Presenters
Abstract
The world is filled with people who hold grudges posting on social media. For a grievance to take hold and build to a social movement, two structures are necessary: social structures and opportunity structures (Stark 2010): Opportunity structures which can be economic, institutional, or from a social context, and are the impetus, and social structures are the scaffolding upon which a social movement is propagated. Two famous examples are #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter. The mobilizing force behind these movements was a unique typology of Social Media Influencers (SMI) called Advocacy Influencers (AI). Unlike paid Influencers who post to drive sales, AIs are motivated by a passion for a grievance, ideology or movement, and they post to drive social change.
Because of the incendiary nature of many grievances and potential repercussions, some AIs choose to post anonymously. When anonymous AIs deviate from the facts, the results may be catastrophic to the careers and reputations of otherwise innocent third parties. In the case of Diet Madison Avenue, when an advertising executive lost his job after a series of anonymous Instagram posts accused him of repeated sexual harassment, he filed a defamation lawsuit against the social media account. An examination of liability for and regulation of social media influencers yields little in the way of protection in similar circumstances.
This paper explores justifications for anonymity in Advocacy Influencing and how that decision exposes unanswered questions for regulators and courts to address when innocents and the general public are harmed.