Feminist writers are so besieged by online abuse that some have begun to retire (WaPo

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's the internet and feminism in terms of rancor?

I thought the internet would be filed with more progressive voices. But it seems of late large scale attacks against a movement that is a positive for society.

Are these people too stupid to tell the difference between the dumb Tumblr stuff and important feminist topics?
 
Mesoian said:
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.
Click to expand...

click -> flag as abuse -> investigation -> close account -> ban IP
 
entrement said:
Are these people too stupid to tell the difference between the dumb Tumblr stuff and important feminist topics?
Click to expand...

To most people, there is no difference, regardless of where you stand on the spectrum.

Somnid said:
click -> flag as abuse -> investigation -> close account -> ban IP
Click to expand...

Proxy--> create new account -->continue abuse.

Which is the cycle that happens now.

Honestly, it'd be little things that would make harassment more difficult than the effort put in that should be implemented. You can't post for 72 hours after creating an account, you have to use a unique private email, your account is on probation for a month.

Basically the steps needed to become a member on Neogaf on a shorter timetable.
 
SG-17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some people try really hard to avoid certain labels and it just makes them seem like they dont know what they are talking about. "I'm not a feminist but I totally believe in all these things feminism talk about."
 
kirblar said:
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.
Click to expand...
I said flag new accounts as high risk factors. Maybe your first comments have to be screened by a moderator before the recipient sees them, or the filter is more thorough on those early posts.

There is something that can be done at a design level.

Mesoian said:
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.
Click to expand...
And sometimes spam makes it through your spam filter. But when the recipient flags it as spam, the system learns more nuance about what junk looks like.
 
Mesoian said:
To most people, there is no difference, regardless of where you stand on the spectrum.

Proxy--> create new account -->continue abuse.

Which is the cycle that happens now.
Click to expand...

You can IP ban proxies and ranges used by VPNs. You can also block users without them knowing. There are also more interesting tactics like echochambers in which a user sees everything as normal but nobody else can see them which makes the user put in extra work to tell when they need to circumvent and waste a lot of effort.
 
Somnid said:
You can IP ban proxies and ranges used by VPNs. You can also block users without them knowing. There are also more interesting tactics like echochambers in which a user sees everything as normal but nobody else can see them which makes the user put in extra work to tell when they need to circumvent and waste a lot of effort.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with silent bans, there's really no excuse for that not having been implemented yet.
 
Lmao @ that dude choosing this as his hill to die on. This isn't even a hill. More like a pile of small pebbles.

EDIT

Okay, good to see the trash was taken out.
 
backslashbunny said:
No, Volimar is correct.

The Pew Survey is question finds this is true.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119973/pew-survey-women-harassed-more-social-media
Click to expand...

You know it's funny how different outlets spin the same study a certain way.

and threats against several female critics of sexism in videogames have bolstered claims that the Internet is a cesspool of misogyny, with women routinely subjected to vile abuse and threats for having an opinion or simply for being female. But are these claims true? A new study from the Pew Research Center shows that, while the Internet can indeed be a nasty place, it is not uniquely so for women. This finding is consistent with earlier research. Yet it has been reported in ways that often lean toward the familiar narrative of women in jeopardy—a narrative that is distorted and ultimately damaging to women.
Click to expand...

http://time.com/3546044/online-harassment-affects-men-too/
 
Somnid said:
You can IP ban proxies and ranges used by VPNs. You can also block users without them knowing. There are also more interesting tactics like echochambers in which a user sees everything as normal but nobody else can see them which makes the user put in extra work to tell when they need to circumvent and waste a lot of effort.
Click to expand...
How about we adopt a global internet ID system like what South Korea uses and rid of anonymity, at least on sites over a certain number of active users.
 
Earthstrike said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think his point wasn't "don't be a feminist writer," it was "don't get on Twitter/read anonymous tweets." Which might have been sensible a few years ago, but sadly these days for public figures Twitter can be as vital as a telephone or email address.

Really it seems like Twitter should figure out how to make a filter. I mean, Facebook and Google have been working for years on prioritizing good content over bad. It shouldn't be that hard to take into account a given tweet's content, account age, number of followers, etc. to determine whether someone receiving hundreds of @replies a day should care about a given tweet.

Sure, some junk will get through any filter, but reducing the volume of harassment would be a big step.
 
SG-17 said:
How about we adopt a global internet ID system like what South Korea uses and rid of anonymity, at least on sites over a certain number of active users.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't something like that make it even easier for the harassers to find the homes of their targets?
 
SG-17 said:
How about we adopt a global internet ID system like what South Korea uses and rid of anonymity, at least on sites over a certain number of active users.
Click to expand...
Tech people hate that idea. You can see how they reacted to China's introduction of a real names system.
 
BocoDragon said:
Tech people hate that idea. You can see how they reacted to China's introduction of a real names system.
Click to expand...

While true, it's stuff like the doxxing and the swatting and stalking and the eventual murder that's going to come from things like GG style movement's that's going to allow lobbyists to install systems such as this and get rid of net neutrality because "anonymity is too dangerous".
 
SG-17 said:
How about we adopt a global internet ID system like what South Korea uses and rid of anonymity, at least on sites over a certain number of active users.
Click to expand...

Sounds oppressive. If we went this route I'd argue that it be opt-in. In fact, social media builds identity so many are for this but it's not ideal for all purposes especially to be a dissenting voice. Many times you do want to distance yourself in some contexts. I wouldn't use the same thing for Facebook and a Linkedin for example.
 
Mesoian said:
While true, it's stuff like the doxxing and the swatting and stalking and the eventual murder that's going to come from things like GG style movement's that's going to allow lobbyists to install systems such as this and get rid of net neutrality because "anonymity is too dangerous".
Click to expand...
If another terror attack happened, I wouldn't be too surprised...
 
SG-17 said:
How about we adopt a global internet ID system like what South Korea uses and rid of anonymity, at least on sites over a certain number of active users.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the type of shit that people post on their Facebook and twitter pages even with full name and a real photo?

If you think doing that would get rid of threats/harassment, you're crazy.
 
leadbelly said:
You know it's funny how different outlets spin the same study a certain way.



http://time.com/3546044/online-harassment-affects-men-too/
Click to expand...

While admittedly it doesn't specifically counter what she's says, I do want to point out that Cathy Young is pretty well know for being what I personally (and I know many others share this thinking) consider to be anti-feminist. Going from there, she is ignoring that, according to the data in the Pew study, the type of harassment young women face is much much more likely to be sexual in nature than young men. For men 18-24 who have faced harassment you have 7% reporting being stalked compared to 26% for the 18-24 women. Likewise, the women of that age group that have experienced harassment are about twice as likely to describe having been sexually harassed. And no, her appealing to margin of error in order to dismiss these numbers out of hand doesn't cut it.
 
Pryce said:
Have you seen the type of shit that people post on their Facebook and twitter pages even with full name and a real photo?

If you think doing that would get rid of threats/harassment, you're crazy.
Click to expand...

While true, I think the press surrounding the notion of the act of tying one's name and face to their online persona would cut back on that a lot. Most of the people who post the most insanely racist stuff on facebook, for some reason, don't realize that they're doing as such, because it's the internet and it doesn't matter, right?

Honestly, the push should be proving to people that the internet is actually important and stuff that's said and done there does matter.
 
Flo_Evans said:
You don't understand why accusing men of being sexist pigs would set some of them off?

I mean I don't necessarily disagree but a lot of feminist articles I see online are basically trashing some company or person for being a huge asshole.
Click to expand...

Yup, bad opinions bring bad results.
 
Ri'Orius said:
What exactly does it mean to be stalked in this context? Presumably it's not IRL following them down the street?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I cannot answer that. It does not seem that the Pew study gave more guidance than simply asking about if the respondent had experienced stalking.
 
Ri'Orius said:
What exactly does it mean to be stalked in this context? Presumably it's not IRL following them down the street?
Click to expand...

I'd imagine internet stalking consists of things like:
  • Repeated messaging on every "channel" the victim has.
  • Finding personal information and contacting them that way.
  • Creating a lot of defamatory content towards the person.
And so on...
 
Absolutely disgusting. As a victim of verbal a use by a family member for many years, I know how these women can feel. Except theirs is 100fold worse...
 
Mesoian said:
Honestly, it'd be little things that would make harassment more difficult than the effort put in that should be implemented. You can't post for 72 hours after creating an account, you have to use a unique private email, your account is on probation for a month.

Basically the steps needed to become a member on Neogaf on a shorter timetable.
Click to expand...
El Topo said:
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.
Click to expand...

These are still publicly traded companies that ultimately want to please stock holders and customers. Banning everyone leaving only a couple dozen feminists to talk with themselves doesn't bring in the same ad revenue.
 
devilhawk said:
These are still publicly traded companies that ultimately want to please stock holders and customers. Banning everyone leaving only a couple dozen feminists to talk with themselves doesn't bring in the same ad revenue.
Click to expand...

Totally, which is why they do literally nothing, even if it makes them look bad in the eyes of the press and the peanut gallery for a day or two.

I understand why they do nothing, it's just...irresponsible.
 
A shame. I don't blame them for wanting to run away from harassment, but I think law enforcement and sites like twitter need to get better about handling harassment to reduce it or punish it more severely.

Valhelm said:
A lot of traditionally-empowered people find themselves attacked unfairly by social groups. People (mostly straight white guys) who don't view themselves as privileged don't understand why they're targeted.
Click to expand...

You are probably on to something with your older post you linked. Hm

Obviously all the harassment is still terrible, but that is an interesting perspective that might create some of the people who identify with gamergate and the like
 
SuperFanboy said:
Just curious... Why did this get deleted? Kind of proves his point right?
Click to expand...

Because it's full of lies, slander, and general hatred? lol

EDIT: And for the record, GAF mods do a good job of policing themselves and policies. Guess you and he don't remember EvilLore's topic on the use of the word "bitch" as an insult.
 
Is it something about these specific topics that bring out the account martyrs, or does this happen with any topic linked fairly heavily to politics? It's like a duck call to these people or something.
 
I think the growing problem with the basic truth "freedom of speech means tolerating bad opinions and insults" is that the Internet's capacity for force multiplication raises new concerns. A few cranks yelling at a feminist seminar are different from a hundred thousand lunatics beating own someone's virtual door.

Telling people to grow a thicker skin becoming kind of trite. It's easy to say than if you still think the Internet is a video game, or have never been someone subjected to the online's world collective Eye of Sauron.

I do not think there is a clear solution or even the start of one yet. Trying to ban anonymity is mostly pointless; people proudly threaten and stalk others using legal name and real photograph. They take selfies of themselves holding weapons. And anonymity and pseudonymity are required tools for other people to protect themselves - as is becoming really apparent. We are dealing with the ugly nature of humanity and regressive culture laid bare, at scale, for all to see the enormity of the situation.
 
Kai Dracon said:
I think the growing problem with the basic truth "freedom of speech means tolerating bad opinions and insults" is that the Internet's capacity for force multiplication raises new concerns. A few cranks yelling at a feminist seminar are different from a hundred thousand lunatics beating own someone's virtual door.

Telling people to grow a thicker skin becoming kind of trite. It's easy to say than if you still think the Internet is a video game, or have never been someone subjected to the online's world collective Eye of Sauron.

I do not think there is a clear solution or even the start of one yet. Trying to ban anonymity is mostly pointless; people proudly threaten and stalk others using legal name and real photograph. They take selfies of themselves holding weapons. And anonymity and pseudonymity are required tools for other people to protect themselves - as is becoming really apparent. We are dealing with the ugly nature of humanity and regressive culture laid bare, at scale, for all to see the enormity of the situation.
Click to expand...


Removing anonymity has two effects. They are less inclined to do something rash. If they are too stupid to filter themselves it's easier to fight back against them.
 
backslashbunny said:
I actually think this is a really shitty line.

It's the whole "omigod you think women can't think for themselves huh?"

I see it in every single topic that has anything to do with women-- it's basically the same thing as "I don't see racism, but you do, and you're the racist one for seeing it."
Click to expand...

I will just point out first of all, that is a quote by the author of the article Cathy Young. Her argument is basically that certain feminist writers have overstated the problem when it comes to women but understated it when it comes to men. A similar argument made by that Daily Beast article. It's not saying it isn't a problem for women, only that it is framed in one direction when perhaps really it should be viewed as an issue for everyone.

People aren't saying "omigod those poor women we need to protect them." People are saying, and it seems to follow based on research, that women are often targeted specifically about and because of their gender. The data also suggests that women, more so than men, are sexually harassed and stalked online, and that this is due to their gender.
Click to expand...

That's right, but the implication is that this is a major problem for women and not for men. So for example, Anita Sarkeesian has had a lot of abuse including death threats. The narrative is, she is getting that abuse simply because she is a woman. No other reason. That might be so, but there is no real way of measuring that. In terms of harassment in general, it seems a number of studies now have stated that actually men get more harassment overall. And, well, this is kind of what this thread is about. Feminists are being besieged by online abuse, as if like 'abuse' is a much bigger issue when it comes to women. I'm not saying it isn't, but I don't think the studies on it really back that up.

In terms of that Pew study, men are more likely to get abuse overall, and more likely to get physical threats and sustained abuse.

If we're talking about sexual harassment specifically, sure, I can see how that would more likely be a female issue than a male issue. Seeing as women on average will get more attention from men than vice versa in real life, it makes sense this would be an issue online.

The argument Cathy Young is making on this particular issue is that, first of all there is much larger margin of error when using the 18-24 age group (around 11%). I imagine there are various reasons for that, one I am guessing is the much smaller sample size. The overall percentage for sexual harassment is actually 9 percent versus 6 percent. This is due to other age groups like 25 to 29 being much less likely to get such harassment.

Margin of error
PI_2014.10.22__online-harassment-18.png


The second argument she makes on that is 'stalking' and 'sexual harassment' are not clearly defined.

I personally think it would be more of an issue for women than for men though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What are some “essentials” you would have for walking around a convention? (ideally that fit in a fanny-pack?)
40
1K
BlackTron replied
Lucasfilm Boss Kathleen Kennedy Expected to Retire This Year
2 3 4
151
7K
Dr.Morris79 replied
John Cena is retiring, so he has done something people never expected to see
2
86
6K
Marlenus replied
Looking for some tabletop gamers who want to play some Pathfinder First Edition
7
131
kentkouh replied
Aerosmith Retire
38
3K
jason10mm replied
Top Bottom