#Boycotts represent digital advocacy attempts in which users publicly punish an organization as a lurata (i.e., jury), which assesses the guilty intent, the mens rea (i.e., guilty mind), from a set of visible acts, the actus reus (i.e., wrongdoings). Yet, we know little about the quasi-legal narratives advocated by users. To this aim, we developed a mixed method study of the #deleteuber boycott on Twitter. Our findings suggest that while users advocate both an Uber-specific and a shared mens rea of Uber with sharing economy firms or the tech giants of Silicon Valley, the latter narrative is the most prominent one; its use depends on whether users are part of a lurata of influencers or not. These findings provide a contribution to studies on public affairs that focus on online activism, boycotts in social media and digital advocacy because they increase our understanding of the opaque legal motivations that provoke boycotters. Also, they highlight that social media blurs the boundaries between boycotts directed at the firm from the boycotts arising indirectly due to the shameful acts of the industry or peers.

中文翻译：

---

社交媒体中的犯罪意图、错误行为和数字宣传：探索 #deleteuber 抵制期间的准法律叙事

#Boycotts 代表数字宣传尝试，其中用户公开惩罚一个组织作为lurata（即陪审团），它从一组可见的行为、actus reus（即，不当行为）。然而，我们对用户提倡的准法律叙述知之甚少。为此，我们对 Twitter 上的#deleteuber 抵制进行了混合方法研究。我们的研究结果表明，虽然用户既提倡 Uber 特有的，也提倡Uber与共享经济公司或硅谷科技巨头的共同心愿，但后一种说法最为突出；它的使用取决于用户是否是lurata的一部分有影响力的人。这些发现为关注在线行动主义、社交媒体抵制和数字宣传的公共事务研究做出了贡献，因为它们增加了我们对引发抵制者的不透明法律动机的理解。此外，他们还强调，社交媒体模糊了针对公司的抵制与由于行业或同行的可耻行为间接引起的抵制之间的界限。