Commenting on YouTuberants: Perceptions of inappropriateness or civicengagement? Patricia G. Lange * Critical Studies, California Collegeof the Arts, 1111 EighthStreet, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA Abstract Rantingis oftenconflated withflaming and hating, whichare frequently interpreted as inappropriate formsof onlineinteraction. Scholars have categorized rants, which containemotional criticisms of something or someone, as ‘‘anti-social’’ (Vrooman, 2002). However, scholars aremoving away from universal interpretations of inappropriateness, andnowengage incontextual analyses of online behavior. Thepresent study examines a random sample of 330text comments (drawn from a pool of 13,609 comments) that were posted across35 rant videos on YouTube. Ranters describe numerous technical andsocialproblems withthevideo-sharing site.But howare rant videos received on YouTube?Do commenters characterize them as inappropriate? Do rants stimulate productive discussion or do most commenters prefer to express emotional support for theranter? Rather thandisplaying personal offense, numerous commenters discussed howproblems with YouTube were being publicly revealed invideo rants. Suchissuesareparticularly relevant, as expectations about communicative norms are beingproposed andcontested in newmedia sites(Markham, 2011). This study argues that under the right circumstances, ranting helpsconstruct an emotional publicsphere(Luntand Stenner, 2005)thatgenerates discussion among similarly concerned YouTubeparticipants about their onlinecommunicative rights and privileges. ©2014Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords:Rants;Computer-mediated communication; YouTube;Civic engagement; Social media; Impoliteness 1. Introduction Scholars have explored theoften painful effects of emotional andagonistic online interaction (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010a; Herring, 1994; Lange, 2007a; Lorenzo-Dus etal.,2011; Tannen, 1998). Haters, griefers, trolls, flamers, andranters engage in behaviors that are typically assumed to impair productive communication. The arrival of videoplatforms has prompted renewed concerns about thepossibilities of achieving meaningful public discourse (Buckingham, 2009; Hess, 2009)in heterogeneous globalforums (Burgess and Green, 2009;Jenkins et al., 2006;Lange,2007a). Yet, newer scholarship argues that online conflict is not always destructive; under certain circumstances, forms of conflict canplay an important role insocial life (Angouri and Tseliga, 2010; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010a; Pagliai, 2010; Shum and Lee, 2013). Passionandaggressive emotions have beenalsoviewed suspiciously bycivic engagement scholars (Goodwin et al., 2001; Lunt andStenner, 2005). Models ofdiscourse tend toprivilege dispassionate, reasoned argument as represented in theHabermasian (1989) ideal of deliberative discourse inthepublic sphere (Calhoun, 1992). Theorists often assume that emotions andrationality areseparate andincompatible (Lunt andStenner, 2005). However, social movement researchers nowrecognize that ‘‘emotions canbestrategically usedbyactivists andbethe basis for strategic thought’’ (Goodwin etal., 2001:9; emphasis original). Indeed, arousing empathetic feelings can stimulate support for socialgoals. www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Journal of Pragmatics 73 (2014) 53--65 * Tel.: +1415 703 9500. E-mailaddress: plange@cca.edu. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.004 0378-2166/© 2014ElsevierB.V. All rights reserved.