Spontaneous vigilantism and conflictogenic potential of the everyday Internet discourse

Communication in post-truth conditions. In recent decades, with the development of modern information technologies and the increasing polarization of modern societies, a very peculiar communication system has developed, with a high conflict potential.

In the social sciences, this trend has been conceptualized as the "post-truth era". The phenomenon of post-truth is a situation where a rational discussion between opponents is reduced to one-sided monologues unrelated to each other, ignoring the position of the opposite side. Although post-truth is most often associated with the concept of "fake news" (or fake news), its essence is much deeper and is not limited to incorrect or false coverage of events.

The name "post-truth" hides the fact of the communicative uncontrollability of society. Its result is social polarization, lack of dialogue between individual parts of society, fragmentation of the common agenda and, as a result, the growth of conflict potential. As R. Pizziotto notes, "the concept of post-truth plays a more significant role as a category that captures "deep dissatisfaction with the status quo" ^[16].

The conditions of post-truth are the presence of two or more antagonistic actors who claim the right to label opposing views as incorrect. Beyond fake and truthful news and defining events as real or fictional, a much more complex world opens up of labeling political and social actors as "their own" and "strangers", and their values and ideas about practices as normal and abnormal.

The success of post-truth is associated with the reconstruction of the communicative space. The era of separate homogeneous information and communication media within the framework of national states has ceased with the spread of satellite television and the Internet. However, this did not lead, contrary to the forecasts of techno-optimists ^[12], to the formation of a common universal communicative space. There was no "end of history" ^[9], nor the death of ideologies ^{[3] [4]}.

From the public sphere to echo chambers. A kind of ideal of virtual communication could be a modern modification of the conceptualized Yu . Habermas of the public sphere. In the modern interpretation, this model could find development in the form of a transnational public sphere ^[10]. Although the idea itself was initially based on the analysis of bourgeois public spheres of the past, very soon it began to be considered as a normative theory for modern communication.

The Arendt-Habermasian tradition is associated with the idealization of rational communication, the embodiment of which, according to Habermas, is precisely the public sphere. The naivety of these ideas was largely due to the assumption that political actors, forgetting about their ambitions, would follow clearly established rules of debate ^[2].

Communicative Balkanization has become an even stronger argument against the cross-border public sphere. Instead of forming a universal global communicative space, the development of modern means of communication has led to the fragmentation of national communicative environments, as evidenced by the appearance of phenomena such as filter bubbles and echo chambers ^{[8, pp. 84-88]}.

The echo chamber is a closed, homogeneous community in which the opinion expressed by an individual is "echoed" by like-minded people like the echo effect. The discussions in the echo chambers are neither principled nor confrontational in nature, but their goal is to maintain established ideas. It is the echo chambers that are one of the most striking illustrations of post-truth politics ^{[8, p. 86]}.

As G. Telleria notes, "today's public sphere is nothing but an echo chamber" ^[17]. The modern "public sphere" is devoid of rationality, correctness and truthfulness, and modern media hide reality with the help of framing, priming, data manipulation and other tactics ^[17].

Echo chambers contribute to the polarization of society. Since public discussion is impossible in the conditions of post-truth, echo chambers become factors of social instability and conflicts.

Third spaces. In the conditions of polarization of the political space, communication platforms common to representatives of various political views are becoming increasingly important. Places where people are freed from the political agenda, any politicized context and tend to talk about topics relevant to them.

The concept of third spaces was born from the idea of "third places" by R. Oldenburg ^[15] – public spaces outside the home and work. In fact, we are talking about leisure places, which in ordinary reality are formed in cafes, shops and clubs, and in virtual reality – on numerous thematic forums. Within the framework of such meeting places, everyday conversations are conducted, which do not set as their main goal the discussion of political problems. In the modern interpretation of the concept of "third spaces", the emphasis is placed on informal, everyday conversations that take place on the Internet ^{[8] [18]}.

Third spaces are important because they somehow become spheres of influence of more subtle and flexible political technologies, and at the same time more express the real needs of ordinary people. In the third spaces, the influence of political actors is much less noticeable. They also do not assume the presence of traditional political mediators and "accumulators" of public opinion.

Vigilantism. Vigilantism is directly related to conflict. It is generated as a conflict – a reaction to a real or imaginary violation of the status quo, and exists as a conflict – the implementation of the punishment of the violator and the production of practices fixing norms, which finds expression in sanctions.

Vigilantism is a contradictory phenomenon. On the one hand, it unites people who complete state intentions where formal institutions do not work. On the other hand, the initiators of vigilante actions usurp the right to make decisions and even the right to violence. In this regard, vigilantism is considered in the context of the so - called "the seizure of civil society" ^[14].

Criticism of vigilantism is situational. The role of the vigilante as a continuer of the initiatives of the state power not only finds criticism ^[11], but also generates opposition from other groups. At the same time, the opposite vector is also noticeable – the usurpation of the initiative and the appropriation of the right to violence is becoming a widespread positive narrative in culture. Modern popular culture replaces traditional heroes-leaders with vigilante heroes. The characters of the movie comics do not lead, but are aloof from society, acting as its saviors, not identifying with society. Western culture itself, while approving informal, including vigilante practices, pushes for justice and the formulation of norms to take place on the periphery of social institutions, proceeding from informal practices. The synoptic model of modern society also pushes for this – a lot of recipients who are not participants in events receive information, have the opportunity to follow events and, without participating in public discussion, individually make judgments about the behavior of others and sanctions against them.

In the digital space, where vigilantes cannot use the simplest tool – violence, they have to resort to more sophisticated practices. The main ones are naming (publication of personal data – name, place of residence) and shaming ("shaming", "shaming" for violating the norm) ^[1].

The two most significant types of vigilantism are the institutional type, where organized groups are the initiator of sanctions for violations of norms, and the spontaneous type, where the campaign of "retaliation" unfolds unorganized on the initiative of an individual, and vigilante practices are carried out by online crowds.

If institutional digital vigilantism spreads through special public sites, communities in social networks, then spontaneous vigilantism is formed in everyday discourse.

Both types have conflict-causing potential. Institutionalized vigilantism is more dangerous because they contribute not only to digital pressure on violators of norms, but also to the use of physical violence. Spontaneous vigilantism can exert pressure on the violator and his entourage through an information campaign in the spirit of a "culture of cancellation", but also tends to gradually institutionalize – the organization of vigilantes into cohesive coordinated groups engaged in a systematic response to violations of norms and often provocations against potential violators in order to punish them.

As M.O. Orlov notes, "the conflictogenicity of the information space is becoming more noticeable as a risk-forming factor" ^{[5, p. 486]}. In this regard, the so-called "third spaces" are also of interest as a discursive environment in which social norms are formed through the defense of personal and group values. Third spaces turn out to be a kind of "springboard" for translating individual issues from everyday conversations into the public agenda.

From a research point of view, it seems interesting what kind of conflictogenic potential the discursive environment of "third spaces" has in the context of vigilantism and what topics characteristic of vigilant issues are touched upon in such communities. Some of these topics can become a trigger for spontaneous vigilante violence, the other – for the institutionalization of the problem, the organization of a movement around it, or the accumulation of issues on the agenda of an existing vigilante organization.

A sample of the study. To study spontaneous vigilantism, a corpus was assembled consisting of community posts "Overheard" by the Vkontakte social network in 15 cities with a permanent population of one million or more over the past two years from September 2019 to September 2021 (Table 1). 

The orientation in the sample to the urban population is due to the fact that urbanization increases the likelihood of vigilante movements. On the one hand, vigilantism is a manifestation of mass phenomena characteristic of large cities. It occurs in conditions when strangers get as close to each other as possible and expect each other to comply with the rules of the game they understand. The frequency of interactions with other people pushes to express dissatisfaction if others do not share conventional values and do not follow generally accepted rules. On the other hand, large cities themselves are a medium for the spread of mass social anxiety ^[6], which contributes to the formation of an appropriate discourse in the Internet environment. The project "Overheard", popular among users of social networks, is an excellent example of virtual third spaces that open up the opportunity to anonymously share everyday events, usually not published in the media, with residents of the same geographical location.

Table 1. Description of the sample of the study of spontaneous vigilantism in Russia

To identify spontaneous digital vigilantism, 200 publications most discussed by users in each community were selected "Overheard" (3000 in total). The main research method was quantitative and qualitative content analysis. When coding, an inductive approach was used ^[13], which does not involve the preliminary definition of analysis categories, counting units, and the development of a classifier. Such an approach consists "in a gradual narrowing of the field of analysis: from the ultimate open search for semantic units of the text to a narrowly focused one, corresponding to the researcher's intention. The researcher organizes the raw data into conceptual categories and creates themes and concepts, which he then uses when analyzing data and calculating semantic units" ^{[7, pp. 69-70]}.

Within the framework of this study, coding took place in two stages. At the first stage, 4 independent researchers filled out semi-formalized content analysis forms, namely, they indicated all the topics disclosed in the post in free form. After this preliminary work, multiple analytical reading of texts and secondary coding were carried out. Thus, the topics raised by the users of the community "Overheard" were identified, which can serve as a trigger for the emergence of institutionalized vigilante movements, and the frequency of use in the corpus was calculated.

Results. Of the 3,000 selected publications, 400 (13%) were labeled as containing signs of spontaneous vigilantism (Table 2). The remaining 87% were mostly devoted to the problems of interpersonal relations.

Table 2. Description of the sample of the study of spontaneous vigilantism in Russia

One of the most discussed topics in the "Overheard" communities was the topic "behavior in public transport", typical for large cities (10% of all publications with vigilante potential, while 54% of publications on the topic of public transport were written in the "Overheard Moscow" community). Users are very emotionally discussing the rules of behavior. A common practice in this topic is shaming (i.e. negative emotional description of disapproved behavioral practices) on the following aspects:

1) who and to whom should give way (examples: "An impudent woman did not give way to a pregnant woman", "Some guys are sitting staring at the phone, and next to him is a grandmother who looks 80 years old and who has a hard time standing, and not to mention pregnant women who carry a person in themselves! Shame!!!"),

2) how to sit properly (examples: "The audacity goes beyond the limits! Many were standing, and he sat down in two places", "it didn't even occur to him to move to the window so that other people could also sit down"),

3) do not block the passage (example: "I have no strength! Dear backpack carriers!.. take them off, please, from the back and shoulder! I regularly see a picture when your backpack is stuck in someone's face. Today, a woman was hit twice on the head. Respect others!"),

4) appearance (example: "Girls, please don't wear such tight trousers, leggings... It doesn't look aesthetically pleasing at all"),

5) personal hygiene (example: "Dear men! Have you tried taking a shower in the morning and changing socks and underpants every day?.. You stink").

As a rule, public censure of the "violator" is accompanied by photos, which is a form of naming (publication of personal data): "Know the real boor in person! This young man sat on a wheelchair on the bus, surrounded by elderly people, when asked to give them a seat, refused in a rude way", "The city and residents should know pigs by sight", "The two guys in the photo refused to give way to an elderly woman when she politely asked them. I hope you will see this and feel ashamed." At the same time, due to the fact that vigilantism has a spontaneous nature, as a rule, naming is limited – everything is limited to the publication of a photo, and the "victim" does not even know about the naming fact. Thus, the spontaneous vigilante is satisfied with the outburst of emotions and the reaction of the audience of communities, but the condemnation does not reach the object.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic fell into the chronological framework of the study, the topic of "Violation of the self-isolation regime" is very noticeable in the study of spontaneous vigilantism. The authors of the publications show signs of vigilantes, publishing photos and addresses where violations occur: "Quarantine? Self-isolation? Not heard. We thump and shout obscenities at the entrance further... In the courtyard of Makarenko 8", "Looked out the window. 2 tram 28. Observe quarantine is called ...". It should be noted that topics related to the pandemic in one way or another, namely anti–covid measures taken by regional authorities – the introduction of a mask regime, vaccination - are widely discussed in almost all selected communities (35% of all publications with vigilant potential) (Table 3).

In the posts of the communities, there is a noticeable division into those who support restrictions, calls on others to social responsibility, compliance with the anti-weed measures introduced and condemns violators ("A wonderful way to wear a mask! Maximum utility. (Don't do that)", "I'm on the bus right now. More than half without masks at all!!!"), and those who express their dissatisfaction ("People! Wake up! If we now grab this "mask mode" and obediently cling to the muzzle, if only they would punch us a ticket and release the goods in the store for OUR OWN MONEY, then the trouble is for all of us! By the way, there were three "for" speakers on the bus besides me, two supported me, and the rest were apparently still in suspended animation… It's not the virus that will kill you, but your ignorance").

Thus, it is possible to fix the polarization of the population in relation to the norms of compliance with anti-covid measures. Probably, this area is one of the most alarming from the point of view of public danger and conflict potential. The polarization of everyday discourse testifies to the weak effectiveness of formal institutions.

Table 3. Topics related to COVID-19 in "Overheard" communities

Another topic with the potential to transform into institutionalized vigilante movements is the trapping and keeping of stray animals. Like the previous topic, it polarizes society, because radical measures cause resistance from public organizations defending animal rights.

The discussions demonstrate both the incompleteness of the spectrum of social movements and the ineffectiveness of the measures taken: "Several dogs tore up a cat under my house windows... Soon our city will be filled with mice and rats! The green defenders of the "unfortunate dogs" can you shelter them all or it's time to take drastic measures," "a pack attacked a man walking with a small dog, a chihuahua. These dogs have already been caught, sterilized, and returned to us back as "non-aggressive" ... Really scared for the children (((", "I wrote in open Kazan, reactions 0. Where else can I turn?".

This topic is repeatedly raised in the communities "Overheard" in Volgograd, Voronezh, Kazan, Krasnoyarsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Perm, Rostov, Samara, Ufa, Chelyabinsk and also testifies to the inefficiency of formal institutions – in publications users ask: "Where else can I turn?", "When will this end?", "Where to write?", "Where to call?". Although the topic itself is not a direct manifestation of vigilantism, it creates the potential for radical vigilante groups to intercept the functions of power, which can lead to conflicts with animal rights groups.

Violation of traffic rules (4%) is the most resonant vigilante topic in institutionalized groups and finds a response in everyday communication. Examples: "look where you put your cars!", "My child is on an electric scooter... hit by a girl", ""Thank you" to drivers who leave cars on the sidewalk", "Made a remark with a child, so she still snaps. She told us to bypass the trolleybus on the roadway."

Behavior of adolescents (4%). The insufficient effectiveness of socialization institutions, coupled with omissions in law enforcement, is becoming a factor in the actualization of the discourse condemning the "abnormal" behavior of young people and calls for their "re-education". Examples: "Take your larvae. They swear at the top of their voices, smoke, and rowdy on the food court. It was noticed at the Revolution 13 of the FAMILY shopping mall", "your brave kids have been resting for half an hour on the roof of the Politboys 12, the outfit has been called", "where are the parents looking he swears, sends 3 letters, someone on the phone, smells terribly of alcohol", "2 young fools called an elderly grandmother a "Hag" What kind of appeal to people".

Violation of public order (3%). An analysis of the discourse of this typical topic has shown a rather interesting trend. The authors publish information rather to warn about the violation of public order, only in some cases, calling the police. Although the discussion of these cases takes the form of "shaming", but its purpose is rather a desire to receive emotional support, rather than to stop the offense. Examples: "The guy behaved like a monkey, dug in, molested, fucked everyone, wanted to punch one of the girls. I interfered with sitting, eating. And he jumped like a monkey, showing the torch to the guard and us," "I ask you to spread information about a man who is engaged in masturbation near a kindergarten in the Aircraft Building district. He was looking for children, and then he began to satisfy his needs. In appearance, I can assume that he (hereinafter the description of appearance)".

Thus, we can talk about a common strategy of behavior in which a person views himself as a moralizing observer, while not allowing the need to contact law enforcement agencies even when he is a witness to obvious criminal actions.

To the dogs (3%). Another topic polarizing society is walking pets. It is important to take into account that doghunting is a widespread radical vigilante practice.

Residents of cities with millions of people are dissatisfied with the choice of places for owners to walk with their pets, for example, on the playground, as well as the lack of a culture of cleaning for animals, the lack of leashes and muzzles, especially for aggressive dogs and dogs of fighting breeds. Obviously, this is another problem area in which there is no combination of thoughtful state measures with effective enforcement of formal rules by authorized persons. In this case, the owners are often honored by fixing on the camera and publishing a photo, which is a relaxed vigilante practice. Third spaces create a favorable discursive environment for legitimizing radical institutionalized vigilantism in this area.

Attitude towards LGBT people (3%).This topic arises, as a rule, in connection with reports of crimes against members of the LGBT community. However, the polarization of the audience is also noticeable in relation to this topic, reflecting the struggle between traditional and left-wing liberal values. Discussions on this topic contain both censure ("A resident of Samara is harassed by homosexual neighbors at night") and support ("I join the support of equality for people of non-traditional orientation and once again I want to say ... (further arguments on points)". Obviously, this topic is among the most urgent and painful. Since the legislation in this area is quite contradictory and a number of fundamental norms appeared less than 10 years ago, there is a struggle for public opinion and the transformation of group norms into established practices and social norms.

Another topic that has been revised in terms of changes in legislation over the past decade is smoking (3%). This theme is pedaled by institutionalized vigilantes and finds legitimization in spontaneous vigilantism. Examples: "Burn in hell all those who walk in front with a cigarette and blow smoke in the face of the one behind. Smoke at home for your children and mothers, pigs!", "There is a stroller with a sleeping child, they can come up and smoke nearby! Where are your brains!", "this woman allows herself to "smoke" and stink with her cigarettes on the sidewalk on which people walk several times a day. Why should pregnant, nursing women and asthmatics breathe your stench, I'm sorry, who even from one breath of your smoke begins to vomit?".

The topic is "Animal cruelty" or "Animal rights activists" (3%). Along with the topic of trapping animals, which has the potential to radicalize discourse, there are opposing statements regarding animal cruelty. Examples: "in Murmansk, local residents committed lynching of a famous knacker... he was beaten and both legs were broken," "This dog was shot by some freak yesterday for nothing... the administration doesn't even itch... they won't allocate a round sum from the budget for shooting this moron!".

The topic "Noise from neighbors" (3%) also indicates the inefficiency of formal institutions in relation to this problem. Examples: "Talking doesn't help. The police, too,", "after learning his last name, all the authorities in any instance instantly lose interest in the problem and look through you", "The kids are running and jumping on the floor above how to deal with this effectively?". The topic has a high potential for the institutionalization of group vigilantism.

Conclusions. Quantitative and qualitative content analysis reveals a fairly wide range of topics that have a conflict potential due to the inefficiency of formal institutions. The analysis of the discourse of spontaneous vigilantism demonstrates its inconsistency. For example, there are groups that are ready to radicalize the regulation of trapping animals, and at the same time a group of animal rights activists is noticeable. Polarization is noticeable in topics dedicated to LGBT, self-isolation and anti-covid events.

Despite the large list of problems with vigilant potential, the conflictogenicity in third spaces should not be considered as high. The practices carried out by spontaneous vigilantes do not aim at the complete naming of a person – revealing his name, places where he works and lives, which could lead to a serious threat against this person. As a rule, vigilantes use the tactics of identifying a problem and warning other community members about the presence of a problem (danger). Further communication involves condemnation (shaming), but not further disclosure of the offender's persona.

At the same time, the potential for institutionalization of vigilantism is noticeable for a number of problems. Of course, participants in third spaces, as a rule, choose a consumer model in relation to conflict resolution, limiting themselves to "letting off steam" on the Internet and not contacting law enforcement agencies even when the situation requires it. But by themselves, the posts and comments of participants in third spaces form a stable discursive space that favors the emergence of vigilante groups that can find some support among the population.

Some of these vigilant movements have a multidirectional vector, which in the future may lead to a clash of vigilant groups and indicates a high conflict potential.