Gentleman Jack
Member
linebreak in OP's link munched it, use the a url shortener or something like http://wapo.st/1vkOhPi
Feminist writers are so besieged by online abuse that some have begun to retire (WaPo
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
- Status
Palette Swap
Member
A. People posting this shit are somewhere. Let's get the ones in the same country to begin with.
B. Social networks are companies who do business in a lot of countries and have a presence there. They have to comply with local laws.
So yeah, you won't get that Ecuadorean kid posting on a Russian website but a lot of people from North America and Western Europe who post on things like YouTube, Twitter or Facebook are absolutely identifiable. That would be a better start than "welp, let's not do anything, it might solve itself".
John Kowalski
Banned
Why wouldn't they want control over an issue that is primarily concerned about how much control women have over their bodies? It is a feminist issue and it has been so for a very long time, much like other issues related to women's sex. Whether abortion is a matter of human rights does not disqualify it as primarily a matter of female rights.
I mean this is some really basic stuff man.
Except it is. Women are the ones who get pregnant and pro-choice is arguing for their right to abort.
You can support an issue without supporting it from a feminist standpoint, but because it's a major feminist talking point, abortion is clearly a feminist issue.
Some people hate fracking because it undermines their interests in oil-drilling. That doesn't mean fracking is not an environmentalist concern.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Horrible little shits. It won't solve the problem outright, but Twitter and other social media outlets need to crack down on it, to start with. You can't provide a public forum and then just not moderate it. If you do, you're a co-author of what develops in the absence of your involvement.
Yikes. I've never seen those tweets before. A lot of them are just as nasty as anything Iggy has done.
One person at a time. The world isn't going to change tomorrow.
Why does one preclude the other? Why can't a human's rights issue also be a feminist issue? Especially if said issue particularly affects women?
But that study that was cited was the one that had Ricky Gervais and Piers Morgan as celebrities, and they alone accounted for like a crazy percentage of the abuse. Seem to remember that taking them out changed the results quite dramatically.
Yes, its nasty for everyone, but its women who seem to be the greatest threat for simply having an opinion. Abuse needs to stop for everyone, but I'm not ready to say that its not as bad for women as it is for men or that the effects are the same.
Hari Seldon
Member
Why not go back to using pseudonyms for posting shit on the internet? That is what most people do here and on reddit. I don't know why anyone would use their real name on the internet for anything.
Derekloffin
Member
I think you're confusing owning an issue with having an interest in it. Feminism would definitely be concerned with human rights, even the most radical segments of Feminism. That doesn't equate to them owning the issue. It simply means they have a large stake in it and yes they would discuss it and bring it up. It also means others who don't identify as Feminist can also bring it up too.
faceless007
Member
Even if I accepted you description of what feminism, it's pretty telling that such men's reactions to that accusation inherently proves the accusation correct, don't you think?
Gamergate has nothing to do with mysoginy and harassment. I read that it has to do with ethics in game journalism.
They have to, and their CEO sent a scathing letter that they must do a better job of it, but it's a very hard issue for them to fix.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/79...t-memo-taking-personal-responsibility-for-the
It won't solve itself but typical law enforcement won't solve it either. They might investigate a bomb threat if indeed is from somewhere they have access to, but it's not illegal to have 500 people call you a whore and it's certainly out of line for any law enforcement to request details of a individual from the service operator unless it was imminently threatening. Essentially the moderation comes from the service. Twitter can verify the individual, close their account and associated accounts and IP ban them. It's actually not hard to digitally profile people, it just hasn't been much of a priority. NeoGAF is a large forum but heavily moderated and so it's not much of an issue.
Derekloffin
Member
A good part of the issue is people need to stop supporting these site that have pathetic ways of dealing with harassment. The likes of Twitter should be DEAD with how non-existent their harassment prevention mechanisms are, yet people keep going there. Stop supporting these sites until they clean up their acts.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Sorry about that, updated
Gentleman Jack
Member
Maybe there's still a lot of weight behind a message with a real face and name attached to it than a random internet handle. It's not impossible to be anonymous and make a difference but I suspect it's a shitload more work to gain the same amount of credibility as a public figure.
If online discourse of social issues was my trade, I sure as shit wouldn't use Twitter as a platform to discuss or even market my work. 140 Character limit, no moderation, wasteland filled with trolls and hate, no thanks.
I really think people need to get off Twitter if their life is affected this badly, supporting something that is so toxic to your livelihood and mental state, I just don't get it.
I really think people need to get off Twitter if their life is affected this badly, supporting something that is so toxic to your livelihood and mental state, I just don't get it.
John Kowalski
Banned
np, it just took a bit or work
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
This is more Twitter as it's setup is inherently about the crowd.
Facebook is much better in this regard as you can easily make a profile just for your immediate family and friends. Plus you can make yourself unsearchable.
Yeah, I just don't find it shocking that running a blog dedicated to calling people out gets a lot of hate.
Gentleman Jack
Member
This was illuminating
From that link:
45 years later the same shit is going on when women speak up in public, and invariably someone brushes it off as 'just online trolling get over it.'
From that link:
45 years later the same shit is going on when women speak up in public, and invariably someone brushes it off as 'just online trolling get over it.'
One could start a career screening twitter for journalists, bloggers, etc. Is there a way for a third party to screen twits before they reach the recipients?
Comments on websites should be moderated, like the NYT does with their comments.
I guess not looking at text messages on your phone from strangers would be up to the individual.
Comments on websites should be moderated, like the NYT does with their comments.
I guess not looking at text messages on your phone from strangers would be up to the individual.
Hari Seldon
Member
There is so many people posting so much shit to the internet that does some random name even matter unless it is a celebrity?
Yes? Otherwise they wouldnt do it.
Pretty sure that poster was being sarcastic. Everyone, except maybe the gators themselves, know what GamerGate is really about.
On topic: This saddens me. Both how these women are treated and the fact that I see some of my old friends in some of these anti-feminist rants. Granted none of them have ever done anything this severe (that I know about), but seeing people hold their opinions in the face of shit like this is baffling. I feel powerless.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is and, unless you've seen the writer that this story is about say anything like what you're claiming, you're just making up a bullshit excuse.
Jesus Christ.
ConsumerSquare
Member
I wonder if phrases like "constant, round-the-clock abuse" should be reserved for situations that the recipient can't simply opt out of.
Are you saying what I think you are saying?
ConsumerSquare
Member
Probably not, but I doubt that will slow you down.
"Why won't these women just understand their place and keep quiet."
John Kowalski
Banned
No. That would be "inescapable, constant, round-the-clock abuse". It's fine as it is.
Gentleman Jack
Member
I guess it's a function of how easy you want it to be for your audience to relate to you. It's a larger hurdle to clear when evoking empathy for an anonymized source. Celebrity doesn't enter into it. There is something fundamentally and unshakably untrustworthy about a faceless entity online for anybody who's invested in a presence there.
TheWarrior
Banned
I've been on the internet for a long time, and anonymous interaction was always the greatest thing about it. I think once MySpace came around and people started using their real names for things the internet changed for the worse.
Corronchilejano
Member
So, men get harrased more about whatever, while women get harrased less but more intensively?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
If we can have spam filters that work well on our email, why can't we have abuse filters on Twitter?
Screen out certain keywords like slur and threat words, keep databases of repeat threat makers and repeat blockees, consider the messages of brand new accounts as high risk factors, etc.
I bet you threats have trace characteristics that make them identifiable in code. Twitter's just been lazy about R&D on this.
Screen out certain keywords like slur and threat words, keep databases of repeat threat makers and repeat blockees, consider the messages of brand new accounts as high risk factors, etc.
I bet you threats have trace characteristics that make them identifiable in code. Twitter's just been lazy about R&D on this.
When they can just go get a new account in an instant, it defeats the purpose. Same reason Twitch Chat has to go sub-only.
Wowie....
It doesn't defeat the purpose if the filters also check the content.
Earthstrike
Member
I don't think so. Imagine there was an environmentalist group whose plan to reduce meat eating was to randomly select some individuals, and then contantly harass them by finding their phone number, obstructing their vehicle, e-mailing anonymous death threats.
Would we not call that "constant, round-the-clock abuse" simply because such random targets could simply opt out of eating meat?
It's because social media companies (not just Twitter) don't seem to give a fuck about hate speech, racism, harassment or verbal abuse. Why point out a problem if you can ignore it?
There was an article in a (German) newspaper a while ago (if I recall correctly) on how difficult it can be to get a hateful Facebook site removed, even if they're in clear violation of their ToS.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
I'm pretty sure only women can carry children, unless something has changed in the past 5 minutes. So yeah, by fucking default it is a feminist issue. It's the age old feminist issue of old white men telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
Thinking it isn't a feminist issue is self-deluding.
Problem there being, what happens when the filter doesn't catch it because it's not using pajoritives. A tweet saying, "watch your back when you're walking home tonight" isn't going to set off any flags.
- Status