on method, material, case selection and ethical considerations. The analysis is then presented, where each counterpublic function is examined in relation to theoretically and empirically relevant platform affordances. Finally, there will be a concluding discussion where the findings are reflected upon in terms of how they contribute to the field.

(8)

5

Previous Research

This section provides an overview of previous research concerning the Manosphere as a whole, and MGTOW in particular. We have enough knowledge about how the internet can facilitate social movements, to say that digital tools such as platforms can contribute to political change (Lindgren 2017, p. 182). Research on online movements have thus become more common and generally accepted (Kozinets 2010, pp. 1-3). Studies of online counterpublics have been focused on marginalised and progressive groups, who utilise online platforms to forward their agenda and formulate counterdiscourses (see e.g. Kuo 2018; Salter 2013; Travers 2003). Anti-progressive and extreme right movements, such as the ”alt-right” movement, have also been shown to successfully mobilise on these platforms (see e.g. Hawley 2017; Nagle 2017; Törnberg and Wahlström 2018). However, specifically anti-feminist counterpublics need to be researched further. We can see from events such as “Gamergate” and the Isla Vista shootings that what happens within the online anti-feminist community can have great implications for the political discourse outside of it, as well as contributing to real-life violence. Therefore, this section will begin with a discussion of the internet as a venue for political discussion. A description of the Manosphere will follow, which provides the context for understanding MGTOW as a community. This section will also discuss how previous research has dealt with studying different parts of the Manosphere.

The Internet as a Public Sphere?

When it was first introduced, the internet had the potential to “revolutionize most areas of social life”, (ibid., p. 46) and evidence suggests that this in many ways came true. The internet would enable free political discussion, by facilitating connections and inclusive discussion (Daniels 2009, p. 46). Optimists even hypothesized that since online communication would lower thresholds for political participation, this would facilitate the development of a “global democracy” of sorts (Papacharissi 2002, p. 10). Nonetheless, the prospects for the internet to become an inclusive and democratic arena for discussion now looks somewhat different (Lindgren 2017, p. 46). Papacharissi (2002, p. 10) points to the number of political groups and activists online, showing that the internet undoubtedly is a very political space. Easy access to information and possibilities to engage with people on the other side of the globe have certainly enabled political discussion. However, the fact that these opportunities exist does not necessarily ensure greater, or more equitable, political activity (ibid., p. 15). We can now see

(9)

6 that cyberspace is becoming increasingly fragmented, resulting in more interconnected, but not necessarily more diverse, communities. Others have questioned how genuine online political activism really is, compared to more traditional forms of engagement (ibid., p. 17). Nonetheless, Dahlgren (2005) points to the role of the internet in facilitating and reinforcing offline political engagement.

Lindgren (2017) further argues that although digital spaces were initially thought of as something separate from everyday life, they have now become embedded with our lives, to the extent that we can fully understand them only when seen in the context of “offline” realities. Importantly, digital platforms will also signify different things depending on the people, groups or social movements that uses them (p. 266). In that sense, it is of great interest to political science, as well as other fields, to explore the ways in which the internet functions as a public sphere. We have seen that the internet has become a place for non-egalitarian groups as well as progressive ones to contest dominant discourses, making it crucial to understand how online environments affect counterpublics. The Manosphere is particularly relevant in relation to the development of anti-progressive online communities, which will be discussed further in the next section.

The Manosphere

When looking at the loosely connected community that constitutes online anti-feminism, the Manosphere seems to be the epicentre. The Manosphere is therefore of interest for this analysis, or rather, the MGTOW counterpublic as part of this larger community. This corner of the internet contains a number of online anti-feminist communities with some important ideological similarities (see e.g. Alani et al. 2019; Marwick and Caplan 2018). MRAs, Incels, gamergaters, pickup artists and MGTOW are all groups who have found commonality within this space. Although there are now a growing number of studies focusing on the Manosphere, our understanding of it is still relatively limited. Nevertheless, the Manosphere is important to understand both from a theoretical and an empirical standpoint. Most of the ideas behind the “philosophies” and ideas found in the Manosphere originate from the MRA community or the “Men’s Liberation” movement. Initially a continuation of the feminist movement, scholars in this field pointed to how men also could be negatively affected by a patriarchal society. The focus was on drafting requirements, unequal child support legislation and the dangers of traditional masculinity norms (Marwick and Caplan 2018, p. 546). While these ideas are still

(10)

7 central to the movement today, most contemporary MRA’s are both anti-feminist and pro-men’s liberation and have therefore abandoned some of these ideas (Alani et al. 2019). This movement is described by Marwick and Caplan (ibid.) as “a reaction to diminishing social status of cisgender white men, and the emergence of feminist and multicultural activism as a mainstream political force”. “The Red Pill” (TRP) is an idea shared by most communities in the Manosphere, but also a movement in itself – “Taking the red pill” signifies waking up to the evils of society, which is an idea borrowed from the film “The Matrix”. Saying that someone is “Blue Pilled” on the other hand means that you are unaware of this “truth”. In the Manosphere, this often means realising how feminism has given women power over men, and that women are not in fact discriminated against in modern society (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020).

Recent studies have shown that misogyny, violence and hostility against women are prevalent throughout the Manosphere. Alani et al. (2019) studied patterns of language and ideas across several communities on Reddit that are considered a part of the Manosphere. Their study shows an increase in misogynistic attitudes and that hostility and violence are directed towards women to an increasing extent. Their findings further suggest that violent rhetoric often appears together with expressions of misogyny. Certain elements of the Manosphere have been connected to instances of real-life violence. The misogynistic jargon within this community has been shown to normalise anti-women sentiments and even serve to radicalise some of its members, why it is important to understand the community better. An example that is often mentioned is that of Isla Vista mass-shooter Elliot Rodger, who accredited his radicalisation and misogynist beliefs to Manosphere websites. According to his manifesto, the killings were motivated by his own disappointment in his sexual endeavours and his hatred towards women (Rodger 2014; Van Valkenburg 2018, p. 2). Kimmel (2013) describes the anger that can be felt by groups in a privileged position, when they experience external threats to that position, with the term aggrieved entitlement. This can be understood as something which is fuelling toxicity in certain contexts. Kimmel describes the sense of anger that is felt when something thought of as a “God-given right” is taken away. His study is focused on the American context, in which many men today feel threatened by the successes of feminism and equality, in the sense that they are seeing their own privileges disappearing. This in turn fuels a “politically motivated anger”, the results of which can be seen in the growing men’s rights movement, and in politically motivated shootings and violence (ibid., p. 26). Kimmel writes: “the game has changed, but instead of questioning the rules, they want to eliminate the other players” (p. 15).

(11)

8 He describes men’s violence against women as restorative, or as a way of expressing power. This violence seems to be fuelled by a sense of loss and vulnerability. If it is a man’s right to have a relationship with a woman, using violence as a way of protecting that right might seem legitimate (pp. 169-177). The Manosphere can be interpreted as a result of how this violence is legitimised within anti-feminist communities.

There are a few groups within the Manosphere that have been studied before. The Gamergate controversy has been studied as an example of how online discourse can have an impact on “offline” realities. For example, Gray et al. (2017, pp. 1-2) focuses on the real-life violence that women and other marginalised groups experience in the gaming community, and how it has been normalised through a structural and institutional “culture of inequality” with its most notable peak in the events of Gamergate in 2014. Gamergate has been described as a hate campaign against women in the gaming industry. The movement that developed from the Gamergate controversy represents how for a long time, this male-dominated space has fostered a normalisation of different kinds of violence against women in games, to such an extent that it has triggered violence against women in real life. Specifically, Gray et al. points to the symbolic violence that women in gaming are frequently exposed to, for example in the form of doxing (having personal information published online without one’s consent), rape and death threats, and threats of violence. Gamergate is an example of how online anti-feminist discourse can have “real-life” consequences, and other communities and groups have been studied in similar ways. Massanari (2017, p. 330) poses the question of how the affordances of a specific platform, i.e. Reddit, enable anti-feminist activism, arguing that the ways in which it is designed and managed support already privileged groups (usually white, young, cis-gendered, heterosexual men). Using two cases of “toxic technocultures”, Gamergate and “The Fappening”, Massanari shows through ethnographic study and observation how these communities could grow and be sustained on Reddit as a result of the platform’s specific affordances. Reddit’s design, the logic behind its algorithm, the way it is governed and administered to ensure that it is a “neutral” platform for discussion, and the lack of intervention by administrators is shown to have been instrumental in the development of these publics (ibid., pp. 341-342). Furthermore, Ging (2019, p. 644) looks specifically at constructions of masculinities across the Manosphere. Her results suggest a prevalence of hybrid masculinities, that are united in a dissatisfaction with the successes of feminism. Next, Van Valkenburg (2018) uses critical textual analysis to study the r/TRP subreddit, which has become a central part of the Manosphere, and finds that this community favours a “scientific rationality”.

(12)

9 Women’s (and men’s) sexual behaviour is understood through biology or genetic determinism, explaining why some men are favoured as partners over others. Men are thought of as either “alpha” or “beta”-male. A central idea is that women are only interested in having sexual relations with alpha males, while beta males are the ones chosen for procreation and marriage. As we can see, misogyny and sexism are prevalent themes within the Manosphere. We have seen that this can have an impact on “real-life” events and that these communities can be expected to influence the general political discussion online, making it particularly relevant to study Manosphere communities as counterpublics to understand how they contest mainstream discourses. Next, the MGTOW counterpublic, which is the focus of this study, will be more closely examined.

Men Going Their Own Way

This thesis will be focused on a particular community within the Manosphere, namely “Men Going Their Own Way”. Understood by most as a more recent phenomenon that emerged from online MRA and TRP contexts, MGTOW presents itself as a movement which can be traced back far in history: “Way back to Schopenhauer, Tesla, Beethoven, Galileo, or even Jesus Christ” according to the website mgtow.com, which has become a central platform. The act of “going your own way” is described as something that successful men have done for centuries, making its current form but a continuation of this. Interestingly, this website is very different from Reddit and other similar platforms where Manosphere communities are active. The colour scheme is dark and the “home page” contains images of famous men that supposedly represent the MGTOW movement. MGTOW is a group dedicated to avoiding all relationships (or even general contact) with women as a reaction to what they believe is the “gynocentric” world order. Their beliefs are based on the idea that modern society is constructed to the unfair advantage of women, resulting in men rather than women being oppressed as a group (O’Donnell 2020, p. 655). This movement has been understood as a backlash against the successes of feminism (Gotell and Dutton 2016). According to this philosophy, men and masculinity are under attack from the left and its political correctness, in a way that threatens Western society as a whole (O’Donnell 2020, p. 655). Visitors to mgtow.com are greeted by the following message: “There has been an awakening. Changing the world. One man at a time”, as to signify waking up to “the truth” about how society is constructed. This message seems to lie at the heart of the community.

(13)

10 A few studies have focused solely on the MGTOW community, mostly investigating their discursive practices and processes of identity-building. Jones, Trott, and Wright (2019) conducted a content and thematic analysis of a large number of posts by three “key users” on Twitter. They find that MGTOW relies on a jargon and belief system that is to a large extent based on “toxic masculinity” and misogyny (ibid., p. 1917). A majority of posts that mention women are hateful, often describing women as gold diggers, sluts or liars, suggesting a misogynistic ideology with ties to “toxic masculinity”. Most of these posts are examples of passive harassment, which serves to create a sense of commonality between members of the group through the normalisation of misogyny and sexism. The study by Jones, Trott, and Wright from 2020 (p. 908) focuses on communitarian behaviour in the forum on the MGTOW-website. They find that most discussions are focused on either women or the nature of the group itself. Most users have adopted an openly misogynist rhetoric. Focus was hence on defining their ideology and rationalising it on both an individual and group level, through discussions of how to properly “go your own way”, or stories of how women have betrayed or cheated members of the community. This storytelling is used to convey how or why one has become “red pilled” and decided to join the community. Femininity is usually framed as a threat to masculinity, and these are seen as opposing one another. Gender is furthermore discussed in essentialist terms, and this view is often rationalised by references to science, technology, philosophy or religion (ibid., p. 920).

From other studies, we understand the concept of “alpha” and “beta” males, which also can be found in the MGTOW community. This is the idea that since women only are sexually interested in “alpha” men, a marriage with a “beta” man will more often than not result in a divorce where he is stripped of his financial assets (Ging 2019, p. 650). The concept of alpha and beta men seems to have originated from the PUA community but has now been widely adopted throughout the Manosphere. Interestingly, in the MGTOW community, Incels and MRA’s are often referred to as beta male while MGTOWs are rather seen as “normal” men. Nevertheless, their experiences with women have led them to subsequently become “red pilled” (ibid.). While undoubtedly similar, MGTOW seems to have developed a distinct understanding of masculinity which separates them from other groups in the Manosphere (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020, p. 1904-5).

Apart from the studies described above, we know very little about MGTOW and how it can be understood as a counterpublic. The studies above have been focused on ideology and rhetoric,

(14)

11 but we have limited knowledge about how they use different platforms, or what role different platforms have in terms of discourse. With these studies as a starting point, this analysis will therefore explore this further. In previous studies, some future areas for research are mentioned, such as cross-platform comparison, and further studies of ideology and motivations behind MGTOW. It is specifically mentioned by Jones, Trott and Wright (2020, p. 922) that future research could benefit from studying interactions between this and different publics on other platforms. The aim of this research has therefore been formulated with this perspective as a starting point.

Theory

The following section is devoted to a theoretical overview, representing a framework which will be used to guide and structure the analysis, as well as putting it in relation to central issues in the field of publics and affordances. Firstly, there will be a review of counterpublic theory. Following this, there will be a discussion of the role of platform affordances in relation to online communities.

(Non-)Subaltern Counterpublics: Anti-Progressive Struggles

The concept of the public sphere was introduced by Jürgen Habermas in his seminal work from 1989, to explain the workings of public opinion in Western representative democracy. Habermas described the public sphere as “private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state” (p. 176). The function of the public sphere was scrutinising political decision-making and ensuring that public opinion was heard by politicians and the like. Habermas’ public sphere was that of the 18th century bourgeoisie, but what constitutes a public in modern society has been widely debated, and scholars have since both criticized and developed his ideas. Warner (2002, pp. 49-50) suggests three options: A public can either be seen as a “social totality”, meaning a specific group belonging to some kind of community, such as the population of a state or a city. A public can also be understood as a concrete and visible audience or crowd. Finally, a public can exist purely in relation to a text, as a space of discourse. When looking at online behaviour, Warner’s categories become somewhat tricky to distinguish between. With new technologies, we gain tools and information that can change the ways in which we engage in political conversation (Papacharissi 2002, p.

(15)

12 10). However, understanding an online public as either a “social totality” or as a space of discourse might be helpful. As new modes of communication develop, we must consider the concept of the public sphere in novel contexts.

One of those criticising Habermas’ public sphere was Nancy Fraser, who expanded on the idea by claiming that there in fact are multiple public spheres, rather than just one. She coined the term subaltern counterpublic to explain how there are non-liberal spheres in conflict with the liberal public sphere, something which was not considered by Habermas (1990, p. 62). Asen (2000, pp. 425-427) also calls for a recognition of social complexity in our theorising of the public sphere, building on Foucauldian ideas of discourse as a mediator of power. Members of counterpublics would seek alternative discursive practices, in response to exclusion from “wider” public spheres. Fraser (1990, pp. 61-62) stated that counterpublics have developed as a result of the exclusionary nature of the liberal public sphere. For example, how women who have been excluded from the public sphere, on the basis of their gender, instead have resorted to “spheres of domesticity and motherhood” as a discursive arena. Other historically marginalised groups have similarly resorted to other “private” arenas. Because these alternative publics are constituted by marginalised groups, Fraser proposed to label them subaltern counterpublics (ibid., p. 67). She argued that there not only are many competing public spheres, with a plethora of competing interests, but that this is desirable in an egalitarian society (ibid., pp. 69-70). Subaltern counterpublics can hence function as a place for subordinated groups to mobilise and contest dominant discourses or power structures (Holm 2019, p. 19). As a venue of contestation, their function is usually twofold. By using outward-oriented activities, they can attempt to target or influence dominant publics, to compete with dominant discourses and try to contest them (Fraser 1990, p. 68), often in public spaces where there is possibility for interaction across publics (Holm 2019, p. 19). Inward-oriented aspects of the counterpublic are on the other hand used as “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (Fraser 1990, p. 67). We will return to the twofold function of counterpublics in the analytical framework.

Recent studies have suggested that the concept of subaltern counterpublic is too narrow, in that it does not fully encompass the variety of counterpublics. Holm (2019, p. 39) states that focus has mostly been on studying “progressive” counterpublics, constituted by historically marginalised groups, and their struggle in relation to dominant publics. Holm and others are

(16)

13 now putting focus on privileged groups and how they work to maintain power. Specifically, her study shows how an anti-progressive counterpublic utilises online platforms, to forward a political agenda which supports their already privileged position. The concept of non-subaltern counterpublic has been proposed by Holm (ibid.) as useful for understanding these dynamics. By doing this, we focus more on how counterpublics can perceive subordination in relation to dominant publics, as Asen (2000, p. 427) has argued, allowing for analysis of non-subaltern and anti-progressive publics which will be the focus for this thesis. Nonetheless, the term non-subaltern does not merely suggest that a specific group experiences subordination when they in fact are not in such a position relative to other groups, but it is used to describe a public which is in actuality in a position of privilege.

Non-subaltern, anti-progressive counterpublics might however be excluded from dominant or mainstream publics due to political incompatibilities. Holm argues that the relevance of including and studying these as counterpublics lies in how privilege is reproduced and thus used to target or challenge dominant publics (2019, p. 13). Although counterpublics associated with MRA and the Manosphere would rather state that women (and feminists) are the ones in power in modern society (Jones, Trott, and Wright 2020, p. 1918), it is still relevant for this analysis to consider their structural privilege as men in a patriarchal society. From previous research we also know that certain online environments support a specific kind of toxic masculinity, meaning that male privilege is specifically reproduced in this context (Massanari 2017).

This study aims to contribute to our understanding of how privileged groups act in relation to dominant discourses that they perceive as threatening to their position. In this way, our interest lies in how anti-progressive counterpublics are contesting mainstream discourses as a way of maintaining or defending their privilege. We understand their process of contestation as having two sides, consisting of actions that are either inward - or outward-oriented. How anti-progressive counterpublics dynamics function in an online environment is of special interest, as shown in how online environments are becoming increasingly important as public, political venues. The following section is devoted to the concept of platform affordances, which is useful for understanding how online publics relate to online platforms.

(17)

14 Platform Affordances

Online discourses are inevitably mediated by different online platforms. In order to understand them, we therefore need to look at how they are affected by these platforms. Gillespie (2010) writes about “platform politics”, suggesting that the term platform bears a certain significance for how online communication is moderated. Rather than simply being an open and neutral space for communication, Gillespie urges us to consider the political and economic reasoning behind calling something a “platform”. He uses the example of YouTube to explain how companies behind such platforms use the term strategically, stating that rebranding the site as a platform allowed the company to be positioned “between user-generated and commercially-produced content, between cultivating community and serving up advertising, between intervening in the delivery of content and remaining neutral” (p. 348). Gillespie points to how platforms have the potential to shape how users interact with a website, which brings us to the concept of affordances.

Hutchby (2001, p. 444) argues that “affordances are functional and relational aspects which frame, while not determining, the possibilities for agentic action in relation to an object.” Affordances thus shape user behaviour in relation to artifacts (Bucher and Helmond 2018, p. 3). It has been conceptualised as “the range of functions and constraints that an object provides for, and places upon, structurally situated subjects” (Chouinard and Davis 2016, p. 241). Technological affordances are hence understood as the possibilities and restrictions that emerge from interaction with a certain technology, in this case certain platforms (Azad and Faraj 2013, p. 5). Considering how developments in technology always restructure how we utilise it, this is not so different from using other types of media or structures to communicate. Neither is our behaviour determined by affordances per se, but they can provide the structure for how we engage with it (boyd 2010, p. 15). Hutchby (2001, p. 448; 2014, p. 2) argued that affordances both have functional and relational aspects. They are functional in that they enable or constrain certain actions (Hutchby 2001, p. 448), which in the case of platforms is a result of design and governance (Holm 2019, p. 57). They are however relational in the sense that they are given meaning in relation to the user, seen in how affordances are perceived as enabling or constraining, but also in how they were designed with specific intentions (Hutchby 2001, p. 448).

(18)

15 Recent studies of online communities suggest that we look closely at the role of affordances, particularly in contexts where a culture of toxicity has been established. Massanari’s (2015, 2017) studies of communities on Reddit show that some aspects of Reddit’s affordances have enabled a misogynistic culture. She uses the phrase “toxic technocultures” to refer to the typically harsh and male-centred culture seen on for example Reddit, 4chan and Twitter (2017, p. 333). In the case of the Gamergate controversy, lack of accountability is pointed out as a contributing factor to the continued harassment of women in the gaming industry. As Gamergate was a “leaderless” community, and because they used platforms that allowed for use of pseudonyms or complete anonymity, this hindered anyone from being held accountable for their harassment campaigns. An important difference between for example Reddit and 8chan, is Reddit’s system of moderators within each smaller community, or subreddit, and that Reddit users have pseudonyms rather than being fully anonymous. This should suggest that discussions on Reddit are somewhat more controlled by the moderators, but this does not seem to always have the effect that was wished for (pp. 334 - 335). This is an example how both functional and relational affordances provide restraints and opportunities for a community.

In the case of the subreddit called /r/thefappening, centred on sharing and discussing leaked nude photos of female celebrities, Massanari points to Reddit’s algorithm. When new photos were shared and then upvoted by users, these ended up on the Reddit “homepage” (/r/all) which could be seen by everyone visiting the site. Thus, the community grew quickly, and the images were widely spread around the internet (p. 335). In a more general analysis of Reddit’s so-called “platform politics”, i.e. the combination of a platforms design, norms and policies, Massanari concludes that a lack of moderation in combination with Reddit’s karma system for upvoting posts, have created a sense of a democratic and free community. However, while remaining “neutral” in relation to the site’s more controversial content, Reddit has instead fostered a culture of toxicity. The ways in which for example Reddit has been shown to indirectly support anti-progressive and anti-egalitarian groups, displays the importance of understanding how online based counterpublics are shaped by platform affordances. Much like Massanari demonstrates that certain platform affordances had an impact on discursive formation within the Reddit community, we can expect that other platforms will affect online communities by either enabling or constraining certain behaviour.

Because we have seen that platform affordances affect discourse within online publics, affordances should in turn affect the dual function of counterpublics, i.e. as both outward- and

(19)

16 inward-oriented discursive spaces (Asen 2000; Fraser 1990). The inward-oriented function of counterpublics is, as described above, focused on formulating counterdiscourses within the community. Both Twitter and mgtow.com could potentially be used by the MGTOW counterpublic for inward-oriented activities, as both provide tools for communicating within the counterpublic. The second, outward-oriented function, differs in that the focus is on communication and interaction with other publics. We might expect that Twitter allows for communication with other publics in a way that the MGTOW-forum does not. Since it has been shown that Twitter’s inclusive design can enable a reproduction of existing privilege (Holm and Castro, 2018), it is especially interesting to explore whether Twitter as a platform enables counterpublics’ this outward-oriented function.

The Affordances of Association, Anonymity and Extreme Public Expression

There are three affordances derived from previous research, that are deemed central specifically for how online platforms affect anti-progressive counterpublics. These are association, anonymity and extreme public expression. Firstly, Treem and Leonardi (2013) describe the affordance of association as either consisting of social ties between individuals, or as ties between a user and the content that they post (p. 143). Social connections are at the very centre of online platforms and will therefore have implications for both users and other visitors to a particular website. This will affect how “socialization, knowledge sharing, and power processes” take place on the platform (Treem & Leonardi 2013, p. 143). As shown above, Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) suggest that discussions within the MGTOW counterpublic are primarily focused on identity-building, in line with how the exchanging of ideas is seen as a central function of counterpublics. Association is additionally made possible through online platforms despite individuals being geographically distant from each other (Holm 2019, p. 59). The Manosphere has been described as a partly organised and “networked” community, in which individuals are able to find a sense of commonality in shared experiences (Marwick and Caplan 2018, p. 543). Other studies show how men interested in MRA ideologies are able to connect with like-minded people through online communities with very specific, normative structures (Banet-Weiser and Miltner 2016, p. 173). Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) have further shown that MGTOW rely on storytelling for creating a sense of community, why the affordance of association will be relevant to study in relation to this particular counterpublic.

(20)

17 On both Twitter and the MGTOW website there are several possible ways of communicating and connecting with other users. On Twitter (twitter.com), posting ‘tweets’ is the primary way of communicating a message, which can be ‘liked’ and commented on by your followers. When it comes to connecting directly with other users, there is the option of direct messages, but there is also the possibility to ‘retweet’ another user and thereby connect with them through their own post. Another possibility is to quote parts of a tweet and include this in one’s own tweet. Users can also utilise the hashtag function in order to connect their own post to others that are addressing similar subjects. There are hence multiple ways in which Twitter as a platform allows for association. On the MGTOW website on the other hand, you can primarily engage with other users by posting in a thread on a particular subject, either by starting a thread of your own or by replying to an existing one. Much like on Twitter, users can also connect with others by ‘following’ another profile or by sending a direct message. Users also have the option to upvote a post, most likely as a way of communicating approval of the post in question. In sum, the affordance of association is arguably central for both of these platforms.

Secondly, the affordance of anonymity has been found to play an important role for the development of different kinds of anti-progressive groups online. Anonymity reduces the risk for individuals in participating in anti-progressive discourse, and enables confrontation with opponents (Holm 2019, p. 164). It has also been found that anonymity can stand in the way of accountability within a community, because it prevents personal responsibility (Trice and Potts 2018, p. 7-8). The use of pseudonyms, rather than complete anonymity, can further allow for individuals to gain a reputation within a community on a certain platform (Massanari 2015, p. 7). Having the possibility to be anonymous or to use a pseudonym can also invoke a sense that you are freer to express extreme or discrepant opinions, or to voice an opinion on a controversial matter (Chatzakou et al. 2017, p. 4). These are factors that seem to have fostered anti-progressive mobilisation.

On Twitter, many users choose to have their real name visible either in the name of their profile, or by including it in their profile ‘biography’, along with other personal information such as occupation, age, and nationality. However, it is equally possible to be completely anonymous, by simply not attaching any personal information to your profile. In order to post or communicate through Twitter in any way, you however need to be logged into an account, why it might be argued that users on this platform always use pseudonyms to some extent as they are connected to a certain profile. The same goes for mgtow.com; although you are able to read

(21)

18 posts while not logged in, you need to access a profile in order to either post a thread, reply to one, or to send direct messages. However, unlike Twitter, all of the users on this platform seem to choose to be anonymous, or rather to use a pseudonym. Nonetheless, many provide some personal information in their biographies, much like on Twitter. Thus, both mgtow.com and Twitter allow for a certain degree of anonymity in their users, why it is highly relevant to study how this affordance affects counterpublics that use them.

Finally, how a platform is moderated can bear significance for behaviour, especially when there is a lack of moderation (see Geiger 2016, Massanari 2017), which will be referred to as the affordance of extreme public expression. From previous studies we have learned that differences in platform moderation and design will foster an environment where specific actions or subjects of conversation are deemed possible or suitable (Massanari 2017). The content of an online platform can be more or less controlled by a group of moderators, and the manner in which discussion is controlled in this way affects the discourse within that platform. Massanari (2017) points to how in the case of Reddit, toxic technocultures can be enabled by a lack of accountability stemming from a lacking moderation on the platform. In the case of Reddit, controversial material could even be passively promoted by the platform, if appearing on the front page as a consequence of heightened activity surrounding a particular subreddit (which is what happened to leaked images during “The Fappening”). If this material is not removed by moderators, certain content and jargon is passively promoted by the platform. In this sense, controversial themes can be “allowed” by the platform as a consequence of its design, which in turn might foster a permissive attitude towards controversial material or extreme views amongst members (Massanari 2017).

Twitter’s rules and policies prohibit any threat or glorification of violence, any abuse or harassment, sexual violence, child sexual exploitation, promotion of self-harm or suicide. (Twitter Help Center, 2020). Twitter’s ‘content moderators’ reportedly review a vast amount of footage, videos and written material with prohibited content each day. Moderators describe how they are “haunted” by what they have seen; a consequence of both the sheer amount of material reviewed, and the extreme nature of this material (such as violence, pornographic material, and images and videos depicting abuse) (Cabato, Dwoskin and Whalen 2019). Twitter, like most larger websites, also relies on automated algorithms to filter out unwanted content. It is however not entirely clear how this automated moderation operates, or its consequences (Geiger 2016, p. 788). As can be read on the “Help Center” site on Twitter:

(22)

19 “People are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, as long as they’re not violating the Twitter Rules”.

The website mgtow.com, on the other hand, is a much smaller platform with a significantly lower number of active users. The policy for prohibited content and moderation is somewhat unclear, and only stated in a post from when the forum was first launched. Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) have however described the ways in which discussions on the forum are seemingly controlled. The “policy” states that unlike other platforms, the forum will not be policing any content. However, “[t]otally inappropriates (like suggested violence) will be unapologetically deleted”. The founder of the platform, referred to as “Keymaster”, is no longer active on the forum. The consequence is seemingly that users depend on self-moderation. Nonetheless, a keyword filter stops usage of certain words (resulting in members trying to avoid this filter by purposely misspelling or censoring prohibited words) (ibid., pp. 916-917). If someone suspects that a thread has been written by either a woman (as they are not allowed on the platform) or a “troll” (i.e. someone who attempts to provoke or sabotage the forum), it can be “quarantined” in what is referred to as the “Litter Box”. It is however unclear whether this function is currently in use, since the last thread that was added to the “Litter Box” was posted almost a year ago at the time of writing. As both MGTOW and other groups within the Manosphere has previously been shown to promote certain violent language, it is of interest for this analysis to consider the ways in which the affordances of platforms related to moderation affects this counterpublic.

Analytical Framework

Given the theoretical background presented above, the following section will be devoted to an outline of the analytical framework. A first look at the material, where some preliminary patterns and themes were identified, has guided the construction of this framework. The analytical framework is based on the conceptualisation of the dual nature of counterpublics as described by Fraser (1990). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the material that was gathered with netnographic methods, i.e. through a kind of online participant observation. In the following section, a number of analytical questions will be presented to help structure the analysis according to the two counterpublic functions (the analytical questions are presented in Table 1 below). After the data collection process, the material was sorted and analysed

(23)

20 according to themes that correspond with the two counterpublic functions and the analytical questions. By answering these questions and considering the role of the two platforms, this allows for an analysis of how platform affordances might enable or constrain online counterpublic dynamics.

First Function

Counterdiscourse Formation

The development of counterdiscourse is a central part of the activities within counterpublics. As stated by Fraser, the inward-oriented function revolves around the need for a counterpublic to “formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (1990, p. 67). Counterdiscourse formation is thus focused on understandings of interests or needs, as well on identifying central issues for the community which contrasts those of dominant or opposing publics. To capture this function the analysis will explore how members discuss and share ideas.

To understand the process of counterdiscourse formation we need to look at ideas and concepts that are important or often used, and therefore can be identified by looking at posts that they share with one another. As has been shown by Jones, Trott and Wright (2020) in their study of the r/MGTOW subreddit, central themes of discussion for the MGTOW community were anti-feminism and masculinity. We can therefore expect that central ideas will revolve around these issues. When exploring central ideas, it might be of interest to identify new words or concepts that carry meaning for the counterpublic, much like Fraser describes how feminists developed new vocabulary to describe their social reality, which allows them to reformulate their interests and needs (1990, p. 67). Such concepts can be identified by looking at commonly used terms or phrases that carry meaning in relation to what are identified as central issues, such as men’s rights, feminism or relationships.

The analysis will bring in the perspective of affordances by looking at how platforms create possibilities for developing and sharing these ideas. The analysis will therefore explore how members interact with or react to each other’s posts, since this can inform us about how central ideas are developed and disseminated within the counterpublic through interaction between

(24)

21 members. This might be in the form of comments, “likes”, upvoting and so on. As mentioned previously, considering that the platforms Twitter and mgtow.com have been shown to have somewhat lacking moderation, it will be of interest to explore this in relation to this kind of communication. Similarly, as both platforms allow for anonymity this is something which will be explored. In this way, it might be possible to study how communication of this kind can be either enabled or constrained when seen in relation to these technical properties. For this function, the following questions will be posed to the material:

Which concepts or ideas are central to the counterpublic?

How are central ideas discussed and shared within the community on the two platforms?

Training New Members

Another aspect of the first function relates to how new members are introduced into the counterpublic. As stated by Fraser, new ideas are invented and “circulated” among members. The closed spaces in which members communicate thus function as a type of “training ground” (1990, pp. 67-68). The focus for this part of the analysis is therefore on exploring how affordances might affect how new members are trained by the community. Of relevance to this function is looking at how new members are introduced to the community, start posting and how they learn about central concepts and ideas. An example of this is the “training blogs” of the anti-feminist blogosphere. These are used for practicing argumentation and seen as the first step before starting a new blog. Members can prepare for participating in outward-oriented activities in this way, by publishing text that is only viewed by members of the counterpublic and receive feedback on their posts from these (Holm 2019, p. 152).

To capture this function, the analysis will look at how members start posting in the community, and if and how other members are responding to this. Moreover, the analysis will focus on whether any technical properties can make the introduction easier for new members, such as being anonymous when posting. Drawing on Fraser (1990) and Holm (2019), this is how platform affordances, i.e. the affordance of anonymity, might lower the risks of being held accountable for participating in an anti-progressive counterpublic. This part of the analysis will have the following questions as its starting point:

(25)

22 How do members of the counterpublic start engaging with the community?

Do, and if so how, other members of the counterpublic respond to this?

Do any technical properties of the platforms make it easier for new members to start posting?

Second Function

Targeting Opposing Publics

Fraser (1990) states that the second function of counterpublics is related to “agitational activities directed towards broader publics” (p. 68), i.e. targeting publics while aiming to transform discourse according to their social reality (see also Toepfl and Piwoni, 2015; Asen, 2000). As stated by Toepfl and Piwoni (2015), a central role of counterpublics is to “break up hegemonic consensual patterns within dominant publics” (p. 8). This can of course be tricky to distinguish from how counterpublics construct discourses in opposition with competing discourses, however the difference might lie in the form it takes. We are therefore looking for examples of how the counterpublic directly opposes and interacts with other publics.

This function can be identified by looking at how opposing counterpublics interact with each other, for example by posting or by commenting on posts about an issue on which the communities disagree. Furthermore, by identifying which publics are mainly being targeted, i.e. which publics that the counterpublic frequently contest by posting or interacting with these. Moreover, the analysis will explore how affordances enable (or constrain) these actions. Technical properties that create opportunities for communication with other publics and are used by members to contest opposing publics in this way, are seen as enabling. This might be in the form of different kinds of commenting or posting functions available on the platform. We also need to identify whether this interaction can be interpreted as challenging opposing publics. An example of this might be discussions or interactions revolving around central issues, which are expressed through posting or commenting in a way which can be seen as challenging the opposing public’s worldview or ideas. The questions that will guide this part of the analysis are the following:

(26)

23 What opposing publics do members of the counterpublic mainly interact with in order to discuss their central ideas?

How are members of the counterpublic engaging with opposing publics, and how do they use the platforms for this purpose?

Counterdiscourse Formation in Relation to Opposing Publics

As we have seen, counterpublics are formed as a reaction to mainstream or dominant discourses. Interaction between publics is therefore characterised by a discursive struggle over meaning (Asen 2000, p. 426) and counterpublics become places for constructing counterdiscourses. Toepfl and Piwoni (2015) suggest that counterpublic “discursive patterns” consist of three main parts, the two relevant for our investigation being “deconstructing of a dominant public as mainstream” and “challenging the consensus”. We should hence be able to observe how their interaction with opposing publics can be seen as informing the construction of counterdiscourses.

Firstly, we should explore how the counterpublic positions itself in relation to opposing publics on these platforms, in terms of identity, interests or needs. This might for instance be seen in if members share posts to discuss the ideas or members of other publics. Subsequently, by looking at how their discursive practices can be seen as a reaction to that of opposing publics. It might for example be explicitly stated by members that an issue is discussed because of a post from an opposing public, or that they are in disagreement.4_{The use of certain language might}

indicate that they are contesting dominant or opposing ideas, and in that way “challenging the consensus”. To explore how platform affordances can be understood as enabling (or constraining) this function, we can look at how these create opportunities for the counterpublic to interact with and thus be shaped by its opposition to other publics. This might be studied by looking at how the counterpublic engage with posts about central ideas written by opposing publics, by for example reading and commenting on posts. For this last function, the following question will be posed to the material:

4_{However, it is necessary to consider the possibility for counterpublics to construct counterdiscourses in order}

to compete with or oppose marginalised groups, and not just dominant or mainstream publics (Holm 2019, p. 13).

(27)

24 Do members of the counterpublic engage with posts about central ideas written by members of opposing publics?

How are members of the counterpublic using the platforms to engage with these posts?

Table 1.

First function Second function

Type of interaction Within the counterpublic. In relation to opposing publics.

Questions to be posed to the material

Counterdiscourse Formation:

Which concepts or ideas are central to the counterpublic?

How are central ideas discussed and shared within the community on the two platforms?

Targeting Opposing Publics:

What opposing publics do members of the counterpublic mainly interact with in order to discuss their central ideas?

How are members of the counterpublic engaging with opposing publics, and how do they use the platforms for this purpose?

Training New Members:

How do members of the counterpublic start engaging with the community?

Do, and if so how, other members of the counterpublic respond to this?

Do any technical properties of the platforms make it easier for new members to start posting?

Counterdiscourse Formation in Relation to Opposing Publics:

Do members of the counterpublic engage with posts about central ideas written by members of opposing publics?

How are members of the

counterpublic using the platforms to engage with these posts?

(28)

25

Method and Research Design

The following section will be devoted to a presentation of the method and research design chosen for this study. There will also be a discussion of the ethical considerations that were necessary for using online platforms as a field of research, and a motivation for the selected material. The method used for this thesis is netnography, sometimes also referred to as digital ethnography. This is a single case study, using two different online platforms to explore the behaviour and activity of an online counterpublic (MGTOW) on each of these platforms, in line with how netnography usually is used to “gain a particularised understanding of a specific context” (Kozinets 2002, p. 62). In this sense, we can learn more about the particular structures and discourses within this specific community using this method. The material will mainly consist of field notes, which will be the result of four weeks of observation, and these will be complemented with text extracts, images, and so on that is collected in the “field” during this time. The material is then sorted and categorised using thematic analysis.

The theoretical motivation behind this study is to further explore how counterpublics are either enabled or constrained by platform affordances. As described in the introduction, this study complements previous research in that it will be a cross-platform comparison, rather than a case study looking at just one platform. We might expect that Twitter and mgtow.com provide different constraints or enable certain behaviour and discourse as a result of their affordances, and these are thus strategically selected to allow for analysis of different aspects of the two counterpublic functions. As part of the larger Manosphere, MGTOW can be expected to have certain commonalities with similar counterpublics. It should however be clear that we cannot expect this case to be representative of all such communities, and that the possibilities to generalize therefore are limited. The case selection is nonetheless motivated by the potential for analytical generalisability (Esaiasson et al. 2012, p. 159). The MGTOW community was selected as an example of an online counterpublic with an anti-progressive agenda, to further our understanding of how such counterpublics are enabled or constrained by platform affordances. The results can also help us gain a deeper understanding of the dual function of online counterpublics. In this sense, the aim of the study is explorative. However, this is a small, single case study conducted during a relatively short period of time, and the possibilities to generalise the results are therefore more limited than the opportunities for deeper understanding of this particular case. We should hence be careful to make claims of empirical generalisability.

(29)

26 Netnography

The term “netnography” was coined by Kozinets (2010), who described it as “a specialized form of ethnography adapted to the unique computer-mediated contingencies of today's social worlds” (p. 1). Much like ethnography is about an in-depth understanding of people's lives and social and cultural practices, digital ethnography or netnography is about doing this in a digital or online context, in “digital society” (Lindgren 2017, p. 258). The aim of ethnography is to provide a “thick description” of the material, that is, presenting a meaningful interpretation of a certain context rather than a description of it (Geertz 1973). Netnography is usually a mix of different methods, for example discourse analysis, interviews, visual analysis, and participant observation (Kozinets 2010, p. 59). Due to limitations in terms of time and resources, this study will however be limited to one method, i.e. participant observations. Netnography, like ethnography, should be grounded in “the local, the particularistic, and the specific”. It can be used to generalise; however, it has been mostly used to gain a particularised understanding of a specific context (Kozinets 2002, p. 62), why it is a suitable method for a case study.

Because netnography can generate large amounts of data, it is recommended that the process of sorting and analysing data is decided on beforehand. Similarly, the field of research should be defined as to limit the amount of data collected (Kozinets 2010, p. 104). It should be noted that the term data “collection” is somewhat misleading, since it implies that content from the field is collected without any reflection or interpretation, rather than being cogenerated by the researcher (Lindgren 2017, p. 95). For reasons of clarity, this is however the term that will be used going forward. In digital society, we cannot always define a field as in a particular space in the way that classic ethnography does. Instead, the field is defined through networks and socio-political contexts (Lindgren 2017, p. 260), and in this case, the field is defined through the actions of members of the community, i.e. where they are active as members of the counterpublic. As this research project is limited in terms of time and space, the field of research must therefore be fairly limited as well.

The material will subsequently be coded and analysed in accordance with qualitative thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). This is a way of categorising the material by “identifying, analyzing, and interpreting” themes in the text that are relevant to the analytical categories (Braun & Clarke 2017), which were presented in Table 1. The themes were identified based on theoretical relevance as well as on how frequently they occurred, in this sense, the analysis is

'All Women Are Like That': Men Going Their Own Way: Understanding the Interplay Between Online Platforms and Counterpublic Dynamics