#FREE BRITNEY: Does Britney need to be freed…again?

Posted on

by


Keywords: websleuths, hashtag activism, #FreeBritney, social media, advocacy.

In the case of the #FreeBritney movement, websleuthing fans on TikTok, Twitter and Instagram have used online advocacy and hashtag activism as weapons of control.

Websleuthing and Hashtag Activism is an online activity that has impacted digital media’s representation of social identity. Throughout the years, community movements such as ‘MeToo’ and ‘BlackLivesMatter” dominated social platforms and hashtag activism to expose injustice and create global change. Unfortunately, not all community movements maintain a positive agenda, and the ‘#FREEBRITNEY’ movement is no exception. Websleuthes and hashtag activists fought to free Britney from her conservatorship, but the triumph was short-lived as their devotion to the cause became an invasion of her privacy, an obsession to know more, a modern-day witch hunt. Through social media, fans actively facilitated toxic conspiracy theories and investigations for self-gain and glorification purposes, proving that her freedom is only within the measures of their satisfied expectation. This paper explores the sinister intentions of the #FreeBritney movement that began in 2019, using evidence from academic journals, books, online news articles and video documentaries to detail the way in which the insidious obsession of websleuths and hashtag activists has tainted the purity of a worthy movement.

On February 1st 2008, pop singer Britney Spears was involuntarily placed under a conservatorship after concerns were raised due to her erratic behaviour throughout the year. Britney Spears dominated the world when she burst onto the scene in 1998, maintaining an unmatched superstar rain. In the years that followed, Britney’s mental state and emotional well-being unravelled in ways the public had never seen before resulting in a public meltdown and drug-related hospitalisation that saw the megastar tumble from grace. Following this, an emergency court hearing was arranged and Britney’s father, Jamie Spears took complete control. He was appointed Britney’s sole guardian and caretaker within a legal conservatorship, granting him complete control of her personal and financial affairs (Bromley, 2017).

FreeBritney.net was launched in 2009 in response to the announcement of the conservatorship, It wasn’t until 2019 however, that a Britney Spears fan podcast ‘Britney’s Gram’ coined the hashtag “FreeBritney”, sparking this online social movement and uniting her fans as a global community. After years of suspecting foul play due to bizarre and cryptic posts from Britney’s instagram account, these fans became devoted to investigating and ultimately helping to free the pop icon from an almost
fourteen year conservatorship that was destroying and controlling her life (Angulano,
2021).

In November 2021, Britney was finally granted her freedom when a judge terminated the conservatorship that had been ruling her life and her finances. Although the conservatorship ended, the online movement, however, did not. What had started as online advocacy, was now obsessive and invasive and saw the emergence of a new problem altogether – “Websleuthing”. Websleuthing is a relatively new term used to describe online investigative work that can be performed by anyone with an internet connection, regardless of their area of expertise. Websleuthing started out as a way to expose wrong-doings by dangerous individuals, locate missing persons, and help rectify acts of injustice by ways of online investigation. However, as websleuthing groups have become more intrusive and prone to conspiracy theories, this online activity has now become quite controversial. Pantumsinchai argued that collective intelligence during unfolding events can be problematic. (Walkington, Z. et al, 2021) He goes on to discuss an official police investigation that was taking place into the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 where Reddit users “conducted their own investigation naming innocent people who had not been involved.” (Walkington, Z. et al, 2021)

The celebratory world has also been taken over by the websleuthing community. In most cases, websleuths will attach themselves to mainstream media. In doing so they absorb the initial narrative before taking matters into their own hands which can help advocate for their favourite celebrity via deep online research. The collection of hidden information, contracts and documentation can exonerate an individual or particular group being threatened, victimised or discredited. (Yardley, E., Lynes, G. A., and Kelly, E. 2016).

It’s not a secret that social media can be a valid source for investigative work. With 4.76 billion people using social media worldwide, law enforcement relies heavily on the information that social media and digital platforms can provide in order to solve a case (Statista, 2023). In the case of Britney websleuths however, their claims and theories lack authenticity as they cannot be supported by trustworthy evidence. The Netflix original documentary titled ‘Don’t f*** with Cats’ also shows how data gathered through websleuthing is often unusable in the eyes of the law. The websleuths in this documentary became actively obsessed with hunting down a dangerous individual. While websleuthing seemed to be a plausible approach, there was no legislation in place to regulate how sensitive information was gathered in this way and as a result, it was disregarded. Even police who have professional training and access to quality resources have a low return rate when cracking cases that lack substantial evidence. For untrained individuals using their home computers, the chances of finding and solving cases are even lower (Benyamin, 2022).

The act of websleuthing itself not only endangers the subject being investigated, but is also dangerous for the sleuther themselves. Websleuthing has the power to become a full-time obsession, often impacting the identity of the individual sleuther. Between secret profiles, alarming revelations, and online witch hunts, websleuths often need to seek professional support pre-and post-investigation due to traumatic events that unfold during the case. Unlike law enforcement officers, websleuths are required to pay for such therapy themselves (Doganis and Hawkins, 2019). Websleuths have admitted to suffering from a decline in their mental health, often struggling with guilt and shame over potentially amplifying situations that should have been left alone. The ‘Don’t F*** With Cats’ documentary concludes with one particular websleuth admitting that the work comes with great risk and suggests that it’s time to turn off their machines for good (Doganis and Hawkins, 2019).

In addition to websleuthing, a second online impact known as ‘hashtag activism’ has emerged. Hashtag activism is designed to provide the necessary awareness for important causes on social media through the use of hashtags. By trending an important mission or cause on platforms such as Twitter, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, the hashtag gains momentum at an expeditious rate, securing the world’s attention (Powell, 2022).
Two popular examples of hashtag activism include #BlackLivesMatter and the #Metoo movement. Both hashtags became globally recognised and have been used by millions of people in support of the cause. Although hashtag activism can be helpful in spreading awareness and reaching larger audiences, some argue that people can exploit the hashtags for their own benefit, reaping glorification or popularity by simply sharing the hashtag on their social media accounts. Due to the nature of hashtags and cyber activism, information is constantly being produced and manipulated which results in disinformation being spread and shared over multiple platforms.

Recently, fans have started making extreme accusations and developing new hashtags on social media such as #Britney’sNotFree and #WhereIsBritney. The facilitation of such obnoxious conspiracy theories and creating “echo chambers” within the community has accumulated over 200 million views on TikTok (Pullar, 2023). Due to this activism and hashtag exposure, individual websleuths from around the world started discussing and investigating outlandish theories that painted Britney in a negative light without her control or consent.  This new community of hashtag activists are carelessly representing Britney in an extremely unhealthy and toxic manner. This often sees Britney introverting and/or isolating from the public, forcing her to shut down her social media
accounts to minimise the harassment.

The conservatorship stripped her of all human rights, effectively transforming her into a cash cow for those who controlled her. Britney lost the ability to make any decisions for herself, including managing her own social media accounts. Britney’s representation of “self” was greatly controlled by her conservatorship team, who had access to platforms that supported the process and readjustment of her online identity. Not only did they control decisions regarding her health and personal life, but they were also able to reinvent Britney as a brand, creating a newly manufactured personality for the public (Papacharissi, 2012). Fortunately, Britney now has control of her online presence and social media accounts. She has been able to rediscover her identity and now has the autonomy for the world to see her true authentic self which is vastly different to the version of Britney that has been previously manufactured. (Leaver, 2015).

In the case of websleuths and activists alike, fandom has its own self-representation through ‘front stage’ performances. Whether this be via posts, blogs, tweets or video recordings, they project the necessary version of “self” that is most fitting for topic-portrayal and disregard the accurate representation of their victim. Their truth becomes the only truth available, which is why personal narrative and storytelling in the wrong hands is poisonous in today’s contagious digital age (Barassi, 2018). Given Britney’s history with mental health, the unknown impact that these trending conspiracies may have on her life is troubling. Britney Spears is under no obligation to reassure, acknowledge or establish a connection with such theories/stories just because they are trending, yet fans demand answers.

It is hard to believe that some fans refuse to adjust to Britney’s newfound freedom given the dramatic battle of the #FreeBritney Movement, which begs the question: are these new hashtag activists more interested in self-gain and social exposure, or simply desperate for continued community connection? It’s important to remember that hashtags have the power to drive traffic to a personal account, creating activity on a global scale. An individual using social media with a popular or trending hashtag has the ability to bank thousands of views, comments and followers for their own gain. It also supports the momentum of an existing movement in order to stay relevant and maintain continuous community engagement that many individuals thrive off (Barassi, 2018).

Some of the comments emerging from fans are suggestive of their dissatisfaction or concern as to why Britney has not been photographed by paparazzi since the termination of the conservatorship. They question whether her new fiancé Sam Asghari is keeping her hostage and manipulating home videos and photographs before posting them online. They continue with darker theories regarding Britney’s physical appearance and compare her to older photographs from over ten years ago, insisting that she was murdered and replaced with a “Britney clone” (The Project, 2023).

In a recent episode of The Project Australia, the panel welcomed Sydney-based author, podcaster and Britney super sleuth, Jessie Stephens, to discuss the recent headlines surrounding the pop star. Jessie comments that while most of these headlines are in fact wildly fabricated, the conspiracy theorists behind them genuinely believe them to be true. Regarding the conservatorship and the #FreeBritney movement, Jessie states that fans have not been able to detach and are now behaving as though they are entitled to know every intimate detail of Britney’s life. (Project Australia, 2023)

Britney recently made headlines for dancing with sweat patches on her T-shirt and fans couldn’t wait to share their concerns and conspiracies. Britney locked the comment section in her Instagram posts to avoid intense harassment, but that didn’t stop fans from re-tweeting the video and sharing their negative reactions with the world
(Johnson, 2023). It appears that fans are on the edge of their seats waiting for the next drama to unfold that they can sink their teeth into.

In conclusion, the fandom surrounding Britney has created an internet community that is unhealthy and dangerous. During the conservatorship, the ruling judge who initially rejected Britney’s plea for freedom began receiving death threats from fans which forced her to request a $50,000 flat fee for additional security measures to be put in place amid the case (Wegmeister, 2021).  Britney fans seem to be more turbulent and toxic than Britney will ever be and even when they have genuine intentions, it is still at the detriment of Britney’s safety or sanity. More action needs to be taken such as flagging content that is potentially deceptive with additional penalties for any repeating offences in order to prevent false information from circulating on social media platforms.
How ironic is it that the community that once advocated to free Britney is now the same community that holds her captive in the virtual world.

References:

Anguiano, D. 2021. The #FreeBritney movement finds its moment: ‘All the hard work
was worth it. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/nov/14/freebritney-movement-britney-spears-conservatorship

Barassi, V. 2018. Social media activism, self-representation and the construction of
political biographies. In G. Meikle (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism (1-9) Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315475059

Benyamin, C. 2022. Do the Benefits of Crowd-Sleuthing Outweigh the Risks? The
Perspective. https://www.theperspective.com/debates/businessandtechnology/perspective-crowd-sleuthing

Bromley, M. 2017. The Fall and Rise of Britney Spears: The Real Story Behind the Day
the Biggest Celebrity in the World Lost Everything. E-News. https://www.eonline.com/news/829944/the-fall-and-rise-of-britney-spears-the-real-story-behind-the-day-the-biggest-celebrity-in-the-world-lost-everything

Doganis, D, Hawkins, A. (Executive Producer). 2019. Don’t F*** With Cats [TV series].
RAW TV. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11318602/

Elphick, C., Philpot, R., Zhang, M., Stuart, A., Pike, G., Strathie, A., Havard, C.,
Walkington, Z., Frumkin, A. L., Levine, M., Price, A. B., Bandara, K. A., and Nuseibeh, B. 2021. Digital Detectives: Websleuthing Reduces Eye Witness Identification In Police Lineups. Frontiers In Psychology. 12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8081957/ (add cite in para hoe)

Johnson, A. 2023. Britney Spears shows Off Suggestive sweat stains in latest Dance
Video: I Was Hot In My Car. OK! NEWS. https://okmagazine.com/p/britney-spears-suggestive-sweat-stains-dance-video/

Leaver, T. 2015. Researching the Ends of Identity: Birth and Death on Social Media.
Sage Journals. 1 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115578877

Papacharissi, Z. (2012). 12 A Networked Self. Identity Performance and Sociability on
Social Network Sites. https://zizi.people.uic.edu/Site/Research_files/Ch12.pdf

Powell, C. 2022. The Promise of Digital Activism—and its Dangers. Council Foreign
Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/promise-digital-activism-and-its-dangers-0

Pullar, J. 2023. Everything You Need To Know About Those Wild Britney Spears
Conspiracy Theories. ELLE Australia. https://www.elle.com.au/culture/britney-spears-conspiracy-theories-28096

Statista. 2023. Number of Internet and social media users worldwide as of January
2023 (In Billions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/

The Project. (2023, Jan 13). Britney Spears: Internet Sparks Conspiracy That Singer is
Missing and Isn’t Free [Video] YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K1KWs97tOo

Wafmeister, E. 2021. Police Monitoring Death Threats to judge In Britney Spears Case.
Variety. https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-judge-death-threats-police-1235040519/

Yardley, E., Lynes, G. A., and Kelly, E. 2016. What’s the deal with ‘websleuthing’?
News media representations of amateur detectives in networked spaces. Crime, Media. Culture: An International Journal. 14 (1) 81-109 https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659016674045


Search Site

Your Experience

We would love to hear about your experience at our conference this year via our DCN XIV Feedback Form.

Comments

34 responses to “#FREE BRITNEY: Does Britney need to be freed…again?”

  1. Ali Avatar
    Ali

    Hi Mickey,

    This was such a fascinating read! Thank you for sharing your paper.

    It was interesting to read about web sleuthing from this angle – I had only ever read about or considered it in terms of “true crime”. It was thought-provoking to see it from this perspective of digging into celebrities’ personal lives.

    I wonder, did your research discuss how these hashtags allow or boost the formation of communities for the #freebritney movement?

    Kindest,
    Ali

    1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
      Mickey.Dichiera

      Hi Ali!

      Thankyou for reading and sharing your thoughts.

      It is honestly astonishing how contagious the #FreeBritney Movement/community growth is. I mention when discussing conspiracy theories and hashtags, the community is so quick to spread or doctor evidence that is damaging to Britney’s mental health. Many users do this without legitimate proof, remaining unbothered by the consequences it has and simply feeding off the formation of community engagement. Community boost/growth is great in theory, but at what cost or detriment when the narrative is harmful?

      1. Ali Crowe Avatar
        Ali Crowe

        agreed! Any ideas or research on how the #freebritney hashtag could be monitored and checked for misinformation? Or another way to mitigate this?

        1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
          Mickey.Dichiera

          Hey Ali.

          In my opinion, a law needs to be put in place that prevents the spread of information on social platforms like TikTok and Instagram that can monitor content being uploaded and provide the public with an official alert. Of course, This will need to be developed and implemented worldwide by social media outlets.

          For example, “The content in your video has been flagged by our system, as it may contain false or misleading information which may be harmful or damaging to others. If you do not have warranted evidence or permission by external parties to release this material, you will be penalised by law”. Or something to this effect.

          1. Ali Avatar
            Ali

            I like the idea of this. Can you see the algorithms/systems getting it wrong and flagging content that isn’t harmful because of keywords? I dare say this will improve drastically over the coming years as AI is improving so rapidly.

          2. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
            Mickey.Dichiera

            Hey Ali.

            Great question.

            I don’t actually. If a legitimate law was implemented, this would pressure the platform to prioritise videos that have been flagged to undergo investigation before hitting public streaming, only allowing them into the algorithm after deemed appropriate.

            They currently do this with videos that contain nudity or explicit content, so why not potential slander?

  2. Amelia.Rigby Avatar
    Amelia.Rigby

    Hi Mickey.
    This was such an interesting and insightful read. I enjoyed reading this perspective on websleuthing and how Britney’s fans once rallied for her freedom are now the ones who hold her “digitally captive.”
    In your opinion, do you think that these websleuths should be liable for psychological damage caused to the person they sleuth on, and in this instance Britney?
    Thank you,
    Amelia

    1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
      Mickey.Dichiera

      Hey Ameila.

      Thanks so much for reading/sharing!

      To answer your question, absolutely! One of my recommendations was “More action needs to be taken such as flagging content that is potentially deceptive with additional penalties for any repeating offences in order to prevent false information from circulating on social media platforms”. In my opinion, a law needs to be put in place that prevents the spread of information on social platforms like TikTok and Instagram that can monitor the content being uploaded and provide an official alert.

      For example, “The content in your video has been flagged by our system, as it may contain false or misleading information which may be harmful or damaging to others. If you do not have warranted evidence or permission by external parties to release this material, you will be penalised by law”. Or something to this effect.

      1. Danny Avatar
        Danny

        Hi Mickey,

        I completely agree with you on this issue. It’s truly concerning how people spread false and harmful information, making it appear very convincing. Not only is it a waste of people’s time, but it could potential cause harm in some cases. It’s frustrating to spend time watching content that you believed was legitimate, only to find out it’s completely false.

        I was thinking the other day, what if content creators were also required to cite peer-reviewed sources, hahaha…… or at least some credible sources? But then, some people might argue that this would stifle creativity. If not, then who will be the ones to judge if the information is actually false or misleading. It’s a difficult dilemma.

        Danny

        1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
          Mickey.Dichiera

          Hey Danny.

          Thanks so much for reading and sharing your thoughts.

          It is a difficult dilemma. You know, citing their evidence isn’t such a bad idea. If these users have the time to talk about another individual’s life (who they don’t know personally), then back up your claims! Realistically, this is what id like to see:

          A law put in place that prevents the spread of information on social platforms like TikTok and Instagram that can monitor the content being uploaded and provide an official alert.

          For example, “The content in your video has been flagged by our system, as it may contain false or misleading information which may be harmful or damaging to others. If you do not have warranted evidence or permission by external parties to release this material, you will be penalised by law”.

          Or something to this effect as I believe it would greatly minimise users from taking advantage of the hashtag system, algorithm, and Britneys star power.

  3. Joshua.DeFilippis Avatar
    Joshua.DeFilippis

    Hey Mickey,

    Very interesting read, I do remember seeing the hashtag trending and started reading through the conspiracies, if you are an outsider like me some of these theories can seem very real. Do you think Brittney could make a more aggressive stop to the hashtag by going on interviews trying to say how much the hashtags are affecting her or do you think this will create even more conspiracy theories?

    – Josh

    1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
      Mickey.Dichiera

      Hey Josh. Thanks so much for reading.

      To answer your question, I don’t think that Britney should validate conspiracy theories by doing a press release of any kind. I believe this would only give users more ammunition to exploit her.

  4. L.Foolee Avatar
    L.Foolee

    Hi mickey
    first of all great paper with all the hashtags used which I didn’t even know existed and it has broadened my knowledge in so many ways.
    After having done so much research, have you found a solution about how to stop the misinformation regarding the #freebritney hashtags situation as it is something very sensitive right?

    Cheers,
    Lakshana Foolee

    1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
      Mickey.Dichiera

      Hey Lakshana.

      Thankyou for reading and sharing your thoughts!

      Great question. Unfortunately, nothing has been set in place to minimise or moderate users from exploiting social media platforms to represent/advocate for unwilling participants. As mentioned in some of my previous responses, this would be my recommendation:

      A law put in place that prevents the spread of information on social platforms like TikTok and Instagram that can monitor the content being uploaded and provide an official alert.

      For example, “The content in your video has been flagged by our system, as it may contain false or misleading information which may be harmful or damaging to others. If you do not have warranted evidence or permission by external parties to release this material, you will be penalised by law”.

      Or something to this effect as I believe it would greatly minimise users from taking advantage of the hashtag system, algorithm, and Britneys star power. The only issue with this, it would be very time-consuming and expensive for platforms to implement this worldwide, however with the necessary legal action or law put in place, I do believe this can be achieved.

    1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
      Mickey.Dichiera

      Will do! Thanks Lakshana. 🙂

  5. Sarah.Bailey Avatar
    Sarah.Bailey

    Hi Mickey,

    This was a fascinating read! I hadn’t considered that Britney was under a new umbrella of constant monitoring post being freed from her conservatorship, but you’re right, she is under hyper-intense observation from the internet, especially when she posts online.

    How much of web sleuthing do you think links with parasocial relationships? It seems, to me at least, that a lot of people who are monitoring Britney now got a sense that their web sleuthing was a key reason why Britney was finally freed, almost as though they were her friends or her lawyers. To that point, do you think web sleuths genuinely believe they’re still helping Britney even now, or do you think that (at least in some capacity) they are doing it as a means of obtaining lucrative celebrity gossip and intel? If so, do you think they’re aware of this underlying reason as to why they are invading Britney’s privacy?

    Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
    Sarah

    1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
      Mickey.Dichiera

      Hey Sarah.

      So glad you enjoyed the read. To answer your first question, I think that websleuthing is parasocial by nature. Websluethes tend to pounce on a topic or situation out of passion (at first), which slowly turns into obsession, which then turns into complete delusion. When you think about it, websleuthes are always chasing their stories, their leads, their victims, villains etc, but they never get the closure they crave. Websluethes are rarely thanked or acknowledged for their investigations but rather disregarded and discredited. I do believe some good can come from their research (as mentioned in my paper) but for the hungry websleuthes, boundaries do not exist because the law does not accept their research, which actually makes them more dangerous. So even when websleuthes try to remain honourable, it’s still at the cost of something or someone.

      In the case of Britney, I do believe their initial intentions were authentic. However, the research involved during the period of 2019-2022 was intense, and I believe many of the ‘fans’ feel deserving of Britney’s time and attention now that she is ‘free’. We need to remember, Britney Spears is a massive pop star and is beloved by millions of people around the world. It is very easy for their affection to become disorientated and borderline desperate. When Britney finally acknowledged the ‘#FreeBritney” movement, it was almost cringeworthy observing the online comments and responses shouting for Britney to acknowledge them. It makes a lot of sense that post conservatorship, they feel that loss of community and lack of purpose. I do believe many fans go out of their way to create twisted hashtags for community spark, glorification and for Britneys attention.

      1. Sarah.Bailey Avatar
        Sarah.Bailey

        Hi Mickey,

        Thanks for getting back to me!

        I wonder, do you think this is a celebrity-specific experience, or do you think it could be more widespread? Or, is the niche situation of Britney’s conservatorship the perfect catalyst for this type of behaviour?

        Rereading your paper also has me thinking, would people be acting this way without the safety provided by (perceived) digital anonymity? Without the internet, I imagine the vast majority of these websleuths would not shift their search to real-world means of investigation. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts–what is it about online invasions of privacy that makes them feel more acceptable than offline ones?

        Sarah

        1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
          Mickey.Dichiera

          Hey Sarah.

          To answer your first question, I believe it could happen to anyone, however, websleuthes tend to focus on stories or investigations that have gained a significant amount of coverage/public attention.

          To answer your second question, in the case of the “#FreeBritney Movement”, the conservatorship became so intense, I am extremely relieved they did not have physical access to her, but rather restricted to their online devices. I believe if they did have physical access, they would use ‘advocacy’ to the darkest extreme to infiltrate and feed off her celebrity in real life. Their behaviour online certainly doesn’t prove genuine at this late stage, so I can’t imagine an intimate connection with her amidst her legal battle would have been healthy.

          In terms of websleuthing, I absolutely believe that digital anonymity is the only reason they feel safe and compelled to embark on their own investigative journeys. The fact that they remain faceless, means they can poke and prod as much as they want without taking any real responsibility. An example of this is from the mentioned documentary “Don’t F*** With Cats” in which a mentally ill individual took responsibility for the dangerous videos being spread. He was then widely harassed and threatened online by websleuthes. He ultimately committed suicide and was not responsible for the videos online, but rather suffering from mental illness. Websleuthes involved decided not to take any responsibility for creating a chaotic ending to the young man’s life. Doganis, D, Hawkins, A. (Executive Producer). 2019. Don’t F*** With Cats [TV series].
          RAW TV. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11318602/ So basically, regardless of any destruction left in their path, as long as they believe they fight for a good cause means each sacrifice produced is for their greater good.

          This is of course incredibly problematic on a magnitude of levels.

          1. Sarah.Bailey Avatar
            Sarah.Bailey

            Hi Mickey,

            Thanks for your response. I agree, the example you give of “Don’t F*** With Cats” is very concerning, and I can see how it could be applied to Britney’s case.

            Do you think, then, the solution to web sleuthing is some means of circumventing the anonymity that encourages this behaviour? Something like a Digital ID, for example? Is this possible invasion of privacy worth it, to protect other’s from having their privacy invaded in a much larger capacity, as with Britney?

            Keen to hear your thoughts.
            Sarah

  6. Michelle Sayer Avatar
    Michelle Sayer

    Hey Mickey,
    Cool thesis here – you had me at Britney. I feel motivated as a writer by your research. Thanks a bunch for that. I saw the #FREEBRITNEY movement as a remarkable and positive phenomenon but recall a creeping sense of unease with the turn of events. I have experienced an insidious misrepresentation of motivation in a relationship myself. To help wrest a person from the throes of control only to become a secondary controller is a dark side of humanity. The disappointing outcome for Britney was a dangerous obsession, rising lack of respect and unwillingness to let go by certain fans; there should be no resulting entitlement to possessing another on any level. I concur that a public conservatorship ensued. While taking a strong interest in this case, I was unaware of the subsequent growth in the websleuthing community. I can see how this sits alongside the true-crime podcast scene. Is there another specific celebrity sleuthing case you have come across in your research where I could begin to look deeper into this?

    Regards to you,

    Michelle Sayer

    1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
      Mickey.Dichiera

      Hey Michelle.

      Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. I LOVE that the title grabbed you! #TeamBritney.

      To answer your question, yes there is. The recent divorce settlement between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is another major example. Their divorce trial was widely documented on social media and websleuthes sunk their teeth in deeply. Regardless of the sides, I found it disturbing and discouraging how individuals depicted the trail on TikTok. As an outsider, I feel uncomfortable sharing my opinion with the general public because I do not know the couple personally. Unfortunately, millions of social media users do not share this approach and felt strangely entitled to make a mockery of the trial participants, whilst glorifying others deemed worthy. To prove my point, I was team Johnny Depp, however, I was completely disgusted by the dragging and dismissal of Amber, and believe social media played a villain’s role in the resulting conviction.

      Hashtag Activism and Websluething have become a social construct built to allow unsolicited opinions to influence highly sensitive cases. Amber Heard had a story to share regardless of the public narrative. Unforutently, online advocacy has the ability to unwillingly allow individuals to be seen as human beings but rather as delicious chew toys for online enjoyment.

  7. Charlie McEwan Avatar
    Charlie McEwan

    This was such an interesting read! So many situations like this are happening online all the time and more often than not feel invasive and dangerous. I’m glad you brought up the fact that the Britney “sleuthing” hasn’t subsided since she was released from the conservatorship! At the risk of sounding like one of these websleuths, she is clearly still experiencing mental health issues and people use her symptoms to create conspiracy theories (like the ones about her partner keeping her hostage etc.), which shows such a poor understanding of how mental illness actually works.

    On a similar note, I think about how detrimental this kind of behaviour was during (and after) the whole Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial. Regardless of anyone’s personal (or professional) opinion on the matter, the way people online dug into their lives was disgusting. This behaviour only makes matters worse for abuse victims, who may feel their entire personhood must be dissected in order to gain justice for what happened to them.

    Great paper, Mickey!

  8. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
    Mickey.Dichiera

    Hey Charlie.

    Thanks so much for reading.

    I felt the exact same way about the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp case. The hashtags and websleuthing were such a disturbing display. Regardless of public opinion, we are all human beings and we all have a story to share. Celebrities seem to confront this type of online ambush at an accelerated rate because their status makes them completely unrelatable to many members of the public, who feed off their downfall. It’s a tragic and vicious cycle that both the law and social media need to take responsibility for.

  9. Beau.Lear Avatar
    Beau.Lear

    Hey Mickey, really interesting paper.

    I’m wondering though, how can we ensure web sleuthing is more moderated in future? Do we need to establish new laws around interpersonal privacy online?

    1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
      Mickey.Dichiera

      Hey Beau.

      To answer your question, a law put in place that prevents the spread of information on social platforms like TikTok and Instagram that can monitor the content being uploaded and provide an official alert.

      For example, “The content in your video has been flagged by our system, as it may contain false or misleading information which may be harmful or damaging to others. If you do not have warranted evidence or permission by external parties to release this material, you will be penalised by law”.

      Or something to this effect as I believe it would greatly minimise users from taking advantage of the hashtag system, algorithm, and Britneys star power. The only issue with this, it would be very time-consuming and expensive for platforms to implement this worldwide, however with the necessary legal action or law put in place, I do believe this can be achieved.

  10. Shaveena.Appa Avatar
    Shaveena.Appa

    Hello there, Mickey.

    Your conference paper, in my opinion, effectively sheds light on the harmful influence that websleuthing and hashtag activism may have on people’s security and privacy. Your analysis of how online advocacy could grow into an instrument of control is thought-provoking, and it emphasizes the perils of unstable online activism.

    What would you wish readers could draw from your paper, especially in regards to how they participate within online activism and online communities in general? Do you have any tips or guidance for those who wish to contribute to issues they care about online without engaging in destructive conduct or spreading misinformation?

    Regards,
    Shaveena Appa.

    1. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
      Mickey.Dichiera

      Hey Shaveena.

      Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.

      That’s a great question, although complex to answer. It’s difficult because you can’t control or monitor the way people interact online. We can aim to implement laws and procedures for flagging purposes when uploading content, but nonetheless, people will find a way to share their opinion in potentially harmful displays. All you can really hope for is to share and spread awareness through conference papers such as this/other media outlets for educational purposes and aim to shed some light on the dangers that are occurring. I choose to believe that human beings are intelligent and sensitive enough in 2023, that once educated and enlightened on an activity causing harm, actively work together to prevent it.

  11. Alisha.Hiscox Avatar
    Alisha.Hiscox

    Hi Mickey,

    I really enjoyed reading your paper; it was so interesting to read about websleuthing and the dangers of this. I feel that this concept is so relevant today, and I constantly find more and more cases where people are investigating and drawing conclusions about celebrities’ lives. In particular, I have seen this surrounding Taylor Swift and what/who her songs are about. Many people believe she wrote a few songs about model Karlie Kloss and are heavily speculating that they were romantic in the past. Some fans have begun to urge her to address these rumours and come out, as if she owes them that personal information. I think because some celebrities, such as Taylor Swift, have given fans access to their lives through social media, it gives them a sense that they are privy to personal information.

    I was wondering what you think could happen 10 years from now. Do you think this will become a punishable offence? To so heavily speculate on someone’s life and what they are doing, and to essentially websleuth their lives – will this be considered stalking by law?

    Or will making this a punishable offence obstruct our freedom of speech and what we can say or do online? I saw someone comment earlier that they believe people should have to start citing sources based on the information they say online. Do you think it might get to this point – that users will have to justify and support what they are saying much like we do in our academic work in uni?

    Thanks,
    Alisha 🙂

  12. Mickey.Dichiera Avatar
    Mickey.Dichiera

    Hey Alisha.

    Thanks so much for reading.

    To answer your questions, I do not believe it will be a punishable offence 10 years from now. (Although it should be). Unfortunately, not enough people are educated or aware of the ominous intensity of websluething/hashtags, and we seem to live in a world where large changes are only implemented after a preventable tragedy. For example, paparazzi and news reporters (especially in the U.S) stalk and interrogate their victims on a daily basis which has a serious impact on celebrity life. We can use Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Princess Dianna, and many more as prime examples. Some countries have put laws in place that prohibit and restrict this activity, whilst America (which is widely known for this behaviour, protects celebrity news organizations under the First Amendment.) https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1249/paparazzi

    This demonstrates that our world takes very small measures to implement important change, and sometimes even large global tragedies make no difference.

    That being said, small social media changes should be put in place right now to prevent the spreading of slander and false information. For example, “The content in your video has been flagged by our system, as it may contain false or misleading information which may be harmful or damaging to others. If you do not have warranted evidence or permission by external parties to release this material, you will be penalised by law” or “penalised from using the platform”

    Or something to this effect as I believe it would greatly minimise users from taking advantage of the hashtag system, algorithm, and Britneys star power. The only issue with this, it would be very time-consuming and expensive for platforms to implement this worldwide, however with the necessary legal action or law put in place, I do believe this can be achieved.

  13. Finch.Assadoullaev Avatar
    Finch.Assadoullaev

    Hi Mickey, glad I finally got the chance to read your paper! It’s so cool to see a more colloquial topic such as websleuthing be discussed and analyzed in an academic manner.

    Just yesterday, a TikTok came on my feed of someone editing a video of Britney dancing wherein they made it slow-motion, allegedly catching the moment where an AI face filter is applied. People in the comment section are even saying that the current Britney is just Jamie-Lynn Spears with an AI filter. I wasn’t aware just how deeply entrenched some of these websleuthers had been. Like you said, it may have been initially from a place of care for Britney’s wellbeing, it is evident that it has spiraled out of control.
    I’m curious why you chose to analyze Britney’s situation specifically? Was it a personal interest, the popularity of the events, accessibility to information, or something else entirely?

    You mention some kind of content flagging for information that may be fraudulent. This type of system had been inputted on Instagram for a period of time – especially surrounding the Biden v. Trump election & COVID. Were you on the platform at the time and if yes, what did you think?
    Personally, despite what some commenters may have said, I believe it made a difference. Even the couple seconds of reading the warning could lead an individual to question the information – maybe leading to further research or at least, not 100% trust in the info.
    Many people cite it as an invasion of Free Speech; however, I am a firm believer that Free Speech does not mean free from the consequences of one’s speech – especially if the speech itself causes harm.

    I’m intrigued to see how these kinds of situations unfold – whether individuals may seek legal intervention (i.e. defamation cases) and how this will affect future online interactions.

    Thanks and great work,
    Finch

  14. NhacLinh.Vo Avatar
    NhacLinh.Vo

    Hello Mickey

    It is an awesome paper. Thank you for sharing xx

    I believe people hunting her private reality is an impossible and invasive task, better suited for paparazzi standing outside a hairdresser or chasing her car down the streets, than for fans hoping to see her make the most of her freedom.

    Since Taylor Swift and her partner – Joe Alwyn split, fans become insane, I mean I feel like they live for her life, they control her like their pet.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/arts/celebrity-fans-online.html

    They are getting mad at everyone and starting to attack anybody relating to Joe. You can read the news below:
    https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/taylor-swift-fans-troll-emma-laird-joe-alwyn-photo-1235310476/

    My question is how celebrities can control their fans, I mean in some ways to not make fans crazy as we are really sick of toxic fans nowadays. And the effectiveness of celebrity involvement on fans behavior?

  15. Jaida.Adams Avatar
    Jaida.Adams

    Hi Mickey!

    Felt like a was watching a crime documentary (in a good way), which really caught me up to speed on Britney from start to almost finish. I totally agree with you, in addition to this, I feel that she is pressured to post herself and show that she is ‘free’. However, this has led to her videos and posts being constantly analysed by her ‘fans’.

    Most recently, we have seen a video of her with a filter face on and people assuming that this person isn’t even her! What are your thoughts on this?

    Cheers,
    Jaida

Skip to content