Our Shared Shelf discussion
Miscellaneous
>
Should men have to get a license for online discourse
I must agree with Keith - who should issue them and then, why only for men? Sure, men can be pretty awful on the web, but so can women!I think such a test should be passed by anyone, not just men.
I don't know who started the Vanity Fair controversy (of which one do you even speak of?, I don't get much notice of such papers, last one I witnessed was Emma's), so I cannot say much to that. If you're talking about the one Emma was involved in, that one was just horrible and totally unfeminist! (The debate, not that she posed in the way she did!)
The OSS pictures were nice, I'd be glad if Emma did them again. They were for us:)
I was expecting this. Why men because I am working the problem and it is men vast majority of what I am talking about is men. So men have to be the focus. I would advocate UN as the arbitrators of the system. Also professional certification of moderators with real powers to block offenders.
We want women to be allowed to use and contribute to the Cyber sphere we have to change it for the virtual dark ally it currently is.
The only way is control male aggression on line unpalatable it may be but currently unavoidable.
You were expecting this.. from me?Well, if we take everyone accountable, we also hold men accountable. Two issues (varying in the force) solved at once.
To the question at hand, no.For one it wouldn't work, the paperwork for it would be killer and before the first guys got their clearance the internet would have moved on to something new. :D
Secondly, you can't just arbitrarily degree that people have to pass a test to add their voice to the internet based on their gender - that's something the those IS & Taliban loonies would come up with, only for women.
So, that's that.
Reading some of the comments Anita Saarkesian apparently got on her twitter account, I would agree that we need harsher anti-harassment laws and naturally more rigid enforcement of them. Because else they would be only lip service.
I'm not sure it's realistic to expect the UN to spend time and resources licensing people just so they can go on forums. Although I take your point, I believe that actually licensing people can remove from debate. That's not to say that everyone should be debated with necessarily but that the best way to make change is to debate people and bring them over to your way of thinking. Otherwise we are just preaching to the converted.Also, I don't think it's really enforceable on a broader level. I'm not sure a lot of big name companies would be comfortable with using their own resources to enforce licensing which they would undoubtedly have to do
And (final point), I believe if a viable way to do this was found, it would be irresponsible just to apply the rule to men. Other forms of oppression (and to a large extent female oppression) are perpetuated by both men and women so it would be silly just to champion licensing on a feminist basis. In order to achieve liberation of the sexes we must believe in intersectionality and try and argue against other forms of oppression!
I expected it from many but only from you Mee because you have the best intentions and work to include everyone.But the sad fact is men are the problem make these changes it will reduce the instances of on line abuse; being Female famous and active on line should not be something that has to be endured.
The internet is not a result of nature or historical factors its a construct so we have the ability to alter it easily if we have the will to do so.
If we do as I suggest it will be imperfect yes but will enter the Zeitgeist make it no longer the norm to address women casually in the terms we see now.
People used to spit in the street some still do bit but most don't not many have been prosecuted but the standard of behavior has risen to higher acceptable level.
That is the sort of progress I am aiming for to do it we have to target the biggest offenders.
Gabby, On paper Heforshe was unrealistic up to the point Emma spoke on it. I feel it is irresponsible to except a condition when it can be changed men do most of what we are discussing so we have to stop doing it.
Those not being abusive will not have a problem those that are need to find a healthier outlet for there issues than cowardly attacking women.
In my experience, in terms of being sexist or anti-feminist I've had it way worse from women.
Well, I think feminism is for everyone, of course I have to think about as many as I can!Harsher anti-harassment laws, that is what we need in the first place. Online and offline!
As Gabby has pointed out this isnt just a man problem, online abuse can come from any gender and sometimes from women its worse. The problem with this idea is,1) Its sexist and goes against the principles of feminism.
2) It would then open the door and allow abuse from women to where men would not have any protections for themselves.
Its one thing to apply it to all sexes, but to single out men simply wont do and again is discrimination.
James, it is sexist by definition also necessary to address the problem. The vast majority of this abuse is male. you need a passport and often other documentation such as a visa to go to any country even returning to your own.
This is the same principal abuse the privilege and you lose you access.
Currently I do not see much alterative we have to impose standard of behaviour on people if we ever want the Internet to be a place of equality.
Keith wrote: "For example, do you hold a Facebook user responsible for a comment or Facebook itself for hosting said content - or do you pursue both? Furthermore, who does the policing?..."
The User is directly responsible for his comment, and I think criminal harassment/threats like "You should be killed and raped" needs to be addressed by court law. For "minor" infringements there should be at least a system set in place by the provider to punish offenders according to severity, issuing a simple written reprimand up to a (temporary) ban.
Platforms like facebook or twitter have to make sure that they provide an as save as possible environment for their users and are directly responsible to integrate a system that allows to easily/instantly flag such comments and then to ban users accordingly/work with law enforcement by providing needed information for the courts to judge the case - there's no such useful system in place right now, you can't even do something as simple as flag posts/pages for something as simple as copyright infringement when they list illegal eBook downloads.
Agreed, though, international law pursuit would become difficult.
Gerd wrote: "Keith wrote: "For example, do you hold a Facebook user responsible for a comment or Facebook itself for hosting said content - or do you pursue both? Furthermore, who does the policing?..."
The U..."
I'm totally with Keith here, and I really need to say that Twitter needs to improve their flagging system. I hardly ever use it, and when I do, I am really pissed and hurt, and it doesn't really help when they do nothing then!
Since I don't want a system to be sexist in order to solve other problems, I say everyone needs to have such a license. Because everyone can misbehave online, although it is mostly cisgender, dyadic men who do it. ( I see your point, Ross, but I think we need to include everyone, otherwise we only tackle a portion of the problem, not the problem as a whole.)
Keith wrote: "Gerd wrote: "The User is directly responsible for his comment, and I think criminal harassment/threats like "You should be killed and raped" needs to be addressed by court law...."Absolutely. You..."
I found these which may be a bit helpful in answering some of your questions.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/201...
Ross-"The vast majority of this abuse is male. "
Not according to the two links i provided for Keith. Apparently men actually face more online abuse than women although the general consensus is women face more because of gender. But, abuse is abuse regardless.
"you need a passport and often other documentation such as a visa to go to any country even returning to your own. "
Yes, both men and women need those.
"Currently I do not see much alternative we have to impose standard of behaviour on people if we ever want the Internet to be a place of equality. "
If you are making it a standard for everyone than i would agree with you. Singling out a specific sex is not the way to go about it especially when it is a problem with both sexes.
Keith wrote: "Male - 36Female - 6
Can't Tell - 30
(Sorry Meerder - it's difficult to be inclusive doing something like this; no offense intended)"
No offense taken.
But see, you had problems finding out the gender of the persons, which only further shows that we need to have a license for all, and not just a certain type of men. Fighting sexism with sexism is a bit odd.
And as James has pointed out, apparently men face more online abuse. Which only shows us that, let's call it "hearsay", is just that: hearsay.
It doesn't even shock me, because women can be very toxic, for reasons I often don't understand. (But that's another topic)
Keith wrote: "I have never bothered with the system, but I sympathise with your reaction. It makes you wonder whether it's the 'head in the sand' syndrome - if we ignore it, it will go away. "
I was having a little "discussion" with some TERFs and they just couldn't accept anything new. I came with an argument, and their comments just made my blood boil.
The other thing to consider here is by proposing the idea of singling out a particular sex (in this case men) you are in my opinion reinforcing the idea that women are the weaker sex and should be coddled more when it comes to online abuse. Over the course of time that ive been a part of this group my understanding is that feminism wants to break and challenge that stereotype that has been ingrained in society for so long. We need to tackle this kind of problem on a level spectrum so that it helps and benefits everyone involved.
James wrote: "The other thing to consider here is by proposing the idea of singling out a particular sex (in this case men) you are in my opinion reinforcing the idea that women are the weaker sex and should be ..."That's a fair point, James. It can be seen as further victimizing women (which is not something that feminism wants)
No of course not. But since online abuse seems to be a huge problem for both men and women I don't think this is a case where one sex should be favored over another.
The power and benefit of the internet is the fact that it offers free speech, especially to those who do not have it in their countries. Mandatory censorship of the internet is a terrible idea. Who watches the watchers? However, I do agree with people choosing to join particular internet communities and choosing a higher level of discourse (community rules, moderators, etc).
And gender based restrictions are the anthisis of feminism.
Keith wrote: "@James @MeerderJames - Thank you for the links - it's really interesting to see another perspective. Your other posts brought my thoughts together in significantly less space and in a more succin..."
First thing I learned in statistics at university were a few simple tricks how to make them more how you like them, without even making them wrong;) So yes, that is really a problem.
I completely agree with Jeremy on both points. You cannot censor free speech. That just leads to further issues.And making it gender based is part of the reason feminism has such a negative connotation in many circles. If we are to overcome the "man hating" that most feminists are labeled we cannot limit the freedoms of other genders.
AND, you are forgetting that:
A. people can lie and pass the test and then be the harbinger of harassment anyways. Take your driver's license theory. How many take the test stating they will always drive the speed limit and obey all traffic signals, don't drink and drive, etc. and are the first to run the red light or have just one more beer. I have a feeling this would be even worse of people posturing to take the test and then doing what they want.
B. In addition it takes some of the anonymity away that the internet gives. Perhaps you don't feel a certain way but you want to enhance a debate (in a thought-provoking and kind way). Can you stay relatively anonymous if you need a license? I think even if you passed said exam and received the license it would completely hinder free speech and open discussion for fear of being harassment. Someone could be offended at this entire thread and report it... then what happens. It's too arbitrary to enforce.
C. Hackers are real and they would not care about your licenses.
D. What about the economic and educational impact of this. Most jobs/schools require internet use. What if someone does not pass said test? Should they be banned from their job which requires internet use as well? Or would it just be certain websites? Are there different levels of licenses then? Person A passed the test and has unlimited access. Person B did not but needs internet for college so can only go to education sites? Person C does not need the internet so can't have any access at all? What about online shopping? Online banking? Online Bill Pay?
Yes people are jerks but we can't ban them from the internet for being insensitive.
This is completely unfeasible.
But we still need a better policy in general. Why is it that in the internet everything tends to turn sour so much easier than in "real life"?
Anonymity makes people bold. That's why interactions on the internet can get out of control. But that anonymity is critical to protect activists, minorities, etc, especially in certain areas of the world.
MeerderWörter wrote: "But we still need a better policy in general. Why is it that in the internet everything tends to turn sour so much easier than in "real life"?"Because of the anonymity and I'm sure in some case a more prevalent mob mentality. For one it's easier to dismiss on the net that the person you are threatening/insulting is just that a person. Secondly, I'm sure a lot of online harassment works via chat or pm where the perpetrator feels even more secure.
And there are cases in which fb banned members for posting harassing PMs openly stripping the attacker of his anonymity.
And here's a large problem, it is for platforms like fb / twitter, but also online gaming societies, likely considered far more lucrative to protect (cater to) such users than to enforce stronger rules.
Mod
Whilst their is a huge 'troll' problem, it should be up to the service you are using to take responsibility, for example, Goodreads have got some good systems in place to stop trolls or keep it to an absolute minimum. Social media in particular should invest some of it's huge profits into policing this more closely.
Keith wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "But we still need a better policy in general. Why is it that in the internet everything tends to turn sour so much easier than in "real life"?"Agreed - I don't think anyone ..."
I'm with Keith here, it's no use to censor but we need to protect users from harassment/trolling/cyberbullying...
The web is good to connect and do that in a way that is more anonymous. But we also need to take care of the obvious problems at hand.
Maybe a license is a bit far-fetched, but better policies and/or the compliance with them are necessary.
We cannot let hate and bullying happening...
There is such an informative discussion going on and to be rather honest,reading each side of the debate has kind of baffled me a bit.But then one thing that has really struck out to me is the fact that the main point of feminism is to stop victimising women than they already are.And then again,somebody raised the point that what if somebody who has real need of the internet doesn't pass the test,which i feel is very true.
In my opinion,we are all responsible for ourselves,sure we can try and illuminate other people about not being such creeps and writing bad stuff.But at the end of the day,It is just me myself who is responsible for what I do.I mean talking cyberbullying and writing mean things to people is of,course mostly possible because of anonymity and the fact that that person isn't standing right in front of you.But then talking of anonymity,what would you all think about Prez.Trump's twitter comments or rather his sexist speeches.I mean what about those?Aren't they social media?Aren't they affecting people to a large extent?Can we go and tell the president to take a test,which he may never pass and take away all his rights?
I am sure the answer is no,because he is knowingly and in full consciousness of his actions doing what he is and with absolutely zero anonymity and a 100% publicity.
Also Keith mentioned,that it would be hard to know whether their profiles a rigged and I find so much truth in that.Because at the moment there is so much of terrorist activity and as much as we wouldn't want to believe,they got into someone else's country with or without a visa and then they too have the guts to claim the attack with yet again zero anonymity and 100 publicity.
So basically my point is that technology and social media have reached levels which cannot be controlled,because it is not only the reliable organisations controlling it,it is completely and entirely corrupted from sources we can't even imagine.Thus,I'd like to draw an analogy to the fact that social media is a terrorist of the modern world and it will enter,with a visa or none at all.
Furthermore,as much as we talk about it invading celebrities life,it is invading ours much more.So man or woman or bisexual,doesn't matter.We are all in too deep no matter what the statistics show.And just as terrorism,people will themselves have to come to a realisation about whether what they're doing is wrong or right?
And as far as such criticism against celebrities are concerned,I am very much against the thread of 'what you think of emma watson as a feminist'.I mean we sure could cut her some slack by not discussing it on a book club that she has made for the purpose of women empowerment rather than pushing them down a notch,don't you think?
To answer your valid concerns I shall outline how we could do this. I propose area of the internet would be set up similar to how the dark web works simple presence on search engines.It would be designated female only, how do I define female simple you behavior if you abuse you are banned to get back in proof of identity is required. If you want access you have to agree to be identified and female, social science and sociolinguistics added to the mix you would be surprised how many of these abusers can not bring themselves to be identified as female even in avatar.
Once we have run the pilot for a six months to a year primary finding would shape the next year. access out of the area would be possible but offense material to women would be blocked.
Part of the purpose of the pilot would be to identify what is and is not acceptable. However any abuse sexual based offensive language would be forbidden.
This area would be voluntary you can come and go as you like but inside you have to adhere to the rules.
Also as part of the pilot you cannot use your own details if you have any celebrity status everyone would be followers of everyone you would address only content of posts and images not personalities per se.
Now does it sound it least viable if not more palatable. This is an experiment but its at least showing that a problems exists. How many women use male accounts for some activities. If any don't they should try it out I suspect they will be surprised what they have been putting up with as "just the internet".
Ross wrote: "Once we have run the pilot for a six months to a year primary finding would shape the next year. access out of the area would be possible but offense material to women would be blocked. ..."But who determines what is offensive to women? Because I guarantee what is offensive to some is not offensive to me and vice versa. As a Woman, I don't want someone else telling what I should and should not be offended by.
Keith wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "We cannot let hate and bullying happening...."Totally agree.
And for those who think this isn't a problem, who pontificate about free speech without having the first clue ..."
And what precisely is your definition of free speech, since some of us are apparently 'pontificating' about what it actually means?
Kate people tell you how to behave every day you follow the rules of manners and consideration. Remember its voluntary if you are happy and don't need that level of protection fine.
Others clearly do. do you object to the firewalls protecting your internet connection same principle just broader in scope and scale
I have said its a pilot program beginning not the end.
Ross wrote: "Kate people tell you how to behave every day you follow the rules of manners and consideration. Remember its voluntary if you are happy and don't need that level of protection fine.
Others clea..."
I understand that point but who decides? And what qualifies them to decide?
Good Question Kate who decides well the members of the group would . The best method would be the original Greek system which works like jury duty where you are selected to sit on the committee for a set time and deiced if there is a dispute. But for normal operation it would be self regulating no one has a problem knowing what is offensive I am not talking difference of option but clear disrespect sexual innuendo look at comments to Emma's skydiving recently, too many examples there.So what do we have an area limited for access to people who want women to be free of being judged on anything but there words and deeds. No mindless insults and casual cruelty. Self moderating and voluntary. Sort of a combination of OSS and a firewall if we are being reductionist. Has a conjecture it has some merit could it get any backing and actually be realized maybe not but even has a thought experiment it has been interesting.
Ross wrote: "Good Question Kate who decides well the members of the group would . The best method would be the original Greek system which works like jury duty where you are selected to sit on the committee for..."A mix of OSS and a firewall? That sounds interesting, I mean, OSS is a safe space mostly, and otherwise we take care of the issue... A very good idea, I just think that it might not be possible everywhere. Here, most of us bring an attitude of respect and therefore it is a safe space more than other spaces. Because most of us have this attitude, and the few black sheeps can be taken care of. I doubt that the same can be said for online games, tho I must say I am a novice when it comes to them, as I'm no gamer at all.
But the idea of a mix of a firewall and the OSS rules/handling, that is very interesting.
The only way for a safe debate is education. Of course, it's impossible to expect good behaviour from everybody. Men or women... it does not matter. If you are educated, you will have an interesting conversation.
Sorry but I think a "driving licence" for the internet is a very bad idea! As it seems we are already discussing here how realistic it is and what should be done to make this idea real - but I would like to take a step back in our discussion.For reasons already mentioned here, this idea would raise some serious questions about fundamentally changing the democratic character of the internet! Because as others have already asked: who would decide what is allowed to say on the internet - what is the legitimation of those people and institutions that would do something which I would call: policing the internet?
The idea of the internet is that there are no central institutions or authorities deciding over what is allowed to be said and what should be censored. I know the actual reality of the internet does not always correspond to this idea as regimes all over the world are restricting the accessibility to the internet by censorship and shuttin gthe internet down and other repressive practises of governments. Just look what Erdogan is doing when people are protesting against his regime in Turkey.
So actually the idea of a "driving licence" would destroy the basic idea of the internet as we know it. And this idea is closely connected to the promise of democratisation. I know we are far away from the reality of an internet where everyone is equal and can voice his and her opinion in an atmosphere where everyone has the same rights and is respected as the individual person she and he is.
Another question is: what is hate speech? I think basically it is a Human Rights violation and a kind of violence. People are attacked, harassed and threatened. And there are many people falling victim to hate speech: women and especially feminists are one group, others are attacked and discriminated because they are People of Color, Homosexuals, Muslims, Jews, liberals, left-wing activists, refugee supporters, disabled people, jobless and houseless people,... And sometimes people are harassed because they are part of more than one of these groups.
So I guess it is important to notice that hate speech has not been "invented" with the internet. It was already there before - so it's not an "internet phenomenon" but a problem of our society in general. We observe discrimination and violence every day and racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia and all the other ugly forms of hate and discrimination already existed long before the internet. They are just reproduced on the internet, too. And the internet seems to be a medium which even escalates all these forms of discrimination and violence.
So I guess there are many levels where we can struggle against hate speech: the most important seems to me that we participate in conversations with Counter speech: basically it means to create a much friendlier and much more respectful atmosphere. Meanwhile there are even some initiatives of activists on the internet where couragous people are connecting and organizing resistance against hate speech. It means to use your free speech and counter-act against hate speech. It means supporting the diverse victims of hate speech. It means having a conversation and exchange arguments and opinions on a factual basis which is the opposite of lies and propaganda like Fake News, conspiracy theories and Trumpism's "alternative facts".
Basically I would say we don't need to and I am strongly against centralizing and de-democratizing the internet by establishing authorities who control the internet and use a "driving licence" to exclude people from the internet. Everyone has the right to use the web and I would like to see the internet to stick to the promise of being a democratic tool without any "rules" and interference.
But we can learn step by step to change the internet culture - one question here is how are people having a conversation on the internet? It's also a responsibility of those of us who want to see the internet become a safe space for everyone where nobody is harassed, discriminated, hurt, threatened and silenced by hate.
I guess this means also from a feminist point of view that women should be encouraged, empowered and supported to speak their mind in the public - and men on the other side should finally learn to not behave like a sexist asshole. But I really doubt that we will developp such an internet culture by establishing some "police state" on the internet with "driving licences" for men. It's more of a learning process where the whole society should take care of - from media over education institutions until NGOs and movements struggling against hate speech, discrimination and violence. It also means to expand this struggle for a respectful and supportive and equal internet culture to the non-virtual world, that is society in large.
Who knows what the overall answer is to combating online abuse. For now a lot of it depends on the owners of the websites they run and how they are moderated. Some owners dont mind the free for all aside from a few exceptions to what gets deemed inappropriate. Others are more tightly ran where even cursing isnt accepted. Ive been a member/admin/moderator of all kinds of those forums and websites and its not always an easy task to find the middle ground. Currently though i am part of a sports forum where the owner allows its members to kind of dictate what kind of forum they wish to have. Meaning, while there are moderators and rules the members ultimately get to determine (by voting and commenting in discussion threads) about how much leeway and space they have to work with in terms of interaction.
Obviously certain parts of the forum like Politics and Religion are more tightly watched because its much easier to get into flaming wars in there but for the most part members are expected to moderate themselves as best as possible. But those who fall out of line or troll end up getting banned either for certain amount of days or for good.
In some ways you have to kind of find the right place that suits what you want out of it. The sports forum i found was actually the second choice of 3 (i call it my Goldilocks scenario) where one forum was too strict, the other was a free for all and very unpleasant, and then finally the one i settled on was just right. Has some freedom but also some rules to abide by so that it doesnt get totally out of hand.
I find that OSS has the same type of vibe although a bit more strict. But considering the topic of the group its necessary to keep the peace which works well.
So when it comes to the license idea im just not sure how feasible it would be let alone how legal it would be. Although i do not label myself a feminist i believe the movement should be moving in a more positive direction in terms of bringing everyone together, not moving backwards. While i understand that there are male individuals who are still living in a archaic state of mind one cannot allow those individuals to represent the entire gender when trying to combat the negativity coming from those individuals.
I would have to think on it more but i would have to say the best thing to do is work on these things when it comes to internet safe spaces,
1) Software- This can apply to people using computers in their homes as well as social media conglomerates like Facebook or Twitter. Giving users more options in terms of sharing and identity privacy should be priority one in terms of technology.
2) Site Owners- While not every site owner is interested in scaling back or taking away people's rights to be assholes it is important for those who run the sites to figure out what is best for their membership whether it be for a forum or a fansite. If an owner sees that maybe there is too much abuse happening on their site it would be wise for them to address it before it becomes a bigger problem and chases away members.
3) Criminal Punishment- Slowly but surely we are seeing certain avenues being taken seriously to the point of jail time for certain actions by said individuals online (Cyber-Bullying/Revenge Porn, etc). I think governments should continue to evaluate and re-evaluate this type of stuff to ensure that every citizen is to be made to feel safe while accessing the web.
4) Parenting- While i am not a parent i do have nieces and nephews whom i worry about when it comes to the internet. And while i wont preach to those who are parents i think because in the age of both parents working that sometimes its much easier to allow kids to "entertain" themselves rather than guide and teach them about the do's and dont's of online activity. Our lives become so busy that its easy to lose site of what your kid/kids ae doing online and before you know it they fall into some kind of trouble, sometimes very costly. The only thing i can do from the outside looking is to plead with parents to be more involved in their kids life.
5) Self Monitoring- Its much harder for kids to monitor themselves because they really dont know any better. But often times i find that adults can be just as bad or even worse. Chances are you will never be able to change someone's mind who lives for getting online just to troll and bully for the fun of it. But, it is important for everyone to evaluate how they interact online. To a degree, this also applies to celebrities, athletes, musicians, politicians, etc.
This isnt just a "regular" citizen issue, ive seen some very high profile people say some very nasty things to people. While it is never easy to take the high road i do think it is something that each person should consider when interacting with internet bullies. Behaving in the same manner as those you are annoyed with will only encourage them to continue their behavior and frankly, wont make you look any better in the process. When it comes to interaction on the web its first and foremost important that people look at themselves and how they act online before throwing rocks at glass houses.
Keith wrote: "I have done a bit of research...""Protect her daughter..." is she serious?!
The next statistic scared the hell out of me
Me too.
I am so glad I got my first mobile when I was 14, because I myself said I didn't need one before that. And how can one send 100 text messages a day? In my best days I maybe sent thirty - every few months or so...
Your question Keith, I think, hits the nail on the head, but when indeed do we draw a line? Everyone falls somewhere else on the spectrum from very-strict to very-liberal I'd say. What for one person is totally okay, for another person is not.
Keith wrote: "@MeerderThere are certainly a range of views and I would normally put myself in the liberal camp and let the web self-regulate. But this issue is too important, particularly when they have had ye..."
Me too. Life is the most precious we have.
Cyber bullying and the other abuses that we see online are bad. But. Open and anonymous internet is literally the only way for some minority communities and activists to communicate safely. Building infrastructure that verifies identity hands tools to governments to crush and kill 'enemies of the state'. Furthermore, it isn't technically feasible to perfectly cordon off a part of the internet. There are already moderated and friendly communities for those who feel more comfortable on those parts of the internet.
Lastly, gender based discrimination is the anthisis of feminism. Especially if it's done to 'protect' women.
Jeremy wrote: "Cyber bullying and the other abuses that we see online are bad. But. Open and anonymous internet is literally the only way for some minority communities and activists to communicate safely. Buildin..."It's no good thing to use slurs:
hermaphrodite, harlot and slut are definitely not names one wants to be called, so I'd rather have some policies than no control at all.
Jeremy, So what we do nothing and just accept things as they are? I am not making people join just offering a safe haven. Technically is could be done I am a network engineer I could do it but its a moot point.This is a thought experiment to address a specific problem an option nothing imposed only your use of the area itself would be regulated.
Keith wrote: "If I have interpreted you both correctly, apart from the criminal/legal aspect, you are both advocating self-monitoring and education as the way forward (if I am wrong, please correct me). In other words, laissez-faire.My question is simply this - when do we decide that self-monitoring isn't working and we need to resort to proper regulation of the web."
Well I think this is not so easy to answer. I'm advocating a free internet which is, yes, to a certain extent "laissez-faire". But I also notice that hate speech is a danger and a threat to many people - it means that some people are harassing, hurting and silencing other people just in the name of "free speech". They spread hate and violence and call it their "opinion". But it is not an opinion! It is a toxic cocktail of harassment and violence. And what they aim for when they use hate speech, is silencing other people's views.
So those people who are silenced by hate speech are basically excluded from the debate and they can't particpate equally on the internet and they can't use their own free speech. Hate speech has nothing to do with free speech therefore. And as you, Keith, have pointed out, hate speech also has severe consequences not just on free speech but also on the well-being of people. If some people, especially kids, decide to commit suicide because they suffer so much under hate speech then this is a human catastrophe and I think society should do something about it.
That having said, no, I am not advocating laissez-faire on the internet. I'm just not sure what tools do we have and make sense to counter-act against hate speech and I can only hope that the existing options are enough. I would say, I prefer an internet culture where free speech is real without any interference by authorities. But as I have said, at the same time I think hate speech is destroying the free speech of those who fall victim to hate speech. And again as you, Keith, have pointed out, the situation is even much worse because unique lives are lost because of hate speech.
I have no answers to the question what we can do in practise to counter-act against hate speech effectively without giving up some freedoms on the internet. Because I think that's the balance we need to look at - the balance between "everybody has the right to speak her and his mind freely" and "nobody has the right to harass, hurt, threaten and violate the human rights of other people by using hate speech".
What I am sure about is that this right - not to fall vicitim to hate speech and not to be violated in one's own human rights - is not something which you can only expect to be exercised by the individuals. Yes there are some ways to counter-act against hate speech on an individual level like blocking the haters, making these experiences public, looking for support from allies, technical protection and even legal options. But I think it is too much to ask that individual people should be the only ones responsible for all of this - because it would mean to let them alone with their suffering under hate speech. What they really need is every support society has to offer - starting from some nice and lovely words on the internet to hugs from their friends until psychotherapy if needed and legal advice and support or whatever is needed in their concrete situation.
So I think yes, there is also a responsibility of society to make a change and to protect people from hate speech and to care for a respectful atmosphere on the internet. But how? And this is an interesting question which I think we could discuss here. So again to your question, Keith, I think self-monitoring isn't working when people are on their own and stand alone against all these toxic waves of hate. If we need to "regulate" the internet for that reason is another question for me. Maybe we have to do that in one way or another but as I have said I also think there is needed a balance between struggling against hate speech and protecting the internet as a space of freedom. I prefer collective actions, like for example counter-speech, in solidarity with the people who suffer under hate speech and I would rather like to avoid state intervention and regulation of the internet as far as possible.
Keith wrote: "Ashna wrote: "There is such an informative discussion going on and to be rather honest,reading each side of the debate has kind of baffled me a bit.But then one thing that has really struck out to..."
Thanks for your insight Keith.And even I happen to believe that social media acts as a freedom fighter as well.But then whether it is a terrorist or a freedom fighter depends on what we make of it.I do understand that people have forgotten their boundaries and honestly I would just love if anybody could come up with a technology that can curb the terrorist side to social media.But the only thing that concerns me is that the world is ever developing and fast moving and no matter how much we think that the pace of miscreant activities should be slowed down,it is just going to drag along like a mad dog on riot.But let's not demoralise the scope of hope and light in a foggy future.Goodness is infectious,let us spread it till where we can. :)
Keith wrote: "Sascha wrote: "Sorry but I think a "driving licence" for the internet is a very bad idea! As it seems we are already discussing here how realistic it is and what should be done to make this idea re..."Oh my god Keith,the statistics is shouting for itself and the question is so on point.There is nothing compared to life.I mean 4500 a year.It's more like,in the lines of voldemort --every drop of muggle youth blood spilt is a terrible waste.
Meerder,i agree with you too on the fact that life is very precious.But then there is also this statement being coined around that----LIFE HAS BECOME CHEAPER THAN WATER THESE DAYS.and it is indeed a disheartening state of affairs.
#REGULATION
We're in a serious state - everyone.One way to help end this state is tackling online abuse, discrimination, sexism, cyberbullying, all of it. Thing is, I don't have an answer to what could work properly, and that gives me the itchies.
Mod
Mostly I agree with those of you who said that 1) not only men can be nasty online, 2) it would be utterly unfeasible to issue such a license. Stronger anti-harassment laws and monitoring would definitely be nice to have around, though. Still, it's quite the task. It would take a very honest government to play with such a powerful tool without turning it into a censorship tool. Case in point, China and its so-called attempts to build a safe Internet for the people.
But I have been looking at comments about Emma and other stars and sadly I am forced to agree with people particularly women "going dark"
Full disclosure I miss seeing Emma and have her do pictures for OSS but when you read the comments for any innocent activity why would anyone bother with that in there life.
So what do we do well how about what was done when the roads started to fill with new drivers, license them. To get access to the internet (possibility just forums and comments) you have to be licensed. Pass a test of knowledge and acceptable behavior.
We have to reclaim the internet before there is no one worth talking to left.