Given that you've posted some of the most deranged statements I've seen in threads related to this topic in the past, the idea of you trying to regulate another thread related to it is somewhat amusing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are speaking at the UN about online harassment
- Thread starter crimsonheadGCN
- Start date
- Status
fellow hardened political internet poster here, yeah you can really spot the debate newbies in these discussions
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
I'm just getting a black screen now and no sound.
Dusk Soldier
Member
I don't know if that's quite right. The comic is pointing out there are times when we just don't have the resources to tackle the entire issue at once and sometimes you have to focus on a much smaller segment of it.
But it kind of ignores the crux of the #alllivesmatter argument since it does nothing to explain why the house on the left is being saved over the house on the right.
I mean the house on the right is a raging inferno, the house on the left doesn't even look like it had a fire in the first place.
I'm not going to look up meeting minutes on room allocation. I mean, technically it is possible that no one else bid on the conference rooms for that time slot. That would actually make sense on how this one got through the cracks. In that case I am utterly wrong and the world truly did have nothing else to talk about.
Anton Sugar
Member
Looking at their schedule for the day, they have presentations on safer public spaces, sustainable development metrics/goals (THREE talks related to sustainable development, actually, though one is focused on the impact to children), land degradation, environmental protection, African development, high level education reform, and funding a transition to low-carbon output systems.
Not many talks about Syria or genocides or whatever else is more important there. A talk titled "Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls:A Worldwide Wake-Up Call" fits right in.
The very existence of the "UN Women" organization (which focuses on gender equality and issues) kinda flies in the face of your entire "this doesn't belong here" argument. You may think it's an entitled first-world issue but I think it's comical to believe that a) only the first world has internet access and b) only the first world experiences online harassment.
Generally speaking, harassment of any kind is not condonable, but it's a crazy world we live in when this nonsense is being given attention at the UN. Outside the world of video games, there are far, FAR, more urgent matters for the UN to be addressing and this is NOT one of them.
Who said they are just talking about video game harassment?
And who are you to determine what the UN should be looking at. I highly doubt you have even looked up their schedule to see what else they are discussing.
This false concern over what the UN is working on is tiresome. It's funny how so many arguments about UN time and resources just appear when these two show up and not about anything else.
RealityPales
Member
How do we end online harassment though without lifting the veil of anonymity entirely?
Anton Sugar
Member
Guess you didn't even read the title of
If you did, you'd know they're not just focusing on games.
Linkstrikesback
Member
I'm not sure that would even do it. People are still dicks on facebook comments on public things, for example, even if it comes with your real name and photos attached,
Here is the report that got presented at the UN today.
Cyber Violence Against Women & Girls: A Worldwide Wake-Up Call
Key findings:
Key recommendations:
"The report argues that rigorous oversight and enforcement of rules banning cyber VAWG on the Internet will be an essential foundation stone if the Internet is to become a safe, respectful and empowering space for women and girls, and, by extension, for boys and men."
Edit. VAWG = violence against women and girls
Cyber Violence Against Women & Girls: A Worldwide Wake-Up Call
Key findings:
- An estimated 73 per cent of women have already been exposed to, or have experienced, some form of online violence.
- Women in the age range of 18 to 24 are uniquely likely to experience stalking and sexual harassment in addition to physical threats.
- Nine million women in the European Union’s 28 countries alone have experienced online violence as young as 15 years old.
- One in five female Internet users live in countries where harassment and abuse of women online is extremely unlikely to be punished.
- In many countries women are reluctant to report their victimization for fear of social repercussions.
- Cyber VAWG puts a premium on emotional bandwidth, personal and workplace time, financial resources and missed wages.
Key recommendations:
- Sensitization – Preventing cyber VAWG through training, learning, campaigning and community development to promote changes in in social attitudes and behavior.
- Safeguards – Implementing oversight and maintaining a responsible Internet infrastructure through technical solutions and more informed customer care practices
- Sanctions – Develop and uphold laws, regulations and governance mechanisms to deter perpetrators from committing these acts.
"The report argues that rigorous oversight and enforcement of rules banning cyber VAWG on the Internet will be an essential foundation stone if the Internet is to become a safe, respectful and empowering space for women and girls, and, by extension, for boys and men."
Edit. VAWG = violence against women and girls
Anton Sugar
Member
Yeah, totally not important enough for the UN. Not nearly.
(thanks for posting--gonna dig into this tonight)
Felix Lighter
Member
There are already laws involving this type of harassment in countries that do not control the internet. Just like having laws that don't allow harassment via telephones hasn't required all phones to be tapped across the country. Just like there are already other cyber laws that make certain online activity illegal.
googleplex
Member
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that was not your intention. But its exactly what you are doing.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
Men harassed more than women, women attack women more than men attack women.
If the people abusing women on the internet were kept off the internet, there would be no women on the internet.
Wut? Where the hell did I even wrote that at all? I love how you put random words and idea with the magical air quotes though...
I truly believe the government can stop online harassment with stronger monitoring and enforcement. Giving up a bit of privacy is okay, no point in hiding behind a screen when going on Twitter and FACEBOOK saying hate speech. If you want to harass people online, what is the problem when someone is allow to call the police and easily report you and the cop can easily ask for record from social media website?
So we tried to solve telephone and cell phone harassment with wiretaps on everyone?
Laws = Government
And so far those cyber laws work pretty shitty or we wouldn't be here. I mean do people want to try and discuss solutions or not? It just becomes counter-productive after awhile to stand around saying "yea this is a problem" Ok, we already know that now lets try to discuss how solutions may actually come about. That was my point, because those that haven't really put much thought into solutions may not like them when presented and you lose support for a cause.
Now THIS is a strawman argument.
Lol wut?
When did I say that? Did I even mention telephone? I must be taking crazy pills.
What about it?
Look it's terrible that women are abused on the internet, and fixing that in itself IS a noble goal, but you can't just dismiss any information because it doesn't agree with your world view.
djplaeskool
Member
This is a rabbit hole I should not have ventured down...
Actually I'm being too nice.
Telephones don't need SSNs to create an account. Which is what you want for online usage.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
The solution basically boils down to tighter security, holding companies responsible to do investigations, and re-education of what it means to interact on the internet.
and here is my problem, the article mentions piers morgan, why do people want to get rid of internet trolling when you'd also be getting to rid of our ability to abuse celebrities especially people like piers morgan? does anyone want piers morgan to not be subjected to a torrent of angry abuse everytime he opens Twitter? not me.
Is it really possible to stop online harassment? I feel like the open nature of the internet makes it incredibly difficult.
There is nothing stopping someone from making a fake profile to start deceiving and using their victim for their personal amusement as we've have seen before on the news.
The internet really is kind of a wild wild west.
There is nothing stopping someone from making a fake profile to start deceiving and using their victim for their personal amusement as we've have seen before on the news.
The internet really is kind of a wild wild west.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
How would internet moderation even begin on a worldwide scale? First things first you'd have to set a fine line between what is harrassment and what isn't harrassment. I've seen and heard people who've went as far to have called the opinion of a person that differs from there own opinion as "harrassment". And if harrassment is wrongly reported to the authorites what's the punishment for the person who wasted the investigators time and resources? Then you have to take in consideration the moderating of places outside of the main social media sites. Plenty of online communities where people discuss stuff that aren't run by established long-term business figureheads, that's where moderation gets a lot tougher and more hectic.
Also, would current economic budgets be flexible enough to hire a division to work this side of law enforcement without breaking the bank or taking too much from other essential sectors? So many legal shady areas to figure out, which'll no doubt cost a LOT of money.
Also, would current economic budgets be flexible enough to hire a division to work this side of law enforcement without breaking the bank or taking too much from other essential sectors? So many legal shady areas to figure out, which'll no doubt cost a LOT of money.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
Hey, thanks for posting this. Will check it out.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
I honestly think the first step is for everyone to stifle that first reaction of just throwing up their hands and saying "welp! Can't be helped! Don't bother trying!"
partyphone
Banned
yes. this.
also in a lot of cases we aren't even trying to stop harassment. sites need to be built with tools and systems that enable victims to help themselves and law enforcement needs to actually take online harassment seriously.
More Fun To Compute
Member
You are literally looking right at the solution that the best minds thought up ages ago. Pseudonymous discussion with active moderation. The solution of using easily falsifiable "real names" with no moderation is disastrous and based on the insane but profitable idea that systems can regulate themselves without having to be maintained.
Anton Sugar
Member
The first source for that article is a broken link, unfortunately, and the h/t page is behind a paywall, but it points out:
Without seeing the study (I'm almost positive it has been discussed here on GAF but I can't find it), it appears to focus on prominent celebrities and personas, not the internet community at large. However, even still:
Wish I could find that thread--there are numerous studies and surveys aimed at the general population (not prominent figures) that indicate women experience more harassment online. I'll look around, it had a compilation of studies.
Because you already verifying your state id and address to a physical property.
diffusionx
Gold Member
It's not so much throwing up your hands as recognizing what the Internet is. It's an open system and is built on this idea that anyone can contact anyone else. You can pass laws but without an enforcement mechanism it's meaningless. People talk about how the cops are useless in these situations but realistically what can local PD do when someone threatens someone else? What would trying look like to you?
Anyone with a Facebook account can see that the problem isn't anonymity. People happily post some of the most vile, gross, racist, stupid things with their real names and pictures right next to it. It's cost people jobs and they still do it. This is just reality.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
The whole focus on just women in that report really irks me after reading through it though I have to admit. Sure, we get it bad sometimes, hell, even I've had some pretty scummy shit said to me in the past by both men and even my own gender, scummy and vile shit is said to a lot of people regardless of gender. I've known a couple of guys who self harmed and one even come close to offing themselves over constant harrassment, threats and insults both offline and online. I feel like tackling and discussing a big issue like this with a sole focus on one gender is a bit counter-productive to an issue that effectively affects everyone. Surely a focus on both genders would allow for a much better springboard to get serious discussion started over this?
partyphone
Banned
it's perfectly valid to use it for non-physical things. like emotional violence.
but I agree that cyber violence is a silly term. just call it whatever it is. harassment, stalking, attempted murder, etc.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
Yeah, got to agree, think cyber violence is a bit of a rubbish term. Harkens me back to when sensationilist american news reports in the 90's would come up with news pieces about violent video games.
CYBER VIOLENCE! DUN DUN DUUUUN!
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
I also don't like the focus on one gender, but I believe that tackling the issue of online harassment will benefit everyone, so it's fine.
I love how everytime we get a thread like this we get some members bashing Anita/Zoe and they get banned super quick.
I love how everytime we get a thread like this we get some members bashing Anita/Zoe and they get banned super quick.
Anton Sugar
Member
There's nothing wrong with or weird about focusing on a group with a unique struggle. It's not counter-productive at all.
Women are targeted on the basis of being a woman and/or contribute a woman's perspective. It's not something that happens to men nearly to the same degree or the same reasons, if at all.
Hence the comic and comparisons to Black Lives Matter. Yup, all lives matter, just like everyone can be harassed online--but just as black communities are targeted and treated unfairly by police, women are commonly harassed simply because they are women.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. You wouldn't start a White Lives Matter movement, because white people aren't unfairly targeted by police, they aren't unfairly convicted, etc. Yes, white people can and are unfairly killed by police, but it's not on account of their whiteness, just like men being harassed online (usually) isn't on account of their maleness.
IdreamofHIME
Member
They did a talk at the UN? wow, fantastic. I'm sure the new Saudi Arabian head of the U.N. Human Rights Panel will be very interested in their cause...
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
Oh snap! Why, does this person have a rather... unpopular view on women? I'm out of the loop here!
partyphone
Banned
I think the issue is that women are targeted simply for being women and the quantity and type of harassment they receive is usually worse than what men get. anecdotally you can surely find counterexamples but the conversation needs to be focused on entire populations.
also the types of policies and tools that will protect women will also help everyone else. so it's not like we're focusing on women to the exclusion of everyone else.
You know, there's an entire PDF that answers some of the questions folks are asking, like "What's their suggestion?" The PDF contains suggestions.
I really recommend that you stop, go read the actual PDF, and then come back to continue the discussion. If you can't be bothered to do that, it doesn't seem like you're actually very interested in the issue being discussed.
Given that they're also working with Google Ideas, which have so far turned out distributed software solutions for various issues (DDoS attacks, password attacks, a dashboard that helps journalists track money), it seems likely that Google is looking into a technological solution to online harassment.
To make a long post short, read the OP, read the presentation, gather information, and then discuss. Don't keep coming in asking the same stupid questions over and over again that have already been answered. And if you think the topic isn't worth discussing? As always, find some other thread to post in.
I really recommend that you stop, go read the actual PDF, and then come back to continue the discussion. If you can't be bothered to do that, it doesn't seem like you're actually very interested in the issue being discussed.
Given that they're also working with Google Ideas, which have so far turned out distributed software solutions for various issues (DDoS attacks, password attacks, a dashboard that helps journalists track money), it seems likely that Google is looking into a technological solution to online harassment.
To make a long post short, read the OP, read the presentation, gather information, and then discuss. Don't keep coming in asking the same stupid questions over and over again that have already been answered. And if you think the topic isn't worth discussing? As always, find some other thread to post in.
Mysterious
Banned
Can someone please explain why it's called Gamer Gate and what cause it is specifically lobbying for?
Seems like some of these women just don't want to be harassed. But I don't know why there's a counter argument to this?
I tried to search for this info but came out even more confused.
Seems like some of these women just don't want to be harassed. But I don't know why there's a counter argument to this?
I tried to search for this info but came out even more confused.
In jurisdictions that distinguish between "assault" and "battery", "assault" refers to the threat of violence as opposed to a physical act of violence.
partyphone
Banned
it was coined by Adam Baldwin who thought he was being rather clever since Zoe Quinn is a game developer and people just attach -gate to anything they see as a controversy.
i think one of the big problems is that the corporate platforms that enable widespread communication (twitter, facebook, etc) make vast sums of money and employ thousands of people to try and fix every major and minor problem people have with their products except harassment and doxxing.
it's readily apparent just looking at their resource allocation that they see basically everything else as a priority above making sure their most vulnerable users are safe.
it's readily apparent just looking at their resource allocation that they see basically everything else as a priority above making sure their most vulnerable users are safe.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
Interesting. Would be intrigued to see the long term effects this would have on universal treatment of both genders in an online environment if this successfully swayed political opinion. I'm also curious to see if there's been a few recent examples of laws or legislation that have been approved to tackle the woman's side of an issue have also been used to help bolster the men's side of an issue too and changed the treatment for both for the better. Especially the one-sided justice system in a lot of areas.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked