Support NeoGAF

[More_Badass]

In jurisdictions that distinguish between "assault" and "battery", "assault" refers to the threat of violence as opposed to a physical act of violence.

Just like bullying vs cyberbullying. Cyberviolence

 

[ilium]

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!

I know "cyber" sounds a little goofy nowadays, but it's the term that's being used and advocated for by academia. It comes from "Cybernetics", a transdisciplinary approach concerning (social, physical, biological and mechanical) systems and their structures.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

What is online violence? Getting killed in a multiplayer-game?

Horrible things Anita and Zoe have experienced, wish them the best.

 

[Juke Joint Jezebel]

I know "cyber" sounds a little goofy nowadays, but it's the term that's being used and advocated for by academia. It comes from "Cybernetics", a transdisciplinary approach concerning systems and their structures.

I know, but man did the media fucking overuse the term back in the day. That's all I can associate it with now despite it's useful terminology!

 

[ilium]

I know, but man did the media fucking overuse the term back in the day. That's all I can associate it with now despite it's useful terminology!

Yeah, you're right.
Honestly, I cringe a little everytime I hear "Cyber-" myself, but it just makes too much sense.

 

[Ponn]

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.

The PDF was just posted a couple pages ago but i've been reading through it since illium posted it and its good stuff, people really should read it. I'm still reading through it but so far I like the idea of pointing out mobile phone solutions. I'm not too crazy about the call for industry self-policing, thats already been tried and isn't working out too great (see Twitter). I really feel enforcement and empowering police and action to be taken against harassers is needed. Eventually a department is going to have to be created specifically for online issues like harassment, policing, threats, fraud, etc and be given a wide reach across countries borders.

 

[Orayn]

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.

The -gate suffix is used to refer to any big scandal. It's a reference to the Watergate hotel break-in.

 

[weemadarthur]

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.

Oh, you mean the poorly designed study on celebrities, with completely inappropriate conclusions assumed for non celebrities. Right. I don't consider that a valid argument, personally.

And yes, women would be affected by regulations that punish abusive behavior. But I disagree that there would be "no" women on the internet. Just fewer abusive jerks.

 

[PatThePassive]

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...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/middleeast/saudi-arabia-ali-al-nimr-execution/

Jeez crucifixions are still a thing

 

[ilium]

I think however, that one of the underlying core problems any initiative, be it government institutions or whatever will face when tackling this issue, is the still all too prevalent dichotomy of Offline/real - Online/not-real.
Too many people still falsely assume that if something is happening on the Internet it is somehow less real or valuable, which for example leads to cases of Police officers not taking reports of harassment serious.

 

[TatteredHat]

Is there something about Harper I don't know about besides the blocklist?

Ah, sorry for the slow reply. Telling people to set themselves on fire and dox'ing a debt collector agency's CEO on twitter are a few of her wonderful achievements.

The stuff between her and Anne Rice was also rather odd, but I don't know if I'd call that harrassment.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

Oh snap! Why, does this person have a rather... unpopular view on women? I'm out of the loop here!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

All women, regardless of age, are required to have a male guardian. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving.

...and that's just the tip.

 

[23qwerty]

I imagine there are people that have done far better research than the two of them.

key word: many

 

[Cyrano]

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.

...

The study also finds that Men send around 75% of all abusive tweets.

Which means regardless of who attacks who, men are doing a large majority of the attacking.

I agree that the study seems unusually slanted towards popular twitter accounts and thus doesn't hold much water for the general atmosphere on twitter. At the same time, I'm very interested in how they did their analysis. Whether it was simply based on word sets or actual analysis of tweets (my guess is the former, which would likely not include context from the tweet).

 

[ilium]

...

The study also finds that Men send around 75% of all abusive tweets.

Which means regardless of who attacks who, men are doing a large majority of the attacking.

I agree that the study seems unusually slanted towards popular twitter accounts and thus doesn't hold much water for the general atmosphere on twitter. At the same time, I'm very interested in how they did their analysis. Whether it was simply based on word sets or actual analysis of tweets (my guess is the former, which would likely not include context from the tweet).

I haven't read the study myself yet (can be found here btw) but it seems like they did some qualitative research.

This report reveals that of over 100,000 Tweets mentioning ‘rape’ between 26th Decmber 2013 and 9th February 2014, more than 1 in 10 appeared to be threatening in nature. A high proportion of Tweets containing misogynistc language were judged to be doing so in a ‘casual’ or metaphorical way. This report also suggests that women are almost as likely as men to use the terms ‘slut’ and ‘whore’ on Twitter, and that women are increasingly inclined to use the same derogatory language that has been, and continues to be, used against them. Finally, unusual use of misogynistc terms tends to be in response to events such as television programmes, rather than to rape coverage in the media.

 

[kayos90]

Whether that was your intention or not, that was literally the form of argument you made. You objected to a specific focus on the harassment of women and suggested it should be about all harassment. Sarkeesian and Quinn are feminist activists and it is their prerogative to focus on the issue in a woman-centric way. The things they say about stopping harassment will apply to all people, even if their examples are gender-based.

If that's the case then that's poor argumentation on their part. If their prerogative is to present that the abuse and harassment women get online is bad then they should be focusing on just that space: women only. It wouldn't apply to anything else. Your statement is completely contradictory.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Ah, here we go--good ol' Amir0x: Female Perspective in the Game Industry: A Statistical Perspective

● Women face far more severe forms of harassment online, from stalking to rape threats

● Women far more likely to report being harassed, facing sexism, threats, etc.

 

[PMS341]

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.

Like a lot of "scandals", people tack "-Gate" on the end, which is more than likely a reference to the Watergate scandal from the 70s.

The idea originally was some sort of argument for "ethics in games journalism", which I guess flew out the window as soon as 99% of it's "supporters" forgot what ethics were to begin with.

 

[MrBadger]

Like a lot of "scandals", people tack "-Gate" on the end, which is more than likely a reference to the Watergate scandal from the 70s.

The idea originally was some sort of argument for "ethics in games journalism", which I guess flew out the window as soon as 99% of it's "supporters" forgot what ethics were to begin with.

I thought the "ethics" part came later, as a poor justification for the obsession with Zoe Quinn's personal life.

 

[Square2015]

So have we heard the UN's reaction yet after they presented?

 

[Mman235]

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.

Multiple big social sites (like Twitter and Tumblr) have taken steps to add more blocking features and similar as a result of GG (they didn't directly mention it, but it's pretty obviously the catalyst), they still need to do a lot more but that's helped everyone with cutting down the bullshit they have to put up with.

 

[dLMN8R]

I thought the "ethics" part came later, as a poor justification for the obsession with Zoe Quinn's personal life.

Adam Baldwin (actor, disgusting human) publicized a video rife with factual errors alleging that Zoe Quinn slept with games writers in order to get coverage of her game. That's why "ethics" came up.

The allegations are completely false, those stories don't exist, and Zoe's game is free anyway (with donations she's given to charity), but that never stopped GamerGate from continuing.

After that, it just devolved into a never-ending harassment campaign that mostly targets women but also goes after any men who dare to publicly defend those women.


(Also don't forget the tiny little detail that neither Zoe Quinn nor any of these other women are actually journalists, but GamerGate still loves attacking the women instead of the journalists actually accused of wrongdoing.

Definitely not because they're basement-dwelling misogynist pieces of shit though. Of course not)

 

[JeffZero]

Stellar.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

Don't you think, that if the people who particularly abuse women are banned from using any internet communication services, that there may not be anyone left who abuses men too?

Get outta here with this shit...

 

[Sinatar]

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?

 

[astroturfing]

i don't know who Zoe Quinn is but Anita Sarkeesian talking at the UN? wtf? i thought she was just someone who made Youtube videos, not an actual researcher or expert.

what am i missing?

 

[Kamina777]

i don't know who Zoe Quinn is but Anita Sarkeesian talking at the UN? wtf? i thought she was just someone who made Youtube videos, not an actual researcher or expert.

what am i missing?

A harrassment backfire of epic proportions.

 

[Metal Gear?!]

i don't know who Zoe Quinn is but Anita Sarkeesian talking at the UN? wtf? i thought she was just someone who made Youtube videos, not an actual researcher or expert.

what am i missing?

She seems to have a lot of experience with the subject at least. Not sure how that came about, really. Just like you, I was in a coma for the last year.

 

[Vice]

i don't know who Zoe Quinn is but Anita Sarkeesian talking at the UN? wtf? i thought she was just someone who made Youtube videos, not an actual researcher or expert.

what am i missing?

She's been harassed quite a bit and has experience researching and presenting the ideas in easy to understand ways. She's a pretty good spokesperson and she knows the technical stuff behind research as well so that likely helps.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Just like you, I was in a coma for the last year.

lol

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Online harassment sucks, but the UN board coining the phrase "Cyber Violence" to describe it is a bit much. No need to introduce an unnecessarily exaggerated (and kinda ridiculous) term for something that already has a perfectly-understandable description.

"Cyber Violence" makes it sound like an actual, physical robot attack or something.

 

[Juke Joint Jezebel]

But what about the super secret fourth panel?

What a nice guy!

 

[deltatheta]

i don't know who Zoe Quinn is but Anita Sarkeesian talking at the UN? wtf? i thought she was just someone who made Youtube videos, not an actual researcher or expert.

what am i missing?

They want to address online harassment and so they want to hear from prominent victims of online harassment? Why would you think that they wouldn't want to hear from them?

I'm not really sure if you're serious. It's hard to tell because there seems to be a lot of concern trolling, and not just here.

 

[weemadarthur]

Get outta here with this shit...

Did you have an argument, or are you here to insult other users?

 

[Sai-kun]

edit: i misread a post, my bad,

 

[Cyrano]

I haven't read the study myself yet (can be found here btw) but it seems like they did some qualitative research.

Thanks, wanted to check out their methodology section.

Starts out with some pretty strong evidence:

Accounts with feminine usernames received an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages per day, whereas masculine names received 3.7

From a University of Maryland study.

Will pick it apart a bit more to find more interesting factoids.

So they didn't analyze 2 million tweets, they used a word (rape/slut/whore) and location (UK) filter and analyzed a couple thousand tweets. They appear to have used a neural network to try and filter further to assure the terms were being used in a threatening manner.

108k tweets about rape in the UK, 12% deemed threatening.
130k tweets about slut or whore in the UK, 18% deemed threatening.

I will say that what they determined as "colloquial/casual" does make me question their network's ability to separate, but maybe they did more specific contextual examinations of edge cases.

One final edit: I have a VERY hard time believing they achieved perfect/near-perfect precision and recall, as they claim later in their study. That seems pretty sketch.

 

[Humdinger]

Good for them. I hope something comes of it. I've contributed to her site, not because I think she's right about everything, but because I can't stand how she's been treated.

 

[LucidMomentum]

Good for them. I hope something comes of it. I've contributed to her site, not because I think she's right about everything, but because I can't stand how she's been treated.

See that's the thing - if you disagree with anyone's opinions or what they've presented, you're free to do so in a logical and respectful manner.

The fact that for over a year these women, and many others, have been harassed for their opinions and research is where there's a clear issue.

Not to mention that the issue seems to stem from a much larger issue wherein it happens to not just them but most, if not all women online in some form or another.

I mean I live and breathe the internet and I've yet to be accosted for sexual favors or had anyone ask me to show them my cock, for perspective.

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

It's not surprising, but /r/KotakuInAction has a thread about this thread.

edit: Launch of the Broadband Working Group on Gender Report

from /r/Gamerghazi: Zoe Quinn & Anita Sarkeesian after the 1:20:10 mark

 

[inpHilltr8r]

n/m

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Because male is never a victim of harassment and abuse. Good to know.

I have no idea what you are even referring to in that comic.

The only way your comment even makes sense is if you were somehow arguing that the fictional person in the comic is right to water his roof because his fictional house may fictionally burn down.

So the only way your comment makes sense is if you are starting an unrelated argument with a fictional character.

An unrelated argument with a fictional character where apparently your argument is "the guy shouldn't help put out the actual burning house, he should care about his shit and his shit alone". Which, when filtered back through the lens of Reality, translates into "who gives a fuck about women online" (because remember, Fictional SJWs house isn't in danger of catching fire, it is fucking burning down). Is that what you're getting at?

I mean, I'm just trying to break down your entirely ridiculous thought process here. Feel free to point out what I got wrong.

 

[Damerman]

this is fucking brilliant. so much so i think this deserves a nobel prize.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Isn't the Pope talking at the UN tomorrow too? Will Anita be speaking on the same day as Pope Francis? Because if true then holy crap!

 

[Damerman]

I respect that they are talking to the UN about such an issue and bringing more attention to it.

That said, I've never viewed the UN as a very good place to go about well...much of anything. True they will bring attention to it, but I don't expect anything substantive to come out of it. They(the UN) can hardly stop people from committing crimes against humanity or help solve the current refugee crisis so I don't imagine they'll be much help combating online harassment. Seems like one of those things individual governments are better suited at addressing.

But getting the word out is always good.

this is so sad and true. it's pretty annoying how many things in this world are both of those things, sad and true.

 

[Glix]

Man, that is just so fucking perfect

 

[Giever]

I still don't see how this is a useful comic. If you really wanted to run with the metaphor, the dude would still be putting out fires, he just wouldn't also be ignoring the neighborhoods that don't have as many as often.

It's frustratingly disingenuous to suggest that anyone who is compelled to make the issue more broadly inclusive is doing so out of some ill intent or desire to distract the focus of discourse. Harassment is harassment, and even if it's happening to a bunch of people in Group A, it still sucks just as much for the people that it is happening to in Group B.

Suggesting that we bring up or consider Group B some more isn't a plea to ignore Group A, nor is it a recommendation that we go around and give every individual who hasn't even been harassed our undying support.

 

[Dai Kaiju]

This is pretty cool. Sure, there are much bigger problems in the world but the difference is most people are completely unaware of how out of control online harassment can get. I'm glad they're spreading awareness because it's difficult to explain to people why I've put my life on hold.

It recently became apparent that I'm the target of a movement not unlike gamergate. It's backed by seemingly vast resources that could have been used to help people. Instead, those funds have been squandered trying to drive a nobody towards relapse or suicide. They have gone to incredible lengths to make me question my sanity.

I think my ex has realized I won't let anyone dictate my mental state to me so she seems to have moved on to trying to make me question my sexuality and gender identity. It's not gonna happen. I'm wholly content with being just another dude who is totally disensitized to normal pr0n. Sorry L.

 

[bishoptl]

I still don't see how this is a useful comic. If you really wanted to run with the metaphor, the dude would still be putting out fires, he just wouldn't also be ignoring the neighborhoods that don't have as many as often.

It's frustratingly disingenuous to suggest that anyone who is compelled to make the issue more broadly inclusive is doing so out of some ill intent or desire to distract the focus of discourse. Harassment is harassment, and even if it's happening to a bunch of people in Group A, it still sucks just as much for the people that it is happening to in Group B.

Suggesting that we bring up or consider Group B some more isn't a plea to ignore Group A, nor is it a recommendation that we go around and give every individual who hasn't even been harassed our undying support.

It's a classic deflection move. We've seen it with #alllivesmatter and it's happening in this very thread. Surely you're not so naive as to not see this.

 

[Jintor]

It's frustratingly disingenuous to suggest that anyone who is compelled to make the issue more broadly inclusive is doing so out of some ill intent or desire to distract the focus of discourse. Harassment is harassment, and even if it's happening to a bunch of people in Group A, it still sucks just as much for the people that it is happening to in Group B.

I think you're reading intent into it. There's no intent implied on the part of mr All Houses Matter. But the effect is the same whether he is deliberately disingenous or just willfully repeating the catchphrase or even if he genuinely believes that all houses matter. It distracts from the issue at hand by playing a statement so broad as to deny disagreement.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

It's frustratingly disingenuous to suggest that anyone who is compelled to make the issue more broadly inclusive is doing so out of some ill intent or desire to distract the focus of discourse.

Well, yeah.

Some are just naive as fuck.

Explain in what panel this comic generalizes this concept.