Т. А. Кулакова, А. В. Волкова, Д. А. Будко


The relevance of the topic stems from the fact that with the emergence of social platforms, the concept of public participation has undergone significant changes. This phenomenon needs to be scientifically analyzed and clarified. Cyberspace produces new forms communities and unique ways of communication, that are different from those existed before. Not only is modern Internet civil society a form of self-organization for individuals, it also provides opportunities for the construction of new subcultures with their own values and mythologies digital vigilantism, an informalised institution that regulates the behavior of citizens through sanctions (not always virtual) against those whose behavior does not conform to their declared value system, is particularly interesting from this point of view. Nowadays, digital vigilantism, as a fairly well-formed social phenomenon not only in global practice but also in Russia, needs an analysis of its structure, goals, motivations, interests and values of various community members. Such analysis is necessary to identify the trends of civil society change within the context of digital transformation. The capital of user surveillance and unification of social media users' behavior poses a threat to the sovereignty of states and can pervert policy. The aggressive onslaught of digital content is becoming a tool to manipulate people's behavior by subjugating their minds, destroying traditional ethical norms. In these circumstances, a defensive strategy of states is not sufficient. Instead, an offensive strategy relying on social activism is required. The article examines digital practices of individuals and groups — holders of distinct values — in an attempt to define the role of digital vigilantism in the process of shaping public values and a new ethos.


digital vigilantism; public policy; public values; citizen participation; social networks; discursive practices of the state; digital platforms and citizens; conflicts; justice


Сунами А.Н., Труфанов Г.А. Выражение риск-рефлексий через формирование дискурса вражды в медиасфере // Конфликтология. 2021, № 4: 43–57.

Sunami, A.N., Trufanov, G.A. “Hostility discourse on account in mediasphere and risk reflection frame”, Konfliktologiya, 2021, no. 4: 43–57. (In Russ.)

Moncada, E. “Varieties of vigilantism: conceptual discord, meaning and strategies”, Global Crime, 2017, vol. 18, no 4: 403–423.

Johnston, L. “What Is Vigilantism?”, British Journal of Criminology, 1996, vol. 36, no 2: 220–236.

Trottier, D. “Digital Vigilantism as Weaponisation of Visibility”, Philosophy & Technology, 2017, no. 30 (1): 55–72. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-016-0216-4.

Trottier, D. “Denunciation and doxing: towards a conceptual model of digital vigilantism”, Global Crime, 2019, no. 21(1): 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/17440572.2019.1591952.

Kyei, J.R.K.O., Berckmoes, L.H. “Political Vigilante Groups in Ghana: Violence or Democracy?”, Africa Spectrum, 2021, Vol. 55, no 3: 321–338. DOI: 10.1177/0002039720970957.

Phillips, B. “Inequality and the Emergence of Vigilante Organizations: The Case of Mexican Autodefensas”, Comparative Political Studies, 2017, Vol. 50, no. 10: 1358–1389. DOI: 10.1177/0010414016666863.

Asif, M., Weenink, D. “Vigilante rituals theory: A cultural explanation of vigilante violence”, European Journal of Criminology, 2019, November: 1–20. DOI: org/10.1177/1477370819887518.

Dunsby, R.M., Howes, L.M. “The NEW adventures of the digital vigilante! Facebook users’ views on online naming and shaming”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2019, Vol. 52, no. 1: 41–59.

Ward, M. “Walls and Cows: Social Media, Vigilante Vantage, and Political Discourse”, Social Media + Society, 2020, Vol. 6, no 2: 1–4.

Симонова И.А., Порозов Р.Ю. Молодежный вандализм как вигилантизм: российская специфика «стратегий бдительности» // Евразийский юридический журнал. 2019, № 10: 467–469.

Simonova, I.A., Porozov, R.Yu. “Youth vandalism as vigilantism: Russian specificity of "vigilance strategies"”, Eurasian Law Journal, 2019, no. 10: 467–469. (In Russ.)

Бронников И.А. Политические практики сетевого гражданского активизма в России: новые платформы и технологии // PolitBook. 2019. № 2: 6–24.

Bronnikov, I.A. “Political Practices of Networked Civic Activism in Russia: New Platforms and Technologies”, PolitBook, 2019, no. 2: 6–24. (In Russ.)

Hofmann, J., Katzenbach, C., Gollatz, K. “Between coordination and regulation: Finding the governance in Internet governance”, New media, 2017, Vol. 19, no. 9: 406–1423. DOI 10.1177/1461444816639975.

Volkova, A.V., Lukyanova, G.V. “Communication strategies of digital vigilantes: in search of justice”, Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar, ComSDS, 2020.

Кулакова Т.А., Кузнецов Н.В. Управляемость: механизмы идеологической координации современного российского государства // Конфликтология. 2014. № 4: 160–177.

Kulakova, T.A., Kuznetsov, N.V. “Manageability: mechanisms of ideological coordination of the modern Russian State”, Konfliktologiya, 2014, no. 4: 160–177. (In Russ.)

Петрова Н.П., Петрова А.А. Насилие как механизм конструирования социальной реальности // Конфликтология 2021, Т. 16, № 2: 172–179.

Petrova, N.P., Petrova, A.A. “Violence as a mechanism of constituting social reality”, Konfliktologiya, 2021, Vol. 16, no. 2: 172–179. (In Russ.)



  • There are currently no refbacks.