Are Internet Trolls the Modern Incarnation of Witch Hunters?

[Turborama]

REBECCA GREENFIELD 12:34 PM ET

In the age of the Internet troll, there's an unfortunately predictable cycle for what happens to women who talk about feminist issues online: They get barraged with rape threats and harassment. For examples: see here, here, here and most recently, here. The anonymous nature of Twitter and comment threads allows cowards to write hateful things to people without consequences, suggesting that this reaction is unique to the digital age. But it's not. The Twitter rape threat is just the 21st century incarnation of a centuries old reaction.

Just the other day we saw the modern-day cycle play out, with a "countercampaign of online harassment" lobbed at "several high profile women" who advocated for Jane Austen and other historical female figures on British bank notes. The announcement that Austen would grace the 10 pound bill resulted in Twitter rape threats by the minute against the blogger Caroline Criado-Perez because she both advocated and celebrated the "brilliant day for women."

The scope and nature of the hate is specific to the Internet, argues Dr. Whitney Phillips, a media studies and digital culture researcher, who is writing a book on trolls. "While the sort of violently sexist bile directed at Criado-Perez definitely has precedent (and not just precedent but precedents), it also has context," she told The Atlantic Wire. "Not only does Twitter allow for anonymous or pseudonymous communication, not only does it provide a forum for users to directly interface with public figures, its social functionality encourages the breakneck spread of information." In addition, because of the Internet, more people have exposure to people like Criado-Perez and her story, further amplifying the potential haters.

But, like Phillips said, the behavior has precedence. The sexism we see online is just a reflection of real world hatred, suggests University of Maryland law professor Danielle Citron, who is writing a book about cyber harassment. "We have gendered harms that we see these nudged into cyberspace where it's much safer for perpetrators to demean," she told The Atlantic Wire. Before, you might see acceptable sexual harassment in the work-place, for example. And certainly journalists in particular saw these feelings manifest in letters to the editor and hate mail — the comment threads of the analog age.

More: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/08/witch-hunts-lynch-mobs-and-talk-radio-where-people-trolled-internet/68099/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

What is turning so many young men into internet trolls?

There's misogyny, of course. But sometimes it's boredom, a need for attention, or a grievance against a world that is passing them by. An academic specialist in online behaviour asks, how should we treat these disparate kinds of abuser?


Claire Hardaker

Two thousand, three hundred and ninety-three years ago, in 380BC, Plato wrote the myth of the Ring of Gyges, in which the shepherd, Gyges, discovers a ring that makes him invisible at will. He promptly uses the protection this offers to infiltrate the royal household, seduce the queen, assassinate the king and take the kingdom. Plato goes on: "If now there should be two such rings, and the just man should put on one and the unjust the other, no one could be found, it would seem, of such adamantine temper as to persevere in justice."

Plato felt that the protection of being unidentifiable could corrupt even the most morally upstanding person. After the week she has had, Caroline Criado-Perez might well sympathise with that bleak assessment. After she had successfully petitioned to have Jane Austen's image appear on the new £10 banknote, Twitter trolls used the anonymity of the internet to inundate her with threats of rape and violence.

It took another petition and a media storm to overcome the inertia that seems to exist when social networks and the police are asked to deal with online abuse. When MP Stella Creasy stepped in to support and defend Criado-Perez, the Twitter trolls began to target her too. And in the latest twist, several female journalists were sent bomb threats. So who are the trolls sending these messages? And what motivates them to behave like this?

The Gyges effect – the way that the internet can encourage a disinhibition people simply would not experience face to face – is only part of the explanation. Linked to that is the way the internet allows us to shut down our sense of empathy. In a nutshell, we are sending words through a screen, and seeing words come back. No tone of voice, facial expressions or body language. This makes it easy not only to pretend there isn't a real, emotional, possibly fragile human being at the other end, but also to play down any emotional reaction that they convey back as an exaggeration or a lie.

Much more: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/03/how-to-stop-trolls-social-media

[LeftishBrit]

1. Very interesting

I would add to this that it is relatively easy to troll online. There are precedents for this sort of disgusting behaviour - anonymous 'poison pen' letters have always been a problem, and have the same characteristics of anonymity, and a lack of direct observation of the effect on the other person - but writing and sending a poison-pen letter takes more effort than posting a comment on social media.

[dipsydoodle]

2. grace the 10 pound bill ?

Other than those with a "what's on the back of out £10 note fetish" I'm not aware of anyone giving a fig what's on the back of any of our notes. The only thing which would stand out a mile would be the Queen not being on the front.

At a glance the US for comparison has never had a woman on the reverse of one of their notes.

Those who conducted the campaign , whilst not certainly deserving of threats whatever of any description , seem to have done so in a effort to gain 15 minutes of attention. A result of the threats is that the resultant outcry , which they have successfully subsequently milked on tv , added to the 15 minutes for them and in doing so made them personally the subject of the issue as opposed to the original issue of women on banknotes.

[Sheldon Cooper]

3. And, there it is.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached "Impugn The Victim" in just two posts!!

[dipsydoodle]

5. All that was actually necessary

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2013, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

for those who didn't agree was to set up a contra poll - not attack the originator. Same applies to all the change.org stuff like their latest lame one about moving the Olympics.

As an aside if you were not aware - change.org isn't a charity : its a profit based company registered in Delaware paying no tax.

[boston bean]

6. They deserved it don't you know. Attention seeking w*o*e

Thats pretty much what that poster said.

[KittyWampus]

26. Your post exposes you as a sexist totally willing to do what the OP is pointing out albeit

on a lower scale.

You just labeled the women lobbying for Austen on the note as attention whores who should be glad for the death threats they received as it gave them an opportunity to milk the situation for even more attention.

[boston bean]

4. I've seen the argument, right here on DU, that this is a free speech issue

Women are requesting an abuse button on Twitter to report death threats, rape threats, bodily harm threats, but the answer is from Twitter is to put these people on ignore, so you don't see what they write.

What a fucking bad idea. Puts the blame on women who are victims of this, in that they can control this simply by ignoring certain twitterers.

Seems as though women aren't even worth a abuse button, Twitter could give a shit. Keep in mind twitter doesn't want to have to deal with death threats, threats of violence, rape and bodily harm of its female users.

Just keep on trucking women, and put the asses on ignore... yeah that will teach them.... right!

[dipsydoodle]

7. Its not a free speech issue

but by the same token there is nothing that forces anyone to use twitter etc.

[boston bean]

8. I know women should self censor themselves and avoid places

versus, making a place that doesn't allow death threat, rape threats, threats of violence and bodily harm.

[In_The_Wind]

30. Where have I heard that logic before ...

oh, ... the dark ages.
Make it the woman's responsibility to remain safe from harm.

[Warpy]

81. The only precaution I've taken is an androgynous name

I say what I want, the only self censoring the applied to the sort of philippic that would get me kicked off most boards for being insulting, over the top and promoting violence.

Women disproportionately get the attention of cowardly little trolls simply because hatred of anything remotely female is the fashion among a certain type of male. They'll all tell you they love women, but what they love is using women. They'd be far happier with robots that keep the place clean, are always available for sex, and never utter a word.

That's what we're up against. The only good part is that they're generally rabbity cowards who thrive on "fooling" everybody around them about the online persona they see as powerful enough to drive women off the net.

Poor babies, it's not working. They are what "ignore" and "block" were created for.

[Squinch]

12. Wow. I am guessing you design and market burkas for a living, right?

Because if we need to avoid those arenas where we find sexism and the rape culture rather than exposing and fighting it, we'll all be needing them.

[dipsydoodle]

15. That is an offensive remark directed at a specific religion.

****

[Squinch]

16. Nope. It's directed at a piece of clothing that is designed to make women anonymous and

powerless.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Nice try.

It remains an offensive remark directed at a specific religion.

[Squinch]

18. Nope. It doesn't. But if you choose to see it that way, and you are offended, you can just

stop reading this thread. Your advice was to avoid those arenas where we find objectionable content, wasn't it?

[dipsydoodle]

19. You finally agree

'nuff said.

[Squinch]

21. Bye. Your advice was bad, but at least you follow it.

[Decoy of Fenris]

22. Hehe. Saw that one coming. n/t

[Squinch]

23. And are you in agreement with the poster's argument that, in response to the rape

threats on Twitter resulting from requests for women's images on currency, those women who were threatened should respond by avoiding Twitter?

[Decoy of Fenris]

25. Yup. Fully.

I'm -not- in agreement with the Twitter response, not by any means; the comments and acts are vile and reprehensible. I just don't support censorship of any kind; I'm of the mind that if one is disturbed, offended or otherwise insulted, one should remove oneself from the presence of the offensive or disturbing material.

If I'm in a restaurant and a child is wailing and crying, I can always request from the parents that they attempt to quiet the child, but then, not only am I uncomfortable, I am making others uncomfortable as well. Even if the parents were to hush their child, the social discomfort would continue (Now that I have silenced a child, I have in turn discomforted the parents) and in the end nothing would be accomplished save for a vague, ego-stroking feeling of vindication. Instead, I bear the discomfort until my meal is ended and leave without conflict. Thus, I have now ended the encounter with a minimal amount of confrontation, without causing anxiety to others. Granted, that's just my line of thought process, and I'm rather odd in that way.

The long and the short of it is that by attempting censorship or other repression, the pushback will only get worse, or even more disturbing than that, the repression online may manifest in offline, real-life acts of violence or aggression against women. Hence my opposition, among other reasons.

[Squinch]

47. How about child porn? Does that qualify for free speech protection in the

"repression free" world you espouse?

And if you saw it, would you simply say, "gosh, that's objectionable" and then slink away from the site? Or would you say or do something about it?

[Decoy of Fenris]

61. Not at all, given that child porn is hardly "Speech".

It's a blatant exploitation of a subgroup of people almost completely incapable of defending themselves. Unless you're calling these women equally unable to defend themselves, I don't see how the two correlate.

I don't know what I'd do in your given situation, seeing that I don't put myself in a situation that exposes me to child porn. I'd wager if I wandered onto a website that peddles such filth and said "Hey, this stuff's bad, m'kay? Stop it.", you could blame no one but me for even seeking it out.

[Squinch]

62. So, if you see something that YOU find objectionable, it's OK to take a stand against it.

But only those things that YOU find objectionable. Threats of rape or death to a woman because she suggested that women's images should be on currency, though, is something you don't find objectionable. So you think it's appropriate to suggest she just get out of the arena and be quiet.

Because if it doesn't bother you, it shouldn't bother anyone. But if it does bother you, then it's OK for everyone to be bothered.

That's nice, dear.

[Decoy of Fenris]

63. That's not what I said at all, but I'm wagering you knew that and are spinning rapidly.

Let me make it even simpler for you.

I don't look to put myself into situations that would ignite a conflict. If a conflict -is- ignited, I seek to remove myself from the situation as rapidly as possible. You seem to think that on the Internet, there is some magical, right to not be offended, and if you -are- offended, by golly, whoever offended you will pay in Net-blood, so screw the net and everyone on it; you get yours, or else.

Even here on DU, as dictated by our Jury rules, "You take your chances". That rule, surprisingly, translates well to the rest of the Internet. Twitter? Take your chances. Reddit? Take your chances. Facebook? Take your chances. On almost any website on the net, there is no such thing as reasonable expectation of civility, and those thinking there is (or should be) are only kidding themselves. Anonymity is a weapon.


Yes, the Twitter trolling is a reprehensible thing, but is it stifling these women's voices? No. It certainly shouldn't have surprised them in any way; this is the response I'd expect to damned near anything, from a petition to put a woman on a currency, to a recipe of strawberry cheesecake. Likewise, these women have every right to strike back at said trolls. I just don't support censorship of almost any kind.

Welcome to the Internet. "You take your chances" sums up the Net's general attitude rather nicely.

[boston bean]

65. There is a conflict here, in this thread. Watchya doing still participating?

[Decoy of Fenris]

69. I've been debating leaving the thread alone, but that would result in further conflict.

Leaving would result in unanswered questions and an unfinished dialogue, which is both rude and uncivilized. Sticking around will continue a discussion and although the end result may be a disagreement, the discussion will be concluded, leaving no unfinished business. Therefore, sticking around precludes discomfort, and since I put myself in this situation, I have no expectation of civility or pleasantries. Honestly, I believe that the end result of this dialogue will be with casual dismissal of my opinion and the marking of me as some sort of anti-female crusader. Since I put myself in the situation, I'm not going to complain about it. It is what it is.

[Squinch]

71. So you can stay around and discuss, but the woman who got death and rape threats shouldn't.

I see.....

[Squinch]

66. Speaking of making it simple, let's review our conversation:

I asked you if you supported the claim of another poster who said that the woman,who received the death and rape threats in response to suggesting that women's images be put on currency, should simply be quiet and leave Twitter without exposing the threats or voicing her opposition.

You said, absolutely you did. You said, "I'm of the mind that if one is disturbed, offended or otherwise insulted, one should remove oneself from the presence of the offensive or disturbing material."

We then established that you don't always think that one should remove oneself from the disturbing material. There is some material that YOU find disturbing which you think is appropriate to voice opposition to.

Now you are completely reversing yourself and saying, "Likewise, these women have every right to strike back at said trolls. I just don't support censorship of almost any kind."

So which is it? My original question was, do you think the other poster was correct in saying the woman who was threatened needed be quiet and walk away? Originally you said yes. Now you are saying no.

[Decoy of Fenris]

67. They have the -right- to strike back; they -should- remove themselves.

Sometimes, what is correct and what one should do are vastly different. In the case of these women, those are only two of several possible outcomes.

Please don't misrepresent me or put words in my mouth. I've yet to contradict myself.

[Squinch]

68. There you go again....

[Decoy of Fenris]

70. Yes, damn my consistency and all that. Do you have a point you're attempting to make? n/t

[Squinch]

72. You are consistently inconsistent. It is a rare talent.

[Decoy of Fenris]

74. And, that marks the end of that.

Take care. Little discourse to be had here.

[Squinch]

78. Actually all sides of the discourse! But have a good night.

[Marrah_G]

20. It's aimed at a small group of of men who abuse and oppress women

It is not aimed at all of Islam.

Men who require women to wear burqas also treat and think of them as less or equal to livestock.

[KittyWampus]

27. Burqas have nothing to do with religion. They are a cultural artifact and nothing more.

[Arcanetrance]

24. It is a free speech issue. If women can't get on facebook or twitter or any other site

without threats of physical and emotional harm. That creates the feeling that they are not free to speak their mind. While no one is forced to use any of those sites anyone should have a reasonable expectation of going on and speaking their minds without threats of reprisal.

[Just Saying]

80. You're exactly right.

Women have the right to free speech also without threats and intimidation trying to shut them down.

[gollygee]

41. Harassment and threats of violence aren't "free speech"

There are limits and those are outside the limits.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Same exact answer here

Just ignore them.

[boston bean]

42. yeah,that didn't escape me.

are men threatening women with rape and death on DU not that I've seen. but there is misogyny and sexism on DU, and people are expected to ignore it, like it's a perfectly fine liberal/democratic stance to hold and one where women should take the opportunity to educate. screw that. it just shouldn't be welcome. anyone with an ounce of understanding can see through the sexist comments and excuses strewn about this thread.

[BainsBane]

73. Did you see the female circumcision as a matter of "choice"

despite the fact it is illegal and has been proclaimed a human rights violation by the UN and human rights organizations.

[boston bean]

75. No, missed that. But I have seen a bunch of sick thinking

against women on the internet. DU not excluded.

[redgreenandblue]

9. Troll does not equal troll.

There is a huge difference between the kid who posts fart jokes on his favorite gamer board and the person who does online stalking and anonymous rape threats. Lets not conflate the two. Some trolls are benign, some are not. The motivations can vastly vary.

[ananda]

10. Funny you should mention witch hunting.

I've been thinking of the current war on women as a modern day
throwback to witch-hunt mentality with different tactics.

[Squinch]

13. Absolutely.

And the difference in tactics are only differences in the technological capabilities and legal framework. The motives and underlying words and actions are the same.

[Igel]

11. No. Tricksters.

Those who run around trying to "exposure" the "corruption" at DU--the secret freepers, the trolls, the sockpuppets, the crypto-Klansmen ... They're the witch hunters.

[boston bean]

14. nice. feminists and supporters of women

are the problem, eh??

Good to have you set the record straight.

[KittyWampus]

28. It is really unbelievable how deep sexism is even on DU.

[Squinch]

48. I am beginning to think there are some here who are totally sick with it, and

who are far worse than people I run into in real life.

[KittyWampus]

53. I don't question that many are liberal guys… but it's so deeply ingrained in societal attitudes

and behaviors it is very difficult to recognize.

[Squinch]

55. I think the posession of those attitudes means that they can't be considered liberal.

Whether they are aware of how regressive they are or not.

[boston bean]

64. That's been obvious to me.

If one calls themselves a liberal/progressive/democrat, all it is, is a label one uses to describe oneself. One must walk the walk and talk the talk. Miosgyny and sexism have no place in liberal/progressive/democratic politics. Never knew that to be such a radicial idea....

[rrneck]

29. I think death threats etc are illegal, are they not?

I would think that the button to report such things already exists: the send button on your email. Certainly the authorities would like to know about something like that.

What sort of mechanism would be in place on Twitter's end to differentiate between reporting an actual threat and somebody perceiving a threat that is little more than internet snark? It looks like Twitter sees over 400 million tweets a day. Would Twitter be expected to investigate each and every alert to determine if the threat is genuine? Would the authorities be expected to do so? I don't see how that would be possible, but I don't know that much about it.

If Twitter is to be expected to take specific action against actual threats, what mechanism should be put in place to regulate a reasonable response to objectionable, albeit benign, content? Who will see to it that people using Twitter don't abuse the alert button to silence those with whom they do not agree by prompting some sort of investigation or sanction?

[dipsydoodle]

31. Yes it was a matter for the police here

who responded accordingly and will continue to respond.

Man arrested and bailed over Twitter abuse of Labour MP Stella Creasy and Caroline Criado-Perez http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-arrested-and-bailed-over-twitter-abuse-of-labour-mp-stella-creasy-and-caroline-criadoperez-8749454.html

[rrneck]

35. Good. But then a Labout MP would expect such a response.

How would we provide the same service to people without so much pull?

[dipsydoodle]

37. She was one of two.

I don't know who got which twitters.

[boston bean]

32. not allow people threatening rape and violence to use their service.

[rrneck]

33. 400 Million tweets a day. How many moderators do you think that will take?

How many threats are actual threats and how many are just assholes being assholes?

[boston bean]

34. That is what an abuse button is for

to notify twitter they someone is using their system for death threats, rape thread, violence.

The onus is on twitter to remove these posters, make it not such a comfy cozy place to do this shit.

But alas, it's just too damn much work and it effects mostly women, so who cares. Women should stop using twitter.

I can tell the difference between a rape threat, death threat, and some asshole, can't you?

[rrneck]

39. Yes, we all know what the alert abuse button is for.

How will you guarantee the people using the button will use it properly?

Actually, the onus is not on Twitter to do any such thing. They provide a public forum for anonymous people to say pretty much what they please. If you hear someone cuss you in a crowded train station the owners are under no obligation to insulate you from such abuse. If you don't like it, stay out of crowds. If you get on soap box and make speeches, attracting the opprobrium of any number of assholes, you should expect such responses. That's just one of the unfortunate inconveniences of leading a public life. Before the miracle of the internet, such a public life was rather more difficult, but of course now anyone can have a soap box, and anyone else can respond with excessive vitriol.

The question remains. How would the owners of Twitter differentiate between actual threats and the bloviations of assholes? What assurance do you offer that the users of Twitter will use the alert button responsibly?

[boston bean]

40. A death threat is easy to recognize

A threat of violence, rape is easy to recognize.

Women aren't interested in squelching mens rights to be misogynists, or their bullying or disgusting misogynist comments. They just want to be able to enjoy the free speech to confront it without the threat of bodily injury.

I think twitter can determine what is a threat and what is not.

[rrneck]

43. Soooooo.....

What assurance do you offer that any significant selection of women out of the millions of Tweets a day will be able to restrain themselves? Are women, as a group, so rational and restrained they wouldn't dream of abusing such a "button"? How can you speak with such unsubstantiated authority?

Are you saying there couldn't be any women out there that would encourage them to use the button for anything other than bona fide threats? That there couldn't be any women who would exploit their influence over others to abuse the system for their own aggrandizement; who wouldn't use it as a means of squelching debate whether the content is actually vitriolic or not?

What assurance can you offer that would not happen?

[boston bean]

44. Twitter will decide.

As I've said before quite a few times to you, we are talking about death threats, rape threats, and threats of violence.

We are talking about an abuse button for the above. Something any person with a brain cell can see as a threat. Have you read any of this stuff that has been posted or are you just OK with this stuff.

The onus is on twitter to make twitter an uncomfortable place to post these threats. and a welcoming place for all of its users.

I know you must always have the last word, so go on and repeat your response to me once again about evil women who will abuse an abuse button, instead of discussing ways to prevent women from receiving these threats on twitter..

[rrneck]

45. Well,

If you could do something other than simply repeat yourself we might actually make some headway. Unfortunately, you have yet to acknowledge the possibility of system abuse, much less offer any mechanism to control it. The underlying assumption is no woman would dream of abusing the alert button, and no woman would dream of manipulating other women into abusing it for their own aggrandizement. Your obtuse pronouncements carry no weight.

I had the last word when you refused to have a conversation. I will take my leave now your Highness, if you please.

[Squinch]

49. Didn't we have this exact same discussion, and run into the same "but, but, but"s

with respect to Facebook?

I can't believe these people.

[boston bean]

50. He acts like I didn't answer him. Twitter will decide

if something is a threat.

And the to trot out sexist tropes like your highness is par for the course.

To them the threat is women abusing a potential feature and men becoming victims of spiteful women, versus women receiving death and rape threats. I'm sure it's apparent to all that support women, whats going on there. question is why do the women of DU have to put up with it?

[Squinch]

51. Or, to them the issue is that what women are "complaining about"

is just not important enough to warrant a programming inconvenience.

Which does, as you say, make it apparent to all what is going on there.

[boston bean]

52. women do not deserve a mechanism to report

death and rape threats to twitter, because twitter can't be trusted to be able todetermine a death and rape threat from discourse.

what a bunch of blahooey.

[Squinch]

54. What assurances do you offer that any significant selection of men out of the millions of Tweets a

day will be able to restrain themselves from making death threats, rape threats and threats of violence?

Are you sure that men, as a group, are so rational and restrained that they wouldn't dream of making such a button necessary by making death threats, rape threats or threats of violence? How can you speak with such unsubstantiated - and obviously insane, given recent events - authority?

Are you guaranteeing that there couldn't be any men out there that would encourage other men to make these threats? That there couldn't be men would exploit the absence of the button to abuse the system for their own aggrandizement; who wouldn't use the absence of that button to squelch debate by threats of violence when the debate is something as simple as putting a female portrait on currency?

What assurances can you offer that would not happen?

[rrneck]

58. None.

But if you desire something surely you would give some consideration as to how your desires will be fulfilled.

There is no more assurance that men won't abuse the system as much as women. Don't you think the svengalis at Twitter are aware of that possibility? Do you really think the addition of a button will do anything but prompt the alteration of a line or two in the EULA and turn all those kvetchers into so many trained pigeons jabbing a button for a pellet?

But at least bloviating bloggers can champion their Pyhrric victory in the culture wars and deliver their tribute of eyeballs to the all powerful gods of bandwidth.

[Squinch]

60. "If you desire something surely you would give some consideration as to how your desires will be

fulfilled."

Your objection to the "button" MUST, then, come with some consideration as to how YOUR desires will be fulfilled. You desire that there should be no mechanism to report threats of death, rape and violence. And yet - and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here - I assume you do not want people to be subjected to threats of death, rape and violence. So you must have given some consideration as to how your desires will be fulfilled, those desires being that 1. there is no mechanism to reduce threats of death, rape and violence at the same time as 2. there is a reduction of threats of death, rape and violence.

So how you going to do that? If you haven't given it any consideration, you must be championing a Pyhrric victory in the culture wars and delivering your tribute of eyeballs to the all powerful gods of bandwith.

[rrneck]

79. MUST it?

So since you have no understanding of how your remedy will work or desire to even consider the efficacy of your solution, my rationalism convinces you that I harbor some evil intent to thwart the righteousness of your cause. Witch hunt indeed. What's it to be then? The ducking stool or straight to the barbecue with me?

Why don't you explain how you plan to keep people from abusing the sainted button into uselessness?

[Squinch]

83. Why don't you explain how you plan to keep people from making death threats and rape threats

and threats of violence in the absence of a mechanism to report them?

You don't seem to even have a remedy, nor a desire to come up with one. So my rationalism in pointing that out is convincing you that I harbor some evil intent to witch hunt you.

[rrneck]

86. I don't have one.

I don't know how to make the world a safe welcoming place for you. I don't have any easy answers. Nor do I "Tweet".

There is more to activism than making demands. The solutions you demand have to work.

There is, no doubt, a mechanism for punishing legitimate threats. If you reduce the reporting of those threats to something as easy as clicking an unvetted link you aren't producing a solution. You're producing camouflage. If you make it that easy to report the report won't mean anything. It's the difference between clicking a MoveOn.org link and chaining yourself to the White House gates. And that's assuming the system isn't so inundated with false alarms, retaliations, practical jokes and organized "alert wars" that the powers that be will just ignore the whole thing.

You have embraced a consumer solution to a social problem. The people that produced this solution aren't trying to solve the problem. They're trying to sell you a way to make yourself feel better and be grateful to them for it.

It's the internet. If you must "Tweet", do so anonymously. If you want to be a leader you'll just have to assume a large measure of calumny and along with it a measure of risk. Such is the price of meaningful social change. You really didn't expect an instrument of the "patriarchy" to protect you from its minions, did you?

[Squinch]

89. There is more to activism than just pulling the word "patriarchy" out of your ass and thinking

you have made a point. You have to occasionally come up with a suggestion for a solution. You say you have no doubt that there is a solution. Neither do I. I am suggesting that they start trying possibilities.

You have embraced the idea that we should all just shrug as your solution to the problem. The people that produced this solution are obviously not trying to solve the problem. They're trying to sell you a way to feel superior to anyone who suggests solutions to the problem so you can feel better about yourself.

It's the internet. If people who use it are subject to death and rape threats when they suggest something so benign as that women's images should be on currency, something needs to change. Such is the definition of meaningful social change. You really didn't expect a for profit business to get away with hostility toward half the population, did you?

[rrneck]

91. There oughta be a law!

Okay, you win. I'm with you.

So, exactly how do you plan to regulate the content of four hundred million anonymous tweets a day?

[Squinch]

92. Glad you've seen the light.

[rrneck]

93. Oh now.

You're just half way there. How are you going to regulate the content of four hundred million anonymous posts a day?

[Squinch]

94. I'm not. Twitter is. And I have no doubt they will find a way if motivated by profit.

Just like Facebook ended up agreeing to do. The last time we had all these discussions about how it couldn't be done.

[rrneck]

95. You see, that's what I'm talking about.

You're demanding social justice like ordering a steak. It sounds like you want Twitter to see to it that you are told what you want to hear or at least punish those who would disagree with you. And you don't care how they do it. Just make it happen. That's a pretty arrogant attitude.

Yes, yes, I know there are threats. But the "button" doesn't know a threat from scrambled eggs. And there is no reason to believe the person pushing it will make any such fine distinctions. It even appears that you and two others can't even bring yourselves to consider the possibility. Rather, you hurl accusations of heresy. You've been quite insulting and, for my part, your posts have gone unalerted.

Now, are you ready to discuss how your ideas will actually work? Or will you flee to the orthodoxy of retail therapy?

[Squinch]

97. You see, this is where you just don't get it.

Twitter is for profit company. I am not demanding social justice. I am demanding a usable product. A product in which a suggestion that the images of women be used on currency is not met with death threats and threats of rape.

And no, there's nothing wrong with saying, "just make it happen" without giving them the programming code to do so. The suggestion that the consumer needs to come up with the solution to the problem with the product is ridiculous. If the seller wants to sell it, they need to fix it. Before they fix it, they need to know the consumer wants the fix. There is nothing arrogant in letting the provider know that you want the fix.

Further, you are requiring that those using the fix be perfectly behaved in their use of the fix. Yet you do not seem to have any behavior requirements for those who are currently making death threats and rape threats in response to perfectly benign request. In your world, the threatened group has to follow the rules, the threatening group doesn't seem to have to follow any rules.

Finally, you say I have been quite insulting. Look back over your posts and mine. Look carefully. What I have been doing here, quite deliberately, is taking your arguments, often your very words and phrases, and simply flipping them to present the other side of the argument. If you don't like the tone, or the sense of accusation, I suggest you reconsider your own tone, your own accusations, and the way you present yourself here.

Now, do you still insist that I need to personally redesign Twitter before I can call for a way to keep users from receiving death threats and rape threats? Or will you flee into more of your own arguments which, when presented back to you, you find so insulting and objectionable?

[rrneck]

98. What, exactly, do you want fixed?

There is already a process for reporting threatening tweets. What does an alert button do that this form does not? If the objective is to apprehend and prosecute the malefactor, absolutely nothing. In fact, without a certain amount of information, there is no chance whatsoever that justice will be served at all. Unless the aggrieved party plays an active role in the prosecution, this alert button will work exactly like the alert link on DU, which is to say it will do nothing more than hide the offending tweet from their sight. It is probably possible for the programmers at Twitter to see to it that when the alert button is clicked, information about the offending tweet is already entered into the appropriate fields. But the user still has to play at least some active part in apprehending the malefactor. Do you really think that simply clicking a link on a website could or should be enough to send someone to jail?

Again, what does the button do that the form does not? It makes reporting easier. It is a convenience for the user. It does absolutely nothing to help apprehend and prosecute the malefactor. And what are the implications of this added convenience?

Well, for starters there are millions of fools out there who consider a threat to their overblown ego the same as a threat to their person and hurt feelings as tragic as a broken leg. For them the lure of a simple mouse click to exact revenge will be too great to resist. They can cry wolf with even greater impunity than they no doubt already do. The terrible form is a part of the investigative process to determine if the threat is real. That process begins when someone is actually frightened enough to fill in seven information fields and click seven radio buttons. Oh, the horror.

Add to those vindictive egomaniacs the legions of pranksters, false flags, social dominators, and all the other permutations of internet foolishness and the system, which still has to rely on the same basic form to function, will be front loaded with camouflage for whatever idiot is stupid enough to give their victim advance warning of their intent. Efficiency for the user will result in inefficiency for the system. The net result is reduced benefit for those who are threatened online. But there are some who will benefit more.

A few people, namely public figures and those who desire to be so, may get hundreds of threatening messages at a time from as many different people. Increased reporting efficiency will no doubt help them - a little bit. Although I would think that the necessity of filling out a short form for each instance would be considered part of the price one has to pay for making their living in the public eye. But personal convenience is not the greatest benefit for those enterprising souls.

This absurd tempest in a teapot regarding the graphic design on bank notes is little more than a lever for profit driven notoriety at the expense of Twitter. At the very least, these people can attract attention to themselves as advocates for justice with little capital investment. In fact, they can use the very system they are lambasting as the conduit for their accusations. It's disaster capitalism at its finest. And, if they're lucky, they will get their button. And that magical button of justice will become a reminder of those shamans ability to give you a voice. It will become a mini advertisement, courtesy of Twitter, of how they helped you every time you log on to broadcast your advertising laden and data mined one hundred and forty characters.

So an alteration of code from an overworked underpaid programmer, a small change in the EULA just to be safe, and you will get the feeling of security where there is none. Twitter will make money. Professional bloviators will make money. Internet service providers will make money. And you will get nothing more than you already have, which ain't much. And that's how the 1% wins.

[Squinch]

99. Pfffft. Bloviate on and have a nice day.

[rrneck]

100. You hadn't given the issue any real thought at all, had you?

ANYBODY can put a ring in your nose, if you let them. Most of the time, all they have to do is tell you what you want to hear.

[Squinch]

101. I didn't actually read your manifesto there. Don't plan to. So no, I'm not giving it any thought.

[rrneck]

102. There are non so blind as those who will not see.

And if six hundred words is too much for you to handle let me condense it for you. The "wonder button" is just another way to make you feel good without actually doing anything. Only those for whom ideology is little more than social plumage would profit from such treacle.

You read "bloviators". You're not one of those "last paragraph" people are you?

ETA
That was 355 characters, or 2.53571 tweets. I hope that wasn't too much.

[Squinch]

104. Didn't read this one either.

[rrneck]

105. But you answered it.

I think you read all of them. I just dismantled the entire controversy in less than one newspaper editorial length post. I did the research for you and told you a whole bunch of stuff that never occurred to you. It wasn't difficult because, like I said in the post that began this subthread, I really didn't know much about it myself. So I went and found out.

Of course, I could be wrong. I frequently am. It's a tragedy that the complexities of modern society defeat us because we won't take time to consider them for more than the length of a "tweet".

[Squinch]

106. Oh, look, I'm still not reading your posts. I could do this all day.

[rrneck]

107. As could I.

The difference of course is that mine have at least a modicum of content. Yours, on the other hand, amount to little more than sitting with you fingers in your ears shouting "la la la". Has it occurred to you that you are not the only one reading this?

Others can read this all day. These little sub threads make fascinating little narratives, don't you think?

ETA
Come to think of it, others can read this more or less forever.

[Squinch]

108. I'm sorry, did you say something?

[rrneck]

109. Yes. nt

[BainsBane]

76. Great to see you stand up for human rights again

Never mind.

[rrneck]

82. Never mind a solution?

How will you keep people from abusing this "alert button" into uselessness? Or is the minuscule reward of subjective complaint the holy grail of umbrage? Will you stand athwart the revolving door of Twitter shouting "halt!"?

[BainsBane]

85. Yes, it's very clear the importance you place on the lives of women

Your post here and elsewhere in this thread, among others, demonstrates that clearly.

[rrneck]

87. Where's that solution? nt

[BainsBane]

88. WTF are you talking about?

[rrneck]

90. See post #82. ntt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

36. They are not only creepy, they often travel in packs

Try posting anything not inline with status-quo and brace yourself for getting attacked with all sorts of insults and smears but empty headed loons, and there really is no telling just how far these creeps will go.

I am completely disgusted by how far back some of our political leaders have taken us in terms of women's rights and racism it is gross and needs to be challenged every time, especially on DU where liberals should feel save expressing themselves especially on liberal issues that challenge the status quo not mindlessly try to enforce it.

My daughters have been raised to celebrate who they are and strive for all in their hearts and I'll be damned if I let these thugs go unchallenged.

[Octafish]

46. One DUer posted about helping a homeless person outside a bank...

...and gave an opinion that America was a Third World country and caught heaps of abuse for stating her thoughts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023424103

The abuse of a fellow DUer led the writer to take down the OP.

There's something very wrong with that.

[d_r]

56. I'm not going to have the word skills

to say this very well, it is not a well formulated thought but here goes.

I think there is something psychologically similar between internet trolls and the kind of "carry your gun everywhere go to starbucks and show off" mentality.

I think both are cowards and they need something to make themselves feel tough. The internet tough guy behind the anonymity of the screen is much like the guy who needs to show he is packing because he is afraid of the boogie man getting him at starbucks.

Having said that, I'm not against people having guns, I'm talking about the crazy got-show-it extremists.

[boston bean]

59. I've noticed a link between gun nuts and sexism/misogyny...

I think what you say has some truth.

[BainsBane]

77. It's not absolute at all

but there are some high profile crossover examples.

[LittleBlue]

57. There is nothing you can do about internet trolls

They are born in an environment of complete anonymity. It causes people to go far beyond their self-imposed limits in real life.

As long as internet anonymity and free speech exist, trolls will exist. The internet is a mean place with millions of mischievous people. You can't even ban them, as their accounts just represent email addresses and not actual people. A thick skin is required simply because there's nothing that can possibly be done to stop them.

[napoleon_in_rags]

84. They need identity verified sites.

Just two traits: 1) Site verifies identity though centralized service, but doesn't share identity publically. 2) Individuals are legally responsible for comments.

[Prophet 451]

96. GIFT

The guys at Penny Arcade came up with GIFT to explain this. It's the:
Greater
Internet
Fuckwad
Theory

and it predicts that normal person + anonymity + audience = total fuckwad.

[valerief]

103. Digital hate, although unpleasant and unfair, is not stoning nor water dunking. It does, however,

create a climate for hate to take those forms.

[mercuryblues]

110. Now I know why women can’t have nice things

When a benign post is met with threats of rape and death it is because they did it intentionally:

”Those who conducted the campaign , whilst not certainly deserving of threats whatever of any description , seem to have done so in a effort to gain 15 minutes of attention. A result of the threats is that the resultant outcry , which they have successfully subsequently milked on tv , added to the 15 minutes for them and in doing so made them personally the subject of the issue as opposed to the original issue of women on banknotes.”

If women are offended by the threats of violence, rape and death they can always just leave the social networking site. Wanting a way to report the abuse is censorship. Never mind the fact by doing so is censoring the women’s voice into silence, not abuser.

the comments and acts are vile and reprehensible. I just don't support censorship of any kind; I'm of the mind that if one is disturbed, offended or otherwise insulted, one should remove oneself from the presence of the offensive or disturbing material."

But now we get to the nitty-gritty. Women simply cannot be trusted. They are too irrational to know the difference between a threat and snark. They can’t restrain themselves from abusing a system to report threats. Not that the people hurling the threats are the one's who shouldn't be trusted to use the site.

What assurance do you offer that any significant selection of women out of the millions of Tweets a day will be able to restrain themselves? Are women, as a group, so rational and restrained they wouldn't dream of abusing such a "button"? How can you speak with such unsubstantiated authority?

Are you saying there couldn't be any women out there that would encourage them to use the button for anything other than bona fide threats? That there couldn't be any women who would exploit their influence over others to abuse the system for their own aggrandizement; who wouldn't use it as a means of squelching debate whether the content is actually vitriolic or not?

What assurance can you offer that would not happen?

[Warren DeMontague]

111. Part of the problem is that when "trolls" get banned, they make up a new name & sign up again

We see this even here, on DU.

[mercuryblues]

112. yes.

but it is better to inconvenience an abuser, than recommending that the abused leave. very few abusers will persist after a while.
Put the burden on the abuser to maintain a mediocre of decency to use the site instead of advocating for the abused to be silent.

There are times when doing nothing is not a choice, but silent agreement that what is going on is acceptable.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Im not suggesting twitter shouldnt put an alert button in there, of course

Just realistically, i know from observation that it's well-nigh impossible to rid this place of the zombies, game players, phonies, account "sharers", off-site collaborators, sock puppet farmers and serial disruptors- not to mention the folks (MIRT knows all about them) who post genuinely egregious shit- so I wouldn't have high expectations with something like twitter.

[Squinch]

114. Aren't those just masterpieces of projection?

And of identification with the aggressor?

I am always curious about the thought processes that allow acceptance of the mistreatment of others. This thread has been fascinating.

[mercuryblues]

115. yes it has been

The excuses abound for why and how women should put up with threats of rape, death and violence. From some under paid and over worked programmers having to actually do the work to women are too emotional to be trusted to not alert on frivolous crap.

I really love the one where if they say these things anonymously online, it keeps them from acting on it in real life. Yup no one ever posted a threat online then went out and committed any type of violence. Except for the Colorado shooter, Gifford's shooter, etc.

I suspect twitter will respond if women united and boycotted the site for a week. Revenue loss is the only thing they understand. Women do have a way to shut things down, from what I heard.

[Squinch]

116. Facebook figured it out. Twitter will too.