Half of analyzed misogynistic twitter abuse comes from women, according to new study

[GLASSJAW]

Quote

 

Half of all misogynistic tweets posted on Twitter come from women, a study suggests.

 

Over a three-week period, think tank Demos counted the number of uses of two particular words as indicators of misogyny.

It found evidence of large-scale misogyny, with 6,500 unique users targeted by 10,000 abusive tweets in the UK alone.

 

Twitter boss Jack Dorsey has said that tackling abuse is a priority.

 

The research comes as UK MPs - Yvette Cooper, Maria Miller, Stella Creasy, Jess Philips - alongside former Liberal Democrat minister Jo Swinson, launch their Reclaim the Internet campaign, in response to growing public concern about the impact of hate speech and abuse on social media.

 

The campaign has opened an online forum to discuss ways to make the internet less aggressive, sexist, racist and homophobic.

Launching the campaign, Ms Cooper told the BBC: "The truth is nobody knows what the best answers are. There is more when there is criminal abuse, for example rape threats, that the police should be doing but what is the responsibility of everyone else? What more should social media platforms be doing?"

 

She said that the campaign was an opportunity for the public to "put forward their proposals and demands for the changes we want to see".

In response to the survey, Twitter's head of trust and safety Kira O'Connor told the BBC: "Hateful conduct has no place on the Twitter platform and is a violation of our terms of service. 

 

"In addition to our policies and user controls, such as block, mute and our new multiple tweet reporting functionality, we work with civil society leaders and academic experts to understand the challenge that exists."

 

The Demos study also looked at international tweets and found more than 200,000 aggressive tweets using the words, "slut" and "whore", were sent to 80,000 people over the same three weeks.

 

The commonsense approach to posting comments on social networks would be to never say anything online that you wouldn't say to someone's face but that simple rule seems to be regularly ignored.

 

Being able to post anonymously helps and, in many ways, social networks have become the modern day equivalent of a natter over the garden fence or a gathering on the village green - but on a global scale.

 

And just as in the old gossip circles of old, there will be people whose comments are meaner or more aggressive than the rest, so that is amplified online. And now the voices of the trolls can be heard and they can pick victims - generally people they don't know - pretty much at random.

 

Abuse on social networks is not new and neither is the revelation that women contribute to the problem.

 

A 2014 study from cosmetics firm Dove found that over five million negative tweets were posted about beauty and body image. Four out of five were sent by women.

 

The bigger question is what can be done about it?

 

We have seen in recent years the police take the issue much more seriously and trolls have faced lengthy prison sentences. Some have made public apologies to their victims.

 

Education will be key. Teaching youngsters who haven't yet joined social media platforms that politeness is not a dying art and that if you say hurtful things online, they could genuinely cause distress, may give the next generation pause for thought before they start typing.

 

Stark reminder

 

Demos used algorithms to distinguish between tweets being used in explicitly aggressive ways and those that were more conversational in tone.

Researcher Alex Krasodomski-Jones said: "This study provides a birds-eye snapshot of what is ultimately a very personal and often traumatic experience for women. 

 

"While we have focused on Twitter, who are considerably more generous in sharing their data with researchers like us, it's important to note that misogyny is prevalent across all social media, and we must make sure that the other big tech companies are also involved in discussions around education and developing solutions."

 

She added that it was not about "policing the internet" but was more "a stark reminder that we are frequently not as good citizens online as we are offline".

 

Thousands have responded to the hashtag #ReclaimtheInternet, with many congratulating the female MPs for starting the campaign.

 

Others though questioned how effective the campaign would be, with some questioning whether it would damage free speech.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36380247

 

http://www.demos.co.uk/files/MISOGYNY_ON_TWITTER.pdf?1399567516

 

The research above actually suggests women do it more, but the difference is easy to ignore. The difference between men and women using the word "rape" casually or metaphorically is also quite small. I'm no "MRA" or whatever, but I do find the ongoing scourge against masculinity to be a tad bit exhausting at times, especially when the context is based around the way people communicate on the internet.

 

The article alludes to a study presented by Dove recently. From Adweek: "According to the brand's own research, 80 percent of women come across negative chatter on social media, with 72 percent of girls saying that they are criticized weekly."

 

80% of women say they come across "negative chatter" in regards to body image, body shaming, etc. According to Dove's research, there's an 80% chance those 80% of women are receiving those "negative chatters" from other women.

 

One of the reasons I found this article quite interesting is because it reminded me of the "MEN READ MEAN TWEETS TO FEMALE SPORTSCASTERS" thing that went around recently, which showed men wearing their sad pants as they read abusive language to females on the internet. That thread/discussion can be found here. 

 

 

 

 

[Dral]

Yeah, this is definitely not news - but is a good reminder...  *blah blah blah something sexist that some feminist is going to get angry about*

[Shift-4]

Women are bitches to other women????????    No ways  

[Monty]

20 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

Women are bitches to other women????????    No ways  

On social media, no less.

[Hobble]

What if everyone has a standard registered account that is used to sign on to all public forums/comment sections across the board? Display name could be random, so others wouldn't be able to see someone's name, but if someone is being overly obusive, they can be reported, and some governmental body has access to their name and such to be warned, charged, etc? No more hiding behind random usernames, and everyone is accountable for what they write.

 

[Cerridwen]

8 minutes ago, Monty said:

On social media, nonetheless.

How shocking

[Cerridwen]

1 minute ago, Hobble said:

What if everyone has a standard registered account that is used to sign on to all public forums/comment sections across the board? Display name could be random, so others wouldn't be able to see someone's name, but if someone is being overly obusive, they can be reported, and some governmental body has access to their name and such to be warned, charged, etc? No more hiding behind random usernames, and everyone is accountable for what they write.

 

Just imagine all the 'big brother' posts sure to follow, though. FREE SPEECH!! FREE SPEECH!!! 

[Down by the River]

1 minute ago, Cerridwen said:

Just imagine all the 'big brother' posts sure to follow, though. FREE SPEECH!! FREE SPEECH!!! 

I love all those people getting upset about their 'free speech' being taken away from a social media platform that they neither created nor paid for. What it means to have free speech is one of the most misunderstood rights we have. 

 

'Why can't I say all of my racist/homophobic/misogynistic $&!# on my Twitter account!?!?!?!'

 

... because it is not your goddamn website

[Shift-4]

5 minutes ago, Hobble said:

What if everyone has a standard registered account that is used to sign on to all public forums/comment sections across the board? Display name could be random, so others wouldn't be able to see someone's name, but if someone is being overly obusive, they can be reported, and some governmental body has access to their name and such to be warned, charged, etc? No more hiding behind random usernames, and everyone is accountable for what they write.

 

Can we invent the bathroom stall ejection system first? For those people that linger way too long in there.

When the time is up they get ejected right back to their work station.........who cares whether or not they are done.  

 

[GLASSJAW]

12 minutes ago, Hobble said:

What if everyone has a standard registered account that is used to sign on to all public forums/comment sections across the board? Display name could be random, so others wouldn't be able to see someone's name, but if someone is being overly obusive, they can be reported, and some governmental body has access to their name and such to be warned, charged, etc? No more hiding behind random usernames, and everyone is accountable for what they write.

 

Charged with what?

[Kazmanian Devil]

6 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

Charged with what?

Being mean obviously

[Dral]

19 minutes ago, Hobble said:

What if everyone has a standard registered account that is used to sign on to all public forums/comment sections across the board? Display name could be random, so others wouldn't be able to see someone's name, but if someone is being overly obusive, they can be reported, and some governmental body has access to their name and such to be warned, charged, etc? No more hiding behind random usernames, and everyone is accountable for what they write.

 

So you want to be able to charge someone for calling someone else a slut?

[Down by the River]

12 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

Charged with what?

 

5 minutes ago, Dral said:

So you want to be able to charge someone for calling someone else a slut?

If someone uses an anonymous name and threatens to kill someone, promotes hate speech that is in violation of hate laws, then they can be charged. Pretty simple. The guy you guys quoted wasn't exactly specifically saying that calling someone a slut means they should be thrown in jail.

[Dral]

1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

 

If someone uses an anonymous name and threatens to kill someone, promotes hate speech that is in violation of hate laws, then they can be charged. Pretty simple. The guy you guys quoted wasn't exactly specifically saying that calling someone a slut means they should be thrown in jail.

If someone is actually that dangerous and the death threats are serious they can be tracked down already through their ISP...

 

this article is talking about online bullying, calling someone a slut or whore, stuff that is pretty sh!tty to do to another human being but isn't against the law...

[thejazz97]

3 minutes ago, Dral said:

If someone is actually that dangerous and the death threats are serious they can be tracked down already through their ISP...

 

this article is talking about online bullying, calling someone a slut or whore, stuff that is pretty sh!tty to do to another human being but isn't against the law...

"That'll be a $500 fine for hurting purpleboot90202392's feelings"

[Tortorella's Rant]

[nuckin_futz]

11 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

"That'll be a $500 fine for hurting purpleboot90202392's feelings"

Brian Burke sues online commenters, claims defamation

Ex-Toronto Maple Leafs GM says reputation damaged by affair rumours

The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 26, 2013

 

Former Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke has filed a lawsuit with B.C. Supreme Court, saying he was defamed in online comments accusing him of having an extra-marital affair with a sports reporter.

 

Burke alleges the online comments published by 18 people, whose identities are unknown to him, are untrue.

Burke's statement of claim says the online comments were widely circulated on social media. His statement says the online remarks claim that Burke was fired as the president and general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs because what the comments say was a sexual relationship with Rogers Sportsnet reporter Hazel Mae.

 

"Contrary to popular belief, the reason for Burke's firing was not his willingness to pull off the Roberto Luongo trade..." says one of the comments noted in the court documents. "Well it didn't take long for Brian Burke and Hazel Mae to hook up. In the summer of 2012, Sportsnet removed her from the glass desk because she wouldn't fit, insisting that she stand while on air."

According to the statement of claim, the online postings went on to suggest that Mae was pregnant, and that the "lucky dad" is Burke.

Burke's lawyer releases statement

In a statement released on Friday, Burke's lawyer Peter Gall said the comments, allegedly made under pseudonyms such as "Slobberface" and "Mowerman," are false and defamatory, and that they have hurt both Burke's and Mae's families.

 

"Brian has decided that it is time to stop people who post comments on the Internet from thinking they can fabricate wild stories with impunity," Gall said. "Brian is determined to find the authors of the lie about him and those who have circulated the lie."

The court documents say Burke is suing for losses and damages to his reputation. His lawyer is also seeking to have each of the 18 defendants restrained from publishing the statements on the Internet.

 

None of the claims have been proven in court, and a statement of defence has not been filed.

 

Burke, who is married to CTV News Channel anchor Jennifer Burke, was fired as the general manager of the Leafs in January. The former Vancouver Canucks general manager is now the part-time scout for the Anaheim Ducks.

 

Mae has not made any public statement concerning the legal action

 

***********************
Not sure whatever became of this case. I assume either Burke dropped it or the judge died laughing.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/brian-burke-sues-online-commenters-claims-defamation-1.1400105

 

The link provides a copy of the actual 10 page statement of claim.

 

Anyone know what became of this? I am dying to know if "Poonerman" and "Sir Psycho Sexy" were brought to justice.

 

Note this story is 3 years old.

[Toni Zamboni]

1 hour ago, Shift-4 said:

Can we invent the bathroom stall ejection system first? For those people that linger way too long in there.

When the time is up they get ejected right back to their work station.........who cares whether or not they are done.  

 

all i want is a "courtesy flush"....if yer gonna be in there for 30 minutes, at least flush once or twice during yer bizness instead of just reaking up tha joint.

[Mustapha]

I have no problem with a Terms of Use Agreement with regards to social media and forums. Their site, their rules.

 

However, forcing people to use their real names online is a form of censorship. Why? Because you can be harassed IRL for simply stating an opinion. Somehow, it's ok to bully and harass a person (and/or their employer) because they have the 'wrong' opinion.

 

Site owners know this, which is why they are making it a requirement. People will be less likely to post a 'problematic' opinion when they know there's an army of vigilante SJWs just itching to make your life miserable.

 

That's what they mean by 'being held accountable'.

 

CBC is switching to this format in June for their comment section.

 

I will no longer participate, and any forum that censors in this way will eventually end up as an echo chamber of vapid ideology.

 

Not bothering with Facebook or Twitter either for the same reason. 

 

[riffraff]