Support NeoGAF

[inpHilltr8r]

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.

"Compelled" makes it sound like they have some sort of condition.

 

[L Thammy]

Mr. All Lives Matter can only spray water at one house at any given time, and only has so much water to spray. Should he not prioritize those limited resources on areas where fires are more likely to happen - where they are actually most needed - than the areas where they are less likely to?

The thing is that "All Lives Matter" isn't wrong, it just takes to focus of the people who are actually most at risk.

 

[Giever]

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.

Right, I get that, trust me. It's just frustrating that, since there are people out there using that stance as some kind of disruptive tactic, the default assumption becomes that if you're bringing anything like that up then you're being disingenuous.

I'm probably speaking from ignorance, but I think I just don't get the actual harm in broadening the scope of the issue. Especially now that the disproportionate extent of online harassment that women receive has gotten the coverage it has. Like, people are aware that this is an issue, so I don't see how acknowledging it being an issue for other groups of people as well will detract from the discussion.

I can get it being problematic when a movement (or whatever) is just beginning to try and gain traction, but this has been all over the place at this point. It's been on the news, radio, TV shows (that awful Law & Order episode), and now it's going to the UN. I don't see how being more inclusive of the different groups of people suffering from the same problems (even if there aren't as many in each particular group) would detract from it at this point. It would just lend support and credence to those other folks dealing with it.

Like, that's my view at this point, and it's completely sincere. It's disheartening that even though I'm coming from a completely sympathetic and (hopefully) reasonable mindset, the natural response could easily be some dismissive or mocking image, all because there's some small Venn diagram overlap with what I think and what some trolls say to rile people up or cause problems.

 

[dLMN8R]

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.

Yep. No one said "all lives matter" until someone first said "black lives matter".

https://www.google.com/trends/explo...s matter"&date=1/2012 48m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+7

It's just a convenient distraction by the privileged to put the spotlight back on themselves when it leaves them for just a few seconds. People can't handle not being the center of attention for any period of time so once someone tries they try to include "everyone", which in reality just means "me me me".

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Right, I get that, trust me. It's just frustrating that, since there are people out there using that stance as some kind of disruptive tactic, the default assumption becomes that if you're bringing anything like that up then you're being disingenuous.

I'm probably speaking from ignorance, but I think I just don't get the actual harm in broadening the scope of the issue.

Nobody is saying that the greater concept of fighting online harassment can't be addressed.

But this is a specific issue.

It's really as simple as that.

It's like someone going to a Women in Television panel at SDCC and complaining that only women were on it.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I don't see how being more inclusive of the different groups of people suffering from the same problems (even if there aren't as many in each particular group) would detract from it at this point. It would just lend support and credence to those other folks dealing with it.

What part about the report being delivered tomorrow fails to be inclusive of different groups?

 

[dLMN8R]

Nobody is saying that the greater concept of fighting online harassment can't be addressed.

But this is a specific issue.

It's really as simple as that.

It's like someone going to a Women in Television panel at SDCC and complaining that only women were on it.

Right. If people want to discuss harassment against men, then they should start a thread and fill it with substantive discussion points. This is a thread / discussion specifically about harassment against women. Let the discussion topic stick.


Maybe, just maybe, harassment against men requires different plans of action and solutions to address compared to harassment against women.

Considering that almost exclusively men designed Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms rife with harassment, and those men have been woefully incapable of addressing it, maybe some opinions and ideas from women can help? We'll only know if they're allowed to speak without the conversation constantly getting distracted.

 

[BY2K]

It's just a convenient distraction by the privileged to put the spotlight back on themselves when it leaves them for just a few seconds. People can't handle not being the center of attention for any period of time so once someone tries they try to include "everyone", which in reality just means "me me me".

When I made my first reply in this thread, that absolutely wasn't my intent. All I was trying to say is that maybe we should put as much cards on the table as possible, give them every statistic we can get in front of the UN.

Not saying that putting up only the statistics about harassement against women would be less effective, of course. Just fill the plate as much as possible.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

When I made my first reply in this thread, that absolutely wasn't my intent. All I was trying to say is that maybe we should put as much cards on the table as possible, give them every statistic we can get in front of the UN.

Not saying that putting up only the statistics about harassement against women would be less effective, of course. Just fill the plate as much as possible.

But the subject of the talk is online harassment against women.

What is the issue here that you think is not being given its due consideration?

 

[Giever]

What part about the report being delivered tomorrow fails to be inclusive of different groups?

Nothing, as far as I know, and that's great! If you'd look back just a bit, you'll see that what I was responding to was the use of that comic to derisively shut someone down who was suggesting more inclusiveness, presumably on the assumption that they were trying to distract the focus of the conversation.

 

[BY2K]

But the subject of the talk is online harassment against women.

What is the issue here that you think is not being given its due consideration?

Nothing, but isn't the point of this talk to push the UN into tacking actions against online harassement? Or to push the UN into pushing the world's countries to take actions?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Nothing, as far as I've seen. If you'd look back just a bit, you'll see that what I was responding to was the use of that comic to derisively shut someone down who was suggesting more inclusiveness, presumably on the assumption that they were trying to distract the focus of the conversation.

That person was suggesting that this talk shouldn't even exist because men get abused, too. The comic being put up in response was entirely appropriate because the person Sinistar was responding to was saying #AllLivesMatter.

#AllLivesMatter, by the by, has no reason to exist in the first place. It wasn't born out of a national epidemic of police killing everyone.

Nothing, but isn't the point of this talk to push the UN into tacking actions against online harassement?

Yes.

But to imply that the UN will only focus exclusively on harassment of females due to this talk is ludicrous. Would you also complain that there are talks on Hunger in Africa or Serial Killers in London?

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Nothing, as far as I've seen. If you'd look back just a bit, you'll see that what I was responding to was the use of that comic to derisively shut someone down who was suggesting more inclusiveness, presumably on the assumption that they were trying to distract the focus of the conversation.

The point is that it's trying to deflect attention away from the problem that is being brought up in order to move attention back to areas where those problems don't exist in anywhere near the same scale. Thus, "All Houses Matter" while using the firehose on a house that's not on fire.

The tactic essentially boils down to the old chestnut that people who are pointing out problems with racism in society are "the real racist" for daring to focus on, say, the near epidemic problem of police gunning down unarmed minorities instead of being generically against "police brutality".

 

[TouchMyBox]

It seems that for average people women are targeted much more than men are on the internet for online harassment, but in terms of people who are high profile, the real bad shit like swatting seems to be equally horrifying for everyone. I don't think the metaphor really applies.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

The point is that it's trying to deflect attention away from the problem that is being brought up in order to move attention back to areas where those problems don't exist in anywhere near the same scale. Thus, "All Houses Matter" while using the firehose on a house that's not on fire.

The tactic essentially boils down to the old chestnut that people who are pointing out problems with racism in society are "the real racist" for daring to focus on, say, the near epidemic problem of police gunning down unarmed minorities instead of being generically against "police brutality".

Yes, if we ignore race, racism will go away.

If we ignore racism, racism won't go away.

 

[BY2K]

Yes.

But to imply that the UN will only focus exclusively on harassment of females due to this talk is ludicrous. Would you also complain that there are talks on Hunger in Africa or Serial Killers in London?

That is true, I realize the way I worded my reply was pretty dumb.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

It seems that for average people women are targeted much more than men are on the internet for online harassment, but in terms of people who are high profile, the real bad shit like swatting seems to be equally horrifying for everyone. I don't think the metaphor really applies.

Anything can be rendered invalid if you attach a different and unrelated message to it.

People need to stop acting like this is a new concept.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

derisively shut someone down who was suggesting more inclusiveness.

"I feel like tackling and discussing a big issue like this with a sole focus on one gender is a bit counter-productive"

You really think this was a sincere effort to include more people? Not, say, as a way to denigrate a report they have shown little evidence of reading because 'what about men, tho?'

People getting the benefit of the doubt on this one has been ground down to nothing because very often, there are signs of the latter behind every 'well I agree that this is a problem but why can't we also talk about this thing I've never once brought up, instead? Why's it gotta be about women?'

Plead ignorance all you want but the bodies left behind in every thread in orbit of Sarkeesian/Quinn so far on this board are the 'receipts' that form the mental baggage behind the snark. A baleful eye will ALWAYS be cast on calls to make sure we also consider straight white males in a report titled "Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls." Deal with it.

 

[Giever]

That person was suggesting that this talk shouldn't even exist because men get abused, too. The comic being put up in response was entirely appropriate because the person Sinistar was responding to was saying #AllLivesMatter.

#AllLivesMatter, by the by, has no reason to exist in the first place. It wasn't born out of a national epidemic of police killing everyone.

I don't really have an interest in defending what someone else said. Maybe the comic was warranted, I don't know. It just feels needlessly dismissive to me, and I'd rather see people outright address what they think is foolish or mistaken reasoning and have some actual discourse than quickly reply with mocking images. You can argue that the poster had it coming, or whatever, but that's just how I feel would be a better way to go about it.

The point is that it's trying to deflect attention away from the problem that is being brought up in order to move attention back to areas where those problems don't exist in anywhere near the same scale. Thus, "All Houses Matter" while using the firehose on a house that's not on fire.

The tactic essentially boils down to the old chestnut that people who are pointing out problems with racism in society are "the real racist" for daring to focus on, say, the near epidemic problem of police gunning down unarmed minorities instead of being generically against "police brutality".

I get what you're saying, I just personally think it's valuable to try and keep all of the different victims in mind, and that's it's possible and beneficial to do that while still being able to address the unique kinds of issues that each group would actually need addressed, rather than segregating them to different topics, threads, or whatever.


EDIT:

"I feel like tackling and discussing a big issue like this with a sole focus on one gender is a bit counter-productive"

You really think this was a sincere effort to include more people? Not, say, as a way to denigrate a report they have shown little evidence of reading because 'what about men, tho?'

People getting the benefit of the doubt on this one has been ground down to nothing because very often, there are signs of the latter behind every 'well I agree that this is a problem but why can't we also talk about this thing I've never once brought up, instead? Why's it gotta be about women?'

Plead ignorance all you want but the bodies left behind in every thread in orbit of Sarkeesian/Quinn so far on this board are the 'receipts' that form the mental baggage behind the snark. A baleful eye will ALWAYS be cast on calls to make sure we also consider straight white males in a report titled "Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls." Deal with it.

Well, like I said in my first response in this post, I'm not really interested in defending what that person said. Maybe they were asking for it, I don't know. I'm just against the dismissive knee-jerk responses that some of those posts get without any knowledge of ill intent. Maybe some people think it doesn't even matter if there's ill intent, because it's a shitty attitude regardless! I don't know.

I get that trolls or whatever have been making posts like that probably non-stop in these threads for going on a year now, I'm not ignorant of that. But I can't change that that's the way I feel about it. I just think posts like that (or almost any post really) should be addressed in a direct non-condescending way, and if the person turns out to be some piece of shit then the mods can handle it. I mean, that's not meant to be some command or request or even a suggestion. That's just how I think it ought to be, and that's why I responded the way I did to that comic reply.

END EDIT

Anyway, I really actually don't want to distract from the topic at hand, and it kind of feels like that's happening at this point (and I actually need to eat), so I'll just bow out. Hopefully it wasn't a nuisance.

 

[DCharlie]

when i play online - i get generic abuse - i might get "gay nigger fag" or something like that but ... that's usually the extent

when my wife plays? lol - come the fuck on - it's full on sexual threats, rape threats, threats of physical violence, "i'm going to come to your house and give you the MAIN VEIN" etc etc.

The "oh it's just part of online abuse" angle is garbage - it's tiring and boring and it ignores that the threats are miiiiiiiiiiiiiiles apart.

That the other angle is "well, they could hardly follow through?"

oh great - wife and I do have a derange stalker that we've had for the best part of 12 years. Multiple videos on youtube (that i had to get removed) including late night footage outside our house - whilst the person making the videos i do actually know and would snap like a twig - i don't see why i have to put up with this - but combine that with the previous other threats? (he hasn't - outside some "i fucked his wife/my mate fucked his wife" nonsense) then that's gone beyond "just usual online banter" and into "mad stalkers with nothing better to do"

 

[Devildoll]

Yep. No one said "all lives matter" until someone first said "black lives matter".

https://www.google.com/trends/explo...s matter"&date=1/2012 48m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+7

It's just a convenient distraction by the privileged to put the spotlight back on themselves when it leaves them for just a few seconds. People can't handle not being the center of attention for any period of time so once someone tries they try to include "everyone", which in reality just means "me me me".

Is that a graph of what people have said, or a graph of what people have searched for using google?

 

[Gentleman Jack]

oh great - wife and I do have a derange stalker that we've had for the best part of 12 years. Multiple videos on youtube (that i had to get removed) including late night footage outside our house - whilst the person making the videos i do actually know and would snap like a twig - i don't see why i have to put up with this - but combine that with the previous other threats? (he hasn't - outside some "i fucked his wife/my mate fucked his wife" nonsense) then that's gone beyond "just usual online banter" and into "mad stalkers with nothing better to do"

God damn.

 

[Dice//]

when i play online - i get generic abuse - i might get "gay nigger fag" or something like that but ... that's usually the extent

when my wife plays? lol - come the fuck on - it's full on sexual threats, rape threats, threats of physical violence, "i'm going to come to your house and give you the MAIN VEIN" etc etc.

The "oh it's just part of online abuse" angle is garbage - it's tiring and boring and it ignores that the threats are miiiiiiiiiiiiiiles apart.

That the other angle is "well, they could hardly follow through?"

oh great - wife and I do have a derange stalker that we've had for the best part of 12 years. Multiple videos on youtube (that i had to get removed) including late night footage outside our house - whilst the person making the videos i do actually know and would snap like a twig - i don't see why i have to put up with this - but combine that with the previous other threats? (he hasn't - outside some "i fucked his wife/my mate fucked his wife" nonsense) then that's gone beyond "just usual online banter" and into "mad stalkers with nothing better to do"

Woah....

 

[BY2K]

oh great - wife and I do have a derange stalker that we've had for the best part of 12 years. Multiple videos on youtube (that i had to get removed) including late night footage outside our house - whilst the person making the videos i do actually know and would snap like a twig - i don't see why i have to put up with this - but combine that with the previous other threats? (he hasn't - outside some "i fucked his wife/my mate fucked his wife" nonsense) then that's gone beyond "just usual online banter" and into "mad stalkers with nothing better to do"

Jesus Christ...

 

[theshape31]

Harassing these women non-stop has given them a platform that they may have never been able to achieve before. Good job to them for never giving up.

Absolutely, their strength and resolve is incredible. I'm very proud to see this happening.

 

[DCharlie]

God damn.

lol - yet this clown, just like Gamergate with ZQ, claims I am stalking HIM because i want to make sure i keep a track of anything that is, frankly, legal territory shit.

Seriously though - this is a guy i could put in whichever hospital i'd want. He's all the physical threat of a bowl of cornflakes.

But hey - i've kids and a wife - and it's just a better idea to legally wrap him up, go talk to his boss etc. Present the X years of evidence and just make sure he stays away.

And if the worst comes to the worst and I find him outside my house in the dead of night, or he turns up at my kids school? Fuck it, i'll make sure his next month of meals are through a tube.

 

[TurboButts]

By no means am I an "all lives matter" nutjob. I do think this is kinda odd however. I think laws of the real world should also apply to online interactions. I'm not familiar with how cyberbullying and such are handled by... who, local police officers? I assume poorly either way. But I just don't think this discussion is helped by the presenters focusing entirely on just one gender. Obviously I think its safe to assume that anything that would come of this would apply to everyone, but I just don't think it bolsters the argument. Especially preaching to a room full of (assumingly) old men.

pls dont yell at me

 

[Gentleman Jack]

By no means am I an "all lives matter" nutjob. I do think this is kinda odd however. I think laws of the real world should also apply to online interactions. I'm not familiar with how cyberbullying and such are handled by... who, local police officers? I assume poorly either way. But I just don't think this discussion is helped by the presenters focusing entirely on just one gender. Obviously I think its safe to assume that anything that would come of this would apply to everyone, but I just don't think it bolsters the argument. Especially preaching to a room full of (assumingly) old men.

pls dont yell at me

No offense, but I think it's time to start reading the report before drawing upon what is safe to assume about the topic at hand or presuming what the presenters are focusing on.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

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.

The smart level headed post here.

The UN is pretty useless IMO. So we pat ourselves on the back. So what? The UN is just for countries to make themselves feel better when they are not busy justfying the actions of the big Six.

 

[TurboButts]

No offense, but I think it's time to start reading the report before drawing upon what is safe to assume about the topic at hand or presuming what the presenters are focusing on.

I suppose yes, don't judge a book by its cover, but the title of their book is "Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls." If they go beyond that then awesome, I apologize. That satisfies what I hoped for.

 

[leadbelly]

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

I'll take a look. I will say though, as far as studies go, it is interesting no one has really brought up the pew study, which is actually one of the studies cited.

This statistic here comes from the Pew study:

Women in the age range of 18 to 24 are uniquely likely to experience stalking and sexual harassment in addition to physical threats.

It is the only statistic they take from it.

It shows clearly that women are far more likely to be stalked or sexually harassed, specifically in that age range, This all makes sense, and it correlates well with real life harassment. In terms of online sexual comments towards women, I see it all the time on 'Live on Playstation'. In terms of sexual harassment this is a legitimate women's issue. If we're focusing on that fair enough.

However in terms of other areas, particularly physical threats, this study does not show this as a uniquely female problem. In fact overall, men are a little more likely to be victims of this sort of harassment.

If we're talking all harassment overall, the percentages are 44% for men, and 37% for women. If I were to take issue, it would be with how this problem is being presented. That's not necessarily to say they are presenting this data incorrectly, I don't know, it's just that, If we're talking about harassment in general, I'm not sure presenting it as solely a women's issue is fair. If it is presented as a sexual harassment issue specifically then it is fair.

In terms of other data, there is the WOAH data. The data here does predominantly show women as the victims to be fair. The problem with this data however, is that the data does not constitute a scientific study. The reason being is that they're self-selected responses from people who have sought out advice from the organisation. So for example, does that mean more women are victims of online harassment in general, or does that mean more women seek out advice from WOAH? We don't know. Despite that, the data is still obviously of some use. However, I was looking through the data and I'm not sure what to make of it. I will give you some reasons why.

2012 was probably the most disproportionate in terms of male and female victimisation. 80% of women sought advice from WOAH in comparison to only 20% of men. I picked that year because of just how overwhelmingly one sided the data is. It is mostly women. This makes some of statistics quite weird though. This is the other reason for using this year.

So 80% of the people that sought advice that year were women. Interestinglg, while 194 of the harassers were men, 123 of them were actually women. It means less women are harassers overall, but that is not an insignificant number. 77 were unknown, Perhaps those 77 were men, The thing is though, this isn't just a one off. it is a statistic that remains consistent throughout all of their data. Generally speaking more men are doing the harassing, but it is never significantly higher. It is only ever like 5-10% higher. I thought that bit of information was interesting.

Another thing to point out is, the majority of cases reported that year, (about 63% of cases) were of people they had some kind of relationship with. The top answer given was an ex-partner. This is another statistic that remains consistent throughout all of their data.
http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/stats/2012Statistics.pdf
http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/stats/index.shtml

 

[Aske]

Great to have more attention brought to this issue. Freedom of expression without fear of legal repercussion needs to end where harassment of individuals begins, and these women are probably the best examples of high-profile survivors of this kind of abuse.

I'm always wary of measures to curtail free expression, but the current situation is unacceptable. Too many vitriolic sociopaths with hacking powers are ruining too many people's lives. At the very least, sites like Facebook and Twitter need to crack down on this stuff. Put some of that mountain of data they collect from their users to good use.

 

[HIGH DEF JEFF]

Looking forward to the outrage from my favorite Gamer Gate Heroes of the Web.

 

[Opto]

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.

The UN has many arms of things it can do. This brings Cyber VAWG to a global concern. Think of the UN as more of a conduit for a multitude of organizations from all across the world to build research and form models for fighting against cyber crimes, which are not just happening in fully developed countries.

 

[charlequin]

Anyway, I really actually don't want to distract from the topic at hand

No, but in practice what you did was write hundreds and hundreds of words about how important it is that we pay attention to male victims of harassment, in a discussion of a case where women who have been targeted by very specific and well-established harassment were talking about that precise experience. This is exactly why All Lives Matter is nonsense -- by virtue of existing solely in reaction to a targeted response, its sole effect is to take attention away from a legitimate issue.

 

[Dice//]

No, but in practice what you did was write hundreds and hundreds of words about how important it is that we pay attention to male victims of harassment, in a discussion of a case where women who have been targeted by very specific and well-established harassment were talking about that precise experience. This is exactly why All Lives Matter is nonsense -- by virtue of existing solely in reaction to a targeted response, its sole effect is to take attention away from a legitimate issue.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I don't really have an interest in defending what someone else said. Maybe the comic was warranted, I don't know.

Then don't comment if you don't care to be a part of the discussion.

 

[Faustek]

Looking forward to the outrage from my favorite Gamer Gate Heroes of the Web.

Wait what? Alpha omega is on that "side"?

Please tell me he isn't part is the harassment crew and just a......A non idiot. Since I really like the sporadic episodes I've seen with him


Anyway, good that this gets more exposure. To bad the UN has no teeth but hopefully This gives the issue a more "real presence" and idiot parents stops pretending their shitty kids are angels.
The grown ups are...Yeah i don't care. Please stop living or behave.


Edit:
On the topic why men don't seek help that has been explained many times. It's a stupid archaic social construct that pegs you as weak if you seek help. Unfortunately at work so can't dig it up.

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

Wait what? Alpha omega is on that "side"?

Please tell me he isn't part is the harassment crew and just a......A non idiot. Since I really like the sporadic episodes I've seen with him

I never heard about that guy till tonight, but a quick glance at his Youtube channel shows that yes, he's on that side. There's a video about SJWs Need to Leave the Entertainment industry alone.

 

[Faustek]

I never heard about that guy till tonight, but a quick glance at his Youtube channel shows that yes, he's on that side. There's a video about SJWs Need to Leave the Entertainment industry alone.

YouTube only recommended his gaming video to me and now when I actually go to his channel.... Yeah. Not clicking on those again

Anyway thanks YouTube for actually working and only showing game tagged content to me.

 

[Etnos]

What is this comic even implying?

The hypocritical arguments that we should not care about vulnerable groups because all groups are equal

I think it is pretty straightforward to understand

Is there a term for this sort of logical fallacy?

Is there a name for this sort of hypocrisy?

I mean is not like african americans were slaves for decades, or that they are harassed if not killed by the police at ridiculous dis-proportional rates right now

Why would that matter, am I right!? All lives matter...

 

[dottme]

For the first time I agree with Anita. \o/

First time I see her finally saying something good. Or at least the summary in the opening is good.

The online environment needs to be improved a lot and too many people do too many stupid things just because of the feeling of total protection behind their screen.

 

[Shrike_Priest]

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.

Please explain how implementing the following would not lead to less harassment to all groups in society:

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 only part of this solution that is gender specific is the sensitization process, which might focus on the treatment of women online. But I have a heard time seeing that type of campaigning not also focusing on harassment in general.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

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 I've run into this study before, it's really REALLY bad quality.

It seems the actual data has been removed from the site the research was originally on. (I wouldn't be surprised if they removed it just cause the study was bad as all hell.)


Basically:

1. the study felt weird to me from the start, as it had absolutely no meta-analysis, standard-deviations or validity testing, so I decided to dig through the data. (I might still have the excel sheet somewhere on my pc as I did download it at the time, not sure)

2. first thing I noticed is that the visibility, reputation, number and role of the chosen celebrities HEAVILY varied.

Like on one end you had often controversial characters like Piers Morgan & Ricky Gervais , on the other hand ... you had J.K.Rowling who's basically only known as a loved author of children's books.

3. The basic study looked more at totals than percentages in the original data, and the conclusion came down to men getting more harassing tweets than women..

What it didn't discuss or show in the report at all (I had to dig this out of the raw data) is that in a few of the pools where men had it worst, it was usually one or two extreme outliers who caused for the much higher number; Like within his own Pool (celebrities) Piers Morgan got around 80% of abusive tweets directed at men.

I'd have to look at the data again to be sure if I still have it, but basically Piers Morgan had more abusive tweets than the male and female celeb pool combined.


If I had done research for my study and I'd draw the conclusion "men get harassed more than women" with that extreme an outlier in my data I'd most likely get a really bad failing grade. This study proves very little in regards of male v.s. female general statistics, it only proves that out of the random celebs chosen .. Piers Morgan sure is hated.



It kinda reminds me of the whole Spiders Georg thing, in this particular case Pers is Spiders Georg.

 

[Beyonce Beytwice]

on the other hand ... you had J.K.Rowling who's basically only known as a loved author of children's books.

You're pretty out of touch, she's very political on her Twitter and other writings since HP.

 

[Yoshi]

I could only skim through the report, but I did not quite find the answers to these two questions:

(1) What does cyber violence exactly entail? Since I see things like stalking listed, does it include something like "looking through profiles anonymously and trying to keep yourself informed about a person, even though the information said person has posted might not have been intended to reach you"? The number of 73% sounds extremely high if you are reasonably strict with what cyber violence entails. I mean, I wouldn't want to put constant personal attacks, doxxing or swatting on the same level as "stalking facebook profiles" for instance. If really 73% of women receive constant personal attacks (to differentiate it from some "you're an asshole" on a forum, which clearly is irrelevant and would mean almost everyone who uses the internet, independent of gender, receives violence), are doxxed, swatted or targeted with revenge porn this would be outrageous

(2) What is the base set of women? Clearly it cannot be all women around the world beause I would be supremely surprised if 73% of women even had internet access. If it is strictly focussed on the west, does it still limit to women who use the internet or are all women from the countries under investigation counted? Again, because in the second case, 73% would probably mean "all women who engage with the internet receive violence via the internet".

 

[igordennis]

Can someone explain to me why piers morgan is so hated on the internet? I havent kept up with that at all.

 

[Auctopus]

Fantastic idea. Maybe not the greatest people to choose as representatives though.

.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Can someone explain to me why piers morgan is so hated on the internet? I havent kept up with that at all.

I can tell you why he's hated in England.

Ran fake stories whilst editor for a well established newspaper, The Mirror, about british soldiers torturing Iraqis.

 

[Yoshi]

Can someone explain to me why piers morgan is so hated on the internet? I havent kept up with that at all.

Wikipedia told me, because he is against the US right to own weapons. So basically because he's not a dumbass?