Epistemic Injustices Online

Topoi 43 (5):1369-1378 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In typical instances of epistemic injustice, the victims and perpetrators are distinct across social groups – as marginally or dominantly situated. When epistemic injustice happens, the dominantly situated typically rely on prejudicial stereotypes to prevent the marginally situated from participating in epistemic activities. This is a manifestation/ exercise of their social power. However, with anonymity on the internet, a marginally situated person can effectively pose as a dominantly situated person and vice versa. When this happens, we cannot always tell who is behind a post. Consequently, relying on differential power relations, as in typical cases of epistemic injustice, might be ineffective online. In this paper, I argue for three ways that anonymity might complicate instances of epistemic injustice online.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,225

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-09-11

Downloads
10 (#1,469,173)

6 months
10 (#404,653)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Abraham Tobi
Université de Montréal

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Aptness of Anger.Amia Srinivasan - 2017 - Journal of Political Philosophy 26 (2):123-144.
In Trust We Trust: Epistemic Vigilance and Responsibility.Neil Levy - 2022 - Social Epistemology 36 (3):283-298.
Content Focused Epistemic Injustice.Robin Dembroff & Dennis Whitcomb - 2023 - Oxford Studies in Epistemology 7:48-70.

View all 9 references / Add more references