Internet regulation and crisis-related resilience: from Covid-19 to existential risks

References

• Agora International Human Rights Group. (2020). The fake news ‘infodemic’: The fight against coronavirus as a threat to freedom of speech. https://agora.legal/fs/a_delo2doc/196_file__ENG_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, D. E. (2014). Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(3), 717–733. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9502-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asmolov, A. (1998). Vygotsky today: On the verge of non-classical psychology. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Asmolov, G. (2015). Vertical crowdsourcing in Russia: Balancing governance of crowds and state–citizen partnership in emergency situations. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 292–318. doi:10.1002/poi3.96
   Google Scholar
• Asmolov, G. (2018). The disconnective power of disinformation campaigns. Journal of International Affairs, 71(1.5), 69–76.
   Google Scholar
• Asmolov, G. (2019). The effects of participatory propaganda: From socialization to internalization of conflicts. Journal of Design and Science, 6. https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/jyzg7j6x/release/2
   Google Scholar
• Avin, S., Wintle, B. C., Weitzdörfer, J., Ó Héigeartaigh, S. S., Sutherland, W. J., & Rees, M. J. (2018). Classifying global catastrophic risks. Futures, 102, 20–26. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton, A. H. (1969). Communities in disasters: A sociological analysis of collective stress situations. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society, 35(3), 329–345. doi:10.1080/03085140600844902
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bertrand, E. (2012). Constructing Russian power by communicating during disasters: The forest fires of 2010. Problems of Post-Communism, 59(3), 31–40. doi:10.2753/PPC1075-8216590303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bostrom, N. (2002). Existential risks – Analyzing human extinction scenarios and related hazards. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 9(1), 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Bostrom, N., & Ćirković, M. M. (Eds.). (2008). Global catastrophic risks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Reasoned action in crisis communication: An attribution theory-based approach to crisis management. In D. P. Millar & R. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis. A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 95–115). Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cottle, S. (2006). Mediatized rituals: Beyond manufacturing consent. Media, Culture and Society, 28(3), 411–432. doi:10.1177/0163443706062910
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cuénot, L. (1914). Théorie de la préadaptation (The theory of preadaptation). Scientia, 16, 60–73.
   Google Scholar
• Daucé, F., Loveluck, B., Ostromooukhova, B., & Zaytseva, A. (2020). From citizen investigators to cyber patrols: Volunteer Internet regulation in Russia. Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research, 11(3), 46–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deibert, R., & Rohozinski, R. (2010). Control and subversion in Russian cyberspace. Access controlled: The shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace. In R. Deibert et al. (Ed.), Access controlled: The shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace (pp. 15-34). Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21(3), 69–83. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (1988). How to do research on activity? Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 10, 30–31.
   Google Scholar
• Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ermoshina, K., Loveluck, B., & Musiani, F. (2021). A market of black boxes: The political economy of internet surveillance and censorship in Russia. Journal of Information Technology & Politics (pp. 18-33).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esser, F., & Matthes, J. (2013). Mediatization effects on political news, political actors, political decisions, and political audiences. In H. Kriesi, S. Lavanex, F. Esser, J. Matthes et al. (Eds.), Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization (pp. 177–201). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Ferholt, B., Guarrasi, I., Jornet, A., Nardi, B., Rajala, A., & Williams, J. (2020). Humanity’s leading activity: Survival of the humanity of our species. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 27(2), 95–98. doi:10.1080/10749039.2020.1762654
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink, S. (2002). Crisis communication: Planning for the inevitable (2nd ed.). New York: Amacom.
   Google Scholar
• Freedom House. (2021). Freedom on the Net 2021. Freedomhouse.org, https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-global-battle-over-internet-regulation-has-major-implications-human-rights
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Herrero, A., & Pratt, C. B. (1996). An integrated symmetrical model for crisis communications management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(2), 79–105. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0802_01
   Google Scholar
• Gunitsky, S. (2015). Corrupting the cyber-commons: Social media as a tool of autocratic stability. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 42–54. doi:10.1017/S1537592714003120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepp, A. (2020). Deep mediatization. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hoskins, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2015). Arrested war: The third phase of mediatization. Information, Communication & Society, 18(11), 1320–1338. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1068350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, L. (1996). What is vigilantism? British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 220–236. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V. (2014). The mediational perspective on digital technology: Understanding the interplay between technology, mind and action. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), Sage handbook of digital technology research (pp. 203–217). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karanasios, S., Nardi, B., Spinuzzi, C., & Malaurent, J. (2021). Moving forward with activity theory in a digital world. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 28(3), 234–253. doi:10.1080/10749039.2021.1914662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavada, A. (2020, June 12). Creating a hyperlocal infrastructure of care: COVID-19 mutual aid groups. OpenDemocracy, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/openmovements/creating-hyperlocal-infrastructure-care-covid-19-mutual-aid-groups/
   Google Scholar
• Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. (2010). The nature of institutional voids in emerging markets. In T. Khanna & K. G. Palepu (Eds.), Winning in emerging markets: A road map for strategy and execution (pp. 13–26). Boston: Harvard Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klyueva, A. (2016). Taming online political engagement in Russia: Disempowered publics, empowered state and challenges of the fully functioning society. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4661–4680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loveluck, B. (2019). The many shades of digital vigilantism: A typology of online self-jus-tice. Global Crime (pp. 213-241).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansell, R. (2012). Imagining the internet: Communication, innovation, and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meier, P. (2015). Digital humanitarians. How big data is changing the face of humanitarian response. Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames: Taylor & Francis Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, M. (2017). Will the Internet fragment? Sovereignty, globalization and cyberspace. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Musiani, F., Bronnikova, O., Daucé, F., Ermoshina, K., Ostromooukhova, B., & Zaytseva, A. (2021). The Russia “Sovereign Internet” facing COVID-19. In S. Milan, E. Treré, & S. Masiero (Eds.), COVID-19 from the margins. Pandemic invisibilities, policies and resistance in the datafied society. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures (pp. 174-178).
   Google Scholar
• Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055. doi:10.1111/etap.12254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palen, L., & Liu, S. B. (2007). Citizen communications in crisis: Anticipating a future of ICT supported public participation. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, April 28-May 3, (pp. 727–736).
   Google Scholar
• Pelling, M., & Dill, K. (2006). ‘Natural disasters’ as catalysts of political action. ISP/NSC Briefing Paper 06/01, London: Chatham House, 4–6.
   Google Scholar
• Perrow, C. (2011). The next catastrophe: Reducing our vulnerabilities to natural, industrial, and terrorist disasters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, M. B., & Pearce, J. M. (2016). The psychology of crisis communication. In A. Schwarz, M. W. Seeger, & C. Auer (Eds.), The handbook of international crisis communication research (pp. 34–44). Malden: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Samoilenko, S. (2016). Crisis management and communication research in Russia. In A. Schwarz, M. W. Seeger, & C. Auer (Eds.), The handbook of international crisis communication research (pp. 397–410). Malden: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Sellnow, T., & Sellnow, D. (2010). The instructional dynamic of risk and crisis communication: Distinguishing instructional messages from dialogue. The Review of Communication, 10(2), 112–126. doi:10.1080/15358590903402200
   Google Scholar
• Sivetc, L. (2021). Controlling free expression “by infrastructure” in the Russian internet: The consequences of RuNet sovereignization. First Monday, 26(5). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/11698
   Google Scholar
• Tierney, K. (2014). The social roots of risk: Producing disasters, promoting resilience. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wijermars, M. (2021). Russia’s law ‘On news aggregators’: Control the news feed, control the news? Journalism, 22(12), 1–17. doi:10.1177/1464884921990917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zittrain, J. (2006). The generative internet. 119 Harvard Law Review, 1974, 1974–2040.
   Google Scholar
• Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the Internet and how to stop it. New Haven Conn: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zuckerman, E. (2014). New media, new civics? Policy & Internet, 6(2), 151–168. doi:10.1002/1944-2866.POI360
   Google Scholar