I Can’t Breathe: How Digital Video Becomes an Emancipatory Technology

Full text

I Can’t Breathe: How Digital Video Becomes an Emancipatory Technology
Jordana George
Texas A&M University
jgeorge@mays.tamu.edu
Thomas George
Texas A&M University
Thomas.George@tamu.edu
René Moquin
Northeastern State University
Moquin@nsuok.edu
Abstract
This grounded theory study explores how
bystander digital video distributed via social
media documents perceived injustice and
serves as an emancipatory technology. Using
30 examples, the study provides insight into
how bystander videos impact perceived
social injustice with potential visual evidence
and how bystander videos ultimately shape
larger social movements. We find that
potential evidentiary video events break
down into eight theoretical areas: instigation,
target, place, perceived injustice, tools,
witness, potential evidence, and outcomes.
We find that while bystander video spread
through social media can indeed serve as an
emancipatory technology with substantial
positive outcomes, care must be taken to
avoid oversaturation that could result in
desensitization and lower efficacy.
1.0 Introduction
On February 26th, 2013, in the South
African township of Daveyton, a
Mozambican immigrant lost his life in one of
the most severe cases of police misconduct,
brutality, and abuse in years. Police beat
Mido Macia in front of a crowd of bystanders.
He was then handcuffed to the back of a
police van and dragged down the road. The
entire incident was captured on video by a
bystander and quickly circulated, causing
widespread outrage. Macia died in a jail cell
from massive trauma resulting in hypoxia
just hours later. Because of the bystander
video, eight of the officers involved in the
incident were tried and found guilty in
Macia’s murder. The court sentenced each
officer to 15 years in prison. Macia’s crime,
for which the police saw this treatment as a
fitting punishment, for was illegally parking
his taxi [36].
For the past decade, we have witnessed
a rise in videos produced and distributed by
individuals, aided by cell phones with
excellent camera features, easy to use
repositories, such as YouTube, and fast
dissemination through social media
platforms. Filming incidents of perceived
injustice has become so ubiquitous that cell
service sometimes fails during protests
because of so many people uploading video
[38]. Citizen generated video documentation
of civil disobedience, political violence, and
police brutality has become a regular
occurrence [5].
Using images as potential evidence is not
new, having been used in the criminal
justice system for decades [30]. One of the
earliest examples of amateur video used as
potential evidence of perceived injustice and
inciting social action is the Rodney King
incident [38]. The case occurred in Los
Angeles in 1991 when a bystander at a
nearby apartment filmed a Black man being
beaten by police [20]. The evidentiary nature
of bystander videos was quickly recognized
by social organizers as an emancipatory
technology [15]. We define emancipatory
technologies as those that can be used to
improve outcomes such as social or financial
emancipation [23, 26]. As enthusiastic as
the 1990s activists were about emancipatory
technology, the lack of distribution
networks, video skills, and equipment
created a significant barrier.
The introduction of video-capable
smartphones and the emergence of social
media democratized video creation and
content distribution [20]. It changed again
with the advent of cloud-based surveillance
such as Ring doorbells and personal
dashboard-mounted cameras in vehicles
Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2021
Page 6369
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/71388
978-0-9981331-4-0
(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

(dashcams). Video activism thrives today
around the world, documenting everything
from grocery store bullies to road rage to
public hangings of political dissenters [16].
Video activism is an integral part of digital
activism. As such, our research asks:
How do bystander digital videos that are
spread through social media impact
perceived social injustice?
What are the elements that make up this
phenomenon?
The goals of this study are to provide a
foundation on video activism and
emancipatory technologies, touch base on
skeptics of potential video evidence, and
explain our findings through the lens of
critical theory. We follow with our
methodology, explain our data and collection
process, and present our analysis and
results. We then offer a discussion and a
look at the implications of our findings.
2.0 Literature and Background
To inform ourselves on the various
aspects of cellphone videos, we delved into
the literature on video activism and
emancipatory technologies. We also
examined work on why people are skeptical
of potential evidence of perceived injustice to
understand why such technologies might
not achieve their goal. Last, we discuss
critical theory, which we use as our lens.
2.1 Video activism
Digital activism, defined as “digitally
mediated social activism” [19], takes a range
of forms from sharing a political post on
social media to protesting in a capitol
thousands of miles from home. A prevalent
form of digital activism in the past decade is
video activism. We define video activism as
the use of video technologies to document
perceived injustice, inform the public, and
influence elites [4]. There are two aspects of
video activism: creation and dissemination
[42]. Filmmakers include random
bystanders who record and upload
impromptu content to social media sites
within minutes of an event, as well as skilled
political organizers with professional video
editing skills [5]. There is even a subgroup of
video activists known as cop watchers, who
follow police in hopes of catching perceived
injustice on film [16]. Devices commonly
used for videos include cellphones,
dashboard cameras (dashcams), and cloud-
based surveillance such as Ring doorbells
and closed-circuit television (CCTV), as well
as police-worn body cameras (bodycam).
Video dissemination is typically
accomplished through social media
platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, or
a digital media storage platform such as
YouTube [22]. Video content creation and
dissemination provides:
● Potential evidence of perceived injustice
[30].
● A frame for sharing perceived injustice
events in context [43].
● Repository sites that have a place for
mourning and commemoration [5].
Images are a useful tool in social frames.
Framing is generally thought of as words
(spoken or written) that provide meaning
[43]. Framing often includes certain
vocabularies or mental shortcuts to
understanding [7, 15]. Videos take framing a
step further by providing powerful
experiential messages enabling viewers to
embed visual mental frames. Videos are
particularly strong tools for activism
because images have “emotional
stickiness” [16, 28]. This means that images
have a greater impact than text or audio
alone and the picture sticks with the viewer
for longer periods of time. Videos can also
combine multiple sources of media and
images into powerful collages, as the
“victim’s data double becomes more human
than human” [30]. Framing is also critical
because the filmmaker’s perspective colors
their perception and representation of
events.
Raw videos tend to engender empathy for
whoever embodies that view, whether it is a
Police bodycam or a phone held by a victim.
Research shows that people consider police
actions less intentional and more justified
when police bodycams document a situation
[24]. The same can be said for videos filmed
from the victim’s perspective.
Empathy for victims is expressed in
another side of video activism; its function
as a memorial for the fallen. YouTube and
other sites allow comments where friends,
Page 6370

family, and well-wishers can support each
other [5].
Bystander videos are not, however,
universally accepted, especially by elites and
agencies that are often targeted, such as the
police. Some in these fields believe that
bystander videos do not provide a fair and
objective account because of the filmmaker’s
perspective and framing and the public
perception based on a viral social media post
[14, 35].
A downside to video activism is
overexposure, which can lead to
desensitization [41]. When people are
desensitized to perceived injustice, they are
less likely to work toward emancipation [32].
Little of the extant literature on video
activism delves into this aspect.
2.2 Emancipatory technologies
Emancipatory technology in Information
Systems (IS) research tends to be segregated
into subfields, such as organizational (firm)
[23, 28], financial/economic [18], societal
(the marginalized and disadvantaged) [25,
26] and pedagogical [44]. In this study, we
focus on societal emancipation through
technology.
Marginalized people use emancipatory
technologies for social goals mainly by
proliferating frames, exposing the truth, and
pushing social change [3, 29]. Such
activities may include education,
proselytizing, and organizing [19].
Some technologies are polarizing,
providing emancipatory affordances in one
setting and hegemonic in another [29]. Some
technologies exploit the communicative
properties of social media. Facebook and
Twitter are frequently used to share activist
videos, but such endeavors would not be
condoned in more restrictive countries and
could land a person in prison or worse.
Thus, we see that not all technology is
emancipatory, and even the same
technology may or may not be emancipatory
depending on context and could be
hegemonic through elite control of the
message or access to the technology [29].
2.3 Skeptics
Last, we examine an individual’s
proscription when exposed to video activism.
The syllogism “seeing is believing” used to be
considered accurate. However, the last
decade has seen a significant rise in public
skepticism due to the proliferation of fake
news [31, 33]. We categorize skeptics into
psychological and technology subfactors.
Much of the research on disbelief,
especially around fake news, and conspiracy
theories, focuses on confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias refers to the tendency for
people to believe things that agree with their
worldview [33, 37]. However, we suggest that
cognitive bias, the tendency to be skeptical
of something that disagrees with one’s
worldview, is equally important in this
context [4]. When presented with potential
video evidence that disagrees with an
individual’s epistemic stance, it can cause
cognitive dissonance. Treating the potential
evidence as false reduces that tension and is
accomplished through recognition of the
video’s framing. While frames are helpful for
sympathizers, they are also catalyzers for
opponents.
In addition, skeptics may not be in an
“all or nothing” mindset. These skeptics may
be waiting for more information or further
clarification on the full interaction before
deciding on their stance, and not rely on the
window of the encounter caught on camera.
Another justification for skeptics to
disqualify video is the existence of
“deepfakes.” Deepfakes are videos that use
artificial intelligence (AI) to create highly
realistic scenes [39]. Today, even amateurs
can create AI videos easily through online
tools that start at $30 a month [45].
Now that we have set the stage for
understanding video activism, emancipatory
technologies, and skeptics, we discuss our
choice of critical theory for our theoretical
foundation.
2.4 Theoretical lens: critical view
We employ critical theory in this paper,
an approach that attempts to tackle the
causes of perceived injustice through
remedy and change [34]. Theories do not
change the world. Theories are our lens for
Page 6371

viewing the world. By changing our lens, we
can improve our worldview [2]. We include
three aspects of critical theory in this study:
insight, critique, and transformative
redefinition [2, 34]. Insight refers to new
perspectives. Critique looks deeper into
society to understand how and why
perceived injustice exists. Transformative
redefinition is prescriptive and offers
remedies to society. We draw from
Habermas’ theory of communicative action.
While Foucault and Bourdieu also provide
critical perspectives [8, 9, 13], we felt that
Habermas’ work on communicative action
better reflected the phenomenon of digital
videos as an emancipatory technology [26].
The theory of communicative action
describes how the structure of modern life,
including government, economies, and legal
systems, impede and damage communities
by disrupting people’s communications.
Habermas seeks a new world distinguished
by free and open communication [21].
Habermas notes that communities and
institutions have become uncoupled and
that is where problems begin. If institutions
and communities (or system and lifeworld in
Habermas’ terms) can be rejoined, while
each retaining its strengths, they can
enhance societal existence. This might start
as an improved standard of living and could
grow into emancipation from war or
environmental destruction. Critical aspects
of communicative action include the
following: intentions are communicated
truthfully and accurately; organized action
is coordinated and planned based on a
group's values and beliefs; and people are
judged based on their actions and impact.
Last, methods of communicative action
include a shared form of communication.
Distortion of the message occurs when the
Speaker’s message is inaccurate or invalid.
Long term distortion of messages damages
credibility [21].
3.0 Method
This study uses grounded theory
methodology (GTM) to examine a collection
of 30 incidents of bystander video content
disseminated on social media. We chose
GTM because it is useful for developing
inductive theory [27] and also because GTM
is commonly used in IS research for
exploring socio-technical behavior in new
research areas [40]. Given the gritty nature
of video-captured perceived injustice,
including all manner of violence, we also
believe that GTM provides a means to bring
out the realism of the subject. The dataset
for this study was built using Google search
and keywords (listed in Table 1).
Table 1. Keywords for search
Filmed police
brutality
Police
accountability
Inverse
surveillance
Police misconduct
Cop watch
Viral video
List of riots
Potential video
evidence
I can’t breathe
List of killings by
law enforcement by
country
We also searched Wikipedia with the
keywords using backward search from the
articles’ references. Finally, we included an
open dataset called “GeorgeFloyd Protest -
police brutality videos on Twitter” [12]. Our
inclusion criteria consisted of 1)
Bystander/citizen ad hoc or surveillance
video (excluding police body cams,
planned/organized video, or other
institutional videos), 2) Video sources
included cellphones, personal surveillance
such as cloud-based video doorbells, and
personal dashcams, and 3) Use of social
media for dissemination of the video.
The data was organized as follows: Cases
were entered and categorized in a shared
Google spreadsheet. Each case included the
following fields: Incident, Date, Summary,
Outcomes, Actors, SM Platform, Video
Length, Demographics, Location, Notes,
URL, and Source. While the number of SM
shares and likes were another aspect we
wished to capture, it quickly became obvious
that this was impossible due to the myriad
SM paths some videos took after they
became viral.
After selecting our examples, we went
through each one and first determined open
codes, then selective codes as we recognized
repeating themes. This was an iterative
process as similar codes were combined, and
Page 6372

new codes discovered. The third step was the
distillation of the selective codes into
theoretical codes. Table 2 lists the cases.
Table 2. Examples of video activism
Incident
Date
Costco Mask Meltdown
7/6/2020
Vauhxx Booker
7/4/2020
Rayshard Brooks
6/12/2020
George Floyd
5/26/2020
Manuel Ellis
3/3/2020
Ahmaud Arbery
2/23/2020
Cédric Chouviat
1/3/2020
Willie Mccoy
2/9/2019
Nicholas Gibbs
8/21/2018
Philly Starbucks
4/12/2018
John Hernandez
5/28/2017
Keith Lamont Scott
9/20/2016
Philando Castile
7/6/2016
Alton Sterling
7/5/2016
Jeremy Mcdole
9/23/2015
Walter Scott
4/4/2015
Charley Leundeu Keunang
3/1/2015
47 year old woman beaten
12/31/2014
Tamir Rice
11/22/2014
Eric Garner
7/17/2014
Mido Macia
2/26/2013
Kelly Thomas
7/10/2011
Neda Agha-Soltan
6/20/2009
Oscar Grant
1/1/2009
Robert Dziekański
10/14/2007
William Cardenas
8/11/2006
Otto Zehm
3/18/2006
Martin Anderson
1/6/2006
Solomos Solomou
8/14/1996
Tassos Isaac
8/11/1996
4.0 Analysis and Results
The analysis of the 30 examples revealed
63 Open codes, 30 Selective codes, and 8
Theoretical codes. Table 3 lists the Selective
and Theoretical codes.
Table 3. GTM codes
Selective Code
Theoretical Code
Instigation
Instigation
Racism
Self-righteousness
Group of victims
Target
Juvenile
Setting
Place
Battery
Perceived
injustice
Death
Excessive force
I can't breathe
Inaction
Police misreporting
Protocol not followed
Racism
Restraints
Shot in the back or while
incapacitated
Threat to video maker
Victim family misreporting
Restraints
Tools
Weapon
Witnesses
Witness
Potential evidence
Potential
evidence
Release of potential
evidence
$ Settlement
Outcomes
Consequences
International conflict
No consequences
Police vindication
Protests
Riots
Social repercussions
Page 6373

Instigation is defined as the incitement
for perceived injustice. In most cases, the
instigation was relatively minor or even legal,
such as traffic stops or jogging, though some
events started with suspects resisting arrest.
We also noted that potential racism and self-
righteousness on the part of self-appointed
accusers and vigilantes popped up
frequently. These individuals took it upon
themselves to either call police or directly
intercede with the suspect or victim.
Targets are those that become the object
of perceived injustice. We note that many of
the incidents in our dataset include victims
from disadvantaged groups and people of
color. Even in the few cases where whites
were assailed by police brutality, victim were
homeless and/or suffered mental illness
[11]. The targets ranged from individuals to
small groups of victims, and several events
had juveniles as their subject.
Place indicates the setting where events
took place, and there was little consistency
across cases. The locations ranged from
drive-through fast-food restaurants to gas
stations to organized protests. Residential
neighborhoods and parks were not exempt.
Perceived injustice took many forms in
the videos. Those codes that encompass
physical harm include Battery, Death,
Excessive force, I can't breathe, Restraints,
and Shot in the back/while hurt. These
codes represent how victims were injured,
abused, and killed. An unfortunate number
of cases saw victims harmed when
incapacitated or in the act of running away
and obviously causing no harm to
aggressors. We also note the code “I can’t
breathe” is not only a nod to recent global
protests in support of George Floyd, but also
because our data set revealed that over half
of the incidents involved asphyxiation,
chokeholds, knee on the neck restraint, and
the phrase “I can’t breathe” was frequently
heard in the videos of these events.
Other types of perceived injustice
include Inaction, Police misreporting,
Protocol not followed, Racism, Threat to
video maker, and Victim family
misreporting. Perceived injustice is not
always caused by actions taken by
aggressors. It may be the refusal to act, as
potential evidenced in several videos
showing police ignoring calls for help. Many
videos potentially evidenced a lack of
adherence to police protocols in terms of
violent behavior towards suspects, although
whether by ignorance or disregard is
impossible to tell. Sometimes the video
makers were threatened, and sometimes the
families of victims pursued other agendas
and misrepresented events.
Tools refer to the artifacts that
aggressors use to enact perceived injustice
and include the codes weapons and
restraints. Both are a legitimate part of law
enforcement, self-defense, and military
action, however, their deployment in cases of
perceived injustice often result in more
serious outcomes.
Witness is a term that refers to those
who see, document, or corroborate acts of
perceived injustice, such as bystanders and
others that capture perceived injustice on
video. It is crucial to note that in most cases
witnesses are accidental, although there are
“cop watchers” that specifically follow police
to document their actions [16]. We also note
that many video witnesses are known to the
victim (i.e., girlfriend, family, neighbor),
suggesting that frequently victimized groups
may be more prepared to serve as a witness
and provide potential evidence.
Potential Evidence is the means of
bringing aggressors to justice. We noted two
variations: the video content, and the timing
of video release. Several cases were found to
have no investigation until videos were
circulated and outrage built.
Outcomes of perceived injustice took
many paths after exposure on social media.
Some resulted in the prosecution of
aggressors and monetary settlements
counting into the millions for wrongful
death. Others sparked protests and riots,
not only locally but around the globe. A few
incidents caused international conflict when
a citizen of one country was abused in
another country. Several events were
notable because there was no consequence
to the aggressors despite popular videos.
Last, we noticed that potential video
evidence is not always against the police or
other elite groups. Two cases provided a
video that exonerated police in the death of
the suspect.
Page 6374

5.0 Discussion
In Habermas’ view, digital video that is
spread on social media may exist as a
response to community disruption from our
modern life institutions and a call to open
communications [21]. Such videos focus on
uncovering perceived injustice, spreading
unbiased information, and attempting to
bring those responsible to legal justice.
Because the videos are often live-streamed
and amateur in nature, the truthfulness of
the portrayal is often assumed without
further evidence. These videos also become
a shared form of communication in
marginalized groups and beyond [17].
Looking at digital videos through a
critical lens, we first examine the insights
drawn from the data. We find that in most
cases, potential video evidence generates
sufficient outrage to influence
investigations, which often (although not
always) result in punitive outcomes for the
aggressors or retribution to victims and their
families. We also observed that many
techniques used by aggressors for abuse
were initially developed for restraint, not
harm. However, in many of the examples,
these supposedly non-lethal procedures
were amplified to the point of permanent
damage and death. Our last insight comes
from the observation that many bystander
videos are taken and uploaded to SM
platforms within minutes or even seconds of
an event unfolding. 27% of smartphone
users take photos or videos daily [10]. Yet,
the volume of these videos indicates that
there may be higher sensitivity in
marginalized communities as to the value of
evidentiary video on social media. This
sensitivity may lead community members to
be more prepared to use their smartphone or
other devices for quick recording and
dissemination.
Next, we suggest a critique of the
institutions that enable the types of
perceived societal injustice captured on
these videos. Governments and law
enforcement are servants of the people, yet
that message appears lost on some in these
offices. We suggest that the frequency and
virality of potential video evidence is a strong
incentive for just behavior to those who
abuse their office. We also observed that
several cases resulted in devastating
outcomes because of aggressors
sidestepping protocols. While this paper is
not a deep dive into the problems of modern
policing, it does appear from our limited data
set that lack of training, lack of adherence to
procedure, and little enforcement of rules
exacerbates the situation and drag good
cops down with the bad ones.
Last, we look at transformative
redefinition to recommend solutions. We
propose that digital video capture of
perceived injustice and social media
dissemination is an emancipatory
communicative act [2]. As such, tools to aid
the process would be useful. There are a
multitude of existing video apps. However,
apps that could simultaneously live stream
and notify benevolent institutions might
help reduce harm by drawing the attention
of senior officials or the press early on. We
also suggest that frequent hands-on training
for quick video creation and transmission
could be offered at community centers in
districts often hurt by perceived injustices.
Along with technical training,
participants should learn about the ethics of
their actions and reiterate their dedication to
honesty. If evidentiary videos lose their
authenticity and perceived trustworthiness,
they will have little value for society. Last,
those aggressors who cause perceived
injustice need to understand the growth of
video activism and its current power and
influence. While aggressors are unlikely to
turn sympathetic, they may perceive it wiser
to save themselves from excoriation, prison,
job loss, civil suits, or other negative
consequences considering the new
technologies that document their actions.
Another aspect of these digital videos is
how they provide an easily identifiable
frame, which aids in dissemination and
persuasiveness [43]. As it becomes more
common, viewers can quickly determine that
they will be seeing an incident of perceived
social injustice, usually involving those in
power (such as police) or those who think
they have power (such as self-appointed
accusers and vigilantes). Such recognition
afforded by frames speeds up a viewer’s
response [43].
On the other hand, the frequency of
these videos may cause desensitization and
Page 6375

normalization of deviance over time [41],
which could lead to a U-shaped curve of
video efficacy. First, the efficacy of videos is
low because of limited spread. As they
become more frequent and result in positive
outcomes, their influence grows through
social media and virality, reaching new
audiences and popularity. Over time,
however, continued high levels of new video
may cause desensitization which reduces
the efficacy of evidentiary videos.
Last, the videos (regardless of frequency)
may never influence a portion of the
population because some people will not
believe in the legitimacy of the images. Such
people may find the behavior in the videos to
be so abhorrent that they cannot think it is
true. They may also be skeptical because the
source does not align with their worldview,
exhibiting cognitive bias [4]. Those with very
strong negative views about the videos may
consider them deepfakes and seek to
discredit them.
We draw several implications from this
exploratory study. First, bystander video can
be an effective means to document perceived
injustice by providing potential visual
evidence that can be quickly recorded and
disseminated. These actions can speed up
public response which in turn speeds up
institutional response. Video activism can be
particularly helpful to marginalized people
who often lack a voice because it does not
rely on campaigns, advertising, or
fundraising to arouse supporters and force
action by elites. However, as popular as it is
today, it may not be a long-term solution if
people become desensitized to the videos.
Additionally, the videos may be subverted to
dissuade people or may be found to provide
revenue generation from ads, much like fake
news [1, 6].
6.0 Conclusion
This study asks How do bystander digital
videos that are spread through social media
impact perceived social injustice? What are
the elements that make up this phenomenon?
We answer in several ways. First, by
providing frames, the videos are quickly
recognized and disseminated, which rouses
communities. The aroused communities
may be incited to protest and riot, and the
message may spread beyond the community
and transcend national borders. Such social
wildfires are influential in forcing elites to act
against aggressors and serve justice to
victims and their families.
Second, the videos provide potential
evidence of perceived injustice that can be
used in court. This provides a basis for
retribution and settlements for victims and
their families. It also provides a basis for
firing, fining, or incarcerating aggressors.
These applications show how the videos
might serve as inhibitors of perceived
injustice if they were publicized as such.
We break down the phenomenon into
eight areas: Instigation, Target, Place,
Perceived injustice, Tools, Witness, Potential
evidence, and Outcomes. This dissection
allows us to see how events of perceived
injustice are started and how they end, who
is victimized and how, and the means of
uncovering and communicating the
perceived injustice.
This study contributes to the literature
on digital activism and video activism with a
critical theory view and a grounded theory
analysis, which have not been commonly
used in researching this particular
phenomenon. We also recognize several
limitations in the current study. First, our
data set was limited to 30 incidents. While
they were chosen randomly, incidents with
higher placement on search pages likely
introduced bias into the data selection.
Future research on this topic could
follow several paths. Experiments that show
these videos to participants under different
circumstances might reveal insights, as
might surveys or witness interviews. We
caution potential researchers that the
subject videos are often hard to watch.
Additionally, they engender empathetic
responses in the researchers, which may
create possible bias.
To conclude, video activism and its use
as an emancipatory technology is
expanding, driven by viral social media,
punishments of aggressors, and retribution
to victims. Some day, society will find new
and more effective methods to document
perceived injustice. But for now, bystander
digital videos have become a staple
emancipatory technology in restoring
justice.
Page 6376

7.0 References
[1] Allcott, H., and M. Gentzkow, “Social Media and
Fake News in the 2016 Election”, Journal of
Economic Perspectives 31(2), 2017, pp. 211–236.
[2] Alvesson, M., and S. Deetz, Doing Critical
Management Research, SAGE, 2000.
[3] Andrade, A.D., and C. Urquhart, “Unveiling the
modernity bias: a critical examination of the politics of
ICT4D”, Information Technology for Development
18(4), 2012, pp. 281–292.
[4] Arceneaux, K., “Cognitive Biases and the Strength
of Political Arguments”, American Journal of
Political Science 56(2), 2012, pp. 271–285.
[5] Askanius, T., “DIY Dying: Video Activism as
Archive, Commemoration and Potential evidence”,
International Journal of E-Politics 3(1), 2012, pp. 12–
25.
[6] Baum, K., S. MeiÃŁner, O. Abramova, and H.
Krasnova, “Do They Really Care About Targeted
Political Ads? Investigation of User Privacy Concerns
And Preferences”, ECIS 2019 Proceedings, (2019),
18.
[7] Baum, M.A., and P. Gussin, “In the Eye of the
Beholder: How Information Shortcuts Shape
Individual Perceptions of Bias in the Media”,
Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3(1), 2008, pp.
1–31.
[8] Bourdieu, P., Outline of a Theory of Practice,
Cambridge University Press, 1977.
[9] Bourdieu, P., The Logic of Practice, Stanford
University Press, 1990.
[10] Clement, J., “Top U.S. smartphone activities
2018”, Statista, 2018.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/187128/leading-
us-smartphone-activities/
[11] Conder, C., Ex-cops charged in beating death of
Kelly Thomas found not guilty, CNN, 2012.
[12] Doucett, G., and J. Miller, “GeorgeFloyd Protest
- police brutality videos on Twitter - Google Drive”,
2020.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1YmZeS
xpz52qT-
10tkCjWOwOGkQqle7Wd1P7ZM1wMW0E/htmlvie
w?pru=AAABcql6DI8*mIHYeMnoj9XWUp3Svb_K
ZA#
[13] Foucault, M., “The Subject and Power”, Critical
Inquiry 8(4), 1982, pp. 777–795.
[14] Fox, R.L., R.W. Van Sickel, and T.L. Steiger,
Tabloid justice: criminal justice in an age of media
frenzy, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 2007.
[15] Garrett, R.K., “Protest in an Information Society:
a review of literature on social movements and new
ICTs”, Information, Communication & Society 9(2),
2006, pp. 202–224.
[16] Garver, R., “Amateur Videos Are Increasingly
Forcing US Police Accountability”, Voice of America,
2020. https://www.voanews.com/usa/amateur-videos-
are-increasingly-forcing-us-police-accountability
[17] Gaspar, C.M., “Habermas’ Theory of
Communicative Action”, Philippine Studies 47(3),
1999, pp. 407–425.
[18] George, J., J. (Kevin) Yan, and D.E. Leidner,
“Data Philanthropy: Corporate Responsibility with
Strategic Value?”, Information Systems Management
37(2), 2020, pp. 30.
[19] George, J.J., and D.E. Leidner, “From clicktivism
to hacktivism: Understanding digital activism”,
Information and Organization, 2019.
[20] Gregory, S., “Cameras Everywhere: Ubiquitous
Video Documentation of Human Rights, New Forms
of Video Advocacy, and Considerations of Safety,
Security, Dignity and Consent”, Journal of Human
Rights Practice 2(2), 2010, pp. 191–207.
[21] Habermas, J., The theory of communicative
action, Beacon Press, Boston, 1984.
[22] Hermida, A., and V. Hernández-Santaolalla,
“Twitter and video activism as tools for counter-
surveillance: the case of social protests in Spain”,
Information, Communication & Society 21(3), 2018,
pp. 416–433.
[23] Hirschheim, R., and H.K. Klein, “Realizing
Emancipatory Principles in Information Systems
Development: The Case for ETHICS”, MIS Quarterly
18(1), 1994, pp. 83–109.
Page 6377

[24] Jones, K.A., W.E. Crozier, and D. Strange, “Look
there! The effect of perspective, attention, and
instructions on how people understand recorded police
encounters”, Behavioral Sciences & the Law 37(6),
2019, pp. 711–731.
[25] Joseph, K.J., Growth of ICT and ICT for
development: Realities of the myths of the Indian
experience, World Institute for Development
Economics Research, 2002.
[26] Kanungo, S., “On the emancipatory role of rural
information systems”, Information Technology &
People 17(4), 2004, pp. 407–422.
[27] Klein, H.K., and M.D. Myers, “A set of principles
for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies
in information systems”, MIS Quarterly 23(1), 1999,
pp. 67–93.
[28] Lleras, E., “Is it possible to develop an
emancipatory approach to technology?”, Systems
Practice 9(4), 1996, pp. 333–338.
[29] Miranda, S.M., A. Young, and E. Yetgin, “Are
social media emancipatory or hegemonic? Societal
effects of mass media digitization”, MIS Quarterly
40(2), 2016, pp. 303–329.
[30] Moore, D., and R. Singh, “Seeing crime, feeling
crime: Visual potential evidence, emotions, and the
prosecution of domestic violence”, Theoretical
Criminology 22(1), 2018, pp. 116–132.
[31] Moravec, P., R. Minas, and A.R. Dennis, “Fake
News on Social Media: People Believe What They
Want to Believe When it Makes No Sense at All”, MIS
Quarterly 43(4), 2019, pp. 1343–1360.
[32] Mowatt, R.A., “Black Lives as Snuff: The Silent
Complicity in Viewing Black Death”, Biography
41(4), 2018, pp. 777–806.
[33] Murungi, D., D. Yates, S. Purao, J. Yu, and R.
Zhan, “Factual or Believable? Negotiating the
Boundaries of Confirmation Bias in Online News
Stories”, (2019), 10.
[34] Myers, M.D., and H.K. Klein, “A Set of
Principles for Conducting Critical Research in
Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly 35(1), 2011, pp.
17–36.
[35] Newell, B.C., “Context, visibility, and control:
Police work and the contested objectivity of bystander
video”, New Media & Society 21(1), 2019, pp. 60–76.
[36] Njilo, N., “Police killed him five years ago —
now Mido Macia’s family gets paid out”, Times LIVE,
2018. https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-
africa/2018-11-21-police-killed-him-five-years-ago--
now-mido-macias-family-gets-paid-out/
[37] Ray, A., and J. George, “Online Disinformation
and the Psychological Bases of Prejudice and Political
Conservatism”, Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences|2019,
(2019), 11.
[38] The Associated Press, “Bystander video leading
to more arrests of abusive police”, Associated Press,
2020.
https://bangordailynews.com/2020/06/15/news/bysta
nder-video-leading-to-more-arrests-of-abusive-
police/
[39] Westerlund, M., “The Emergence of Deepfake
Technology: A Review”, Technology Innovation
Management Review 9(11), 2019, pp. 40–53.
[40] Wiesche, M., M.C. Jurisch, P.W. Yetton, and H.
Krcmar, “Grounded Theory Methodology in
Information Systems Research”, MIS Quarterly 41(3),
2017, pp. 685–701.
[41] Williams, S.N., and A.V. Clarke, “How the
Desensitization of Police Violence, Stereotyped
Language, and Racial Bias Impact Black
Communities”, Psychology and Cognitive Sciences –
Open Journal 5(2), 2019, pp. 62–67.
[42] Wilson, D.J., and T. Serisier, “Video Activism
and the ambiguities of counter-surveillance”,
Surveillance & Society 8(2), 2010, pp. 166–180.
[43] Yetgin, E., A.G. Young, and S.M. Miranda,
“Cultural production of protest frames and tactics:
Cybermediaries and the SOPA movement”,
Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on
Information Systems, (2012).
[44] Young, A.G., “Using ICT for social good:
Cultural identity restoration through emancipatory
pedagogy”, Information Systems Journal 28(2), 2017,
pp. 340–358.
[45] “Synthesia - AI video generation platform”, 2020.
https://www.synthesia.io/
Page 6378