#onlineharassment

ModDog: Some of y’all really need to relearn the difference between “I hate this” and “I should threaten a stranger.”

One of those is an opinion.

Internetul nu trebuie să fie un spațiu al terorii psihologice.

În fiecare zi, mii de oameni – copii, adolescenți, femei și chiar persoane publice – sunt victime ale hărțuirii online: bullying, șantaj, distribuirea de imagini fără consimțământ, atacuri constante care lasă urme adânci în psihicul celor vizați. Aceste abuzuri se întâmplă pe rețele sociale, în aplicații de mesagerie sau pe diverse platforme și, de cele mai multe ori, autorii scapă nepedepsiți. 

Legea actuală este fragmentată, reacționează lent și nu oferă suficientă protecție. Avem nevoie de o Autoritate specială cu competențe reale, care: 

să investigheze rapid și eficient cazurile de hărțuire și bullying online;

să coopereze cu platformele digitale pentru a șterge conținutul nociv;

să protejeze victimele și să le ofere sprijin legal și psihologic;

să aplice sancțiuni clare și mai aspre pentru încălcările repetate;

să educe populația, în special tinerii, despre siguranța online.

Cerem Guvernului României și Ministerului Digitalizării să înființeze de urgență o Autoritate Națională pentru Combaterea Hărțuirii Online și a Bullying-ului Digital.

Avem nevoie de o instituție specializată, cu personal calificat, capabilă să răspundă rapid și să prevină cazuri tragice, cum s-au întâmplat deja în România. Vrem o lege clară, o structură funcțională și toleranță zero față de agresiunile online.

Update: Există o petiție deschisă pe platforma Declic.ro

Dacă doriți puteți semna petiția pentru a putea lua amploare națională.

#cenefacemnoicutine

Digital communities have facilitated a plethora of incredible activism and social movements and opportunities, including connecting with likeminded people, innovative forms of media entertainment and exciting career prospects as bloggers, YouTubers and influencers. However, like anything, there’s also a negative side to social media and digital communities, which will be explored in this week’s blog post. Social media conflict is a broad umbrella term covering trolling, cyber-bullying, cancel culture; hate speech and other forms of online harassment. For context, online abuse, harassment and cyber trolling costs Australia approximately $3.7 billion annually in terms of medical bills and loss of income (Burnside & Roy 2019).

Social media conflict can be directly linked to digital communities, because trolling and other forms of online harassment are typically “networked, coordinated and organised acts” (Marwick & Caplan 2018, p. 543). Similarly, media and communication experts, Alice E. Marwick and Robyn Caplan contend that finding an overarching and all-inclusive definition of harassment is “difficult, since it is a constellation of ever-evolving behaviours” (Marwick & Caplan 2018, p. 545). Continuing on, Marwick and Caplan contend that while popular discourse often frames online harassment as “an issue of individual people engaged in abhorrent behaviour”, in reality, cyber-bullying typically involves “systemic networked harassment behaviour [in groups] against their targets” (Marwick & Caplan 2018, p. 544). Therefore, because cyber-bullying efforts are often achieved through online groups, they are often referred to as ‘cyber-mobs’ who create a hostile environment for users and essentially turn the Internet into a battlefield.

Gaslighting is another form of online harassment that has received much media coverage in recent years. Although the terminology may be new, social studies researcher, Jessamy Gleeson, contends that it is used to describe a “relatively old set of behaviours” (Gleeson 2018). Gaslighting covers a range of inappropriate behaviours, however the central practice is “the psychological manipulation of a person in order to erode their sense of self and sanity”(Gleeson 2018). Some common strategies include denial of the gaslightee’s experience, escalation, trivialization and countering. Unfortunately, gaslighting has also been used to dismiss a number of #MeToo confessions of victims of abuse and domestic violence cases. However, on a more societal scale, gaslighting has been used to reframe a common (and toxic) set of female stereotypes, including the “crazy ex-girlfriend” and the “hysterical woman”, challenging the motivations of the accuser instead of fueling the idea that women are crazy (Gleeson 2018).

Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist media critic and showcases the serious implications of online harassment in her TEDxWomen talk. Sarkeesian outlines the severe online misogyny she has experienced first-hand within the video game community and the online harassment she has received due to her field of work. When Sarkeesian founded the ‘Feminist Frequency’, a video web-series exploring the representations of women in pop-culture narratives, she was immediately met with an overwhelmingly negative response from the male-dominated online gaming community. Sarkeesian was publicly humiliated and subjected to abhorrent hate speech, including rape and death threats, a bomb scare and a violent video game, which allowed players to punch an image of her face (Erica Webber 2017). Therefore, Anita Sarrkeensian’s experiences with online harassment epitomize the notion that women, in particular women of colour and queer women, “are more susceptible to online harassment, to the point where [some] young women may see it as a normal part of online experience” (Lenhart et al. 2016).

The legal implications and consequences of online harassment are murky waters, with divided opinions regarding the most appropriate and effective methods for curving online harassment (Milne 2020, lecture slide 15). At present, there is no single piece of legislation against bullying in Australia. However, the sex discrimination act 1984 and criminal code act 1995 are acts offering protection to Australians in the online sphere. Another way of attempting to reduce social media conflict is to go directly to the source – the social media platforms themselves – and urge them to enforce stricter moderating protocols and algorithms to eradicate inappropriate behaviour online. The urge for tighter regulation of the digital sphere is further emphasised by assistant professor of communication and journalism, Glen Fuller. Fuller contends that the reason for insisting on distinctions between individual online social situations is because “each technology and technological change requires due consideration and a measured policy response” (Fuller 2014). Anita Sarkeesian argues that social media platforms need to be the agents of change in order to eliminate online harassment. Sarkeesian believes that their current attempts to regulate cyber-hate are “like Band-Aids on a fundamentally flawed structure” (Erica Webber 2017). Continuing on, advocacy and advice are alternative options to legal remedies, which the eSafety Commissioner is responsible for in Australia. Lastly, on a lighter note, some people have turned to humour to raise awareness about online harassment, including the well-known comedians Hannah Gadsby and Amy Schumer.

Therefore, it is evident that there is an urgent need for well-researched and effective new media legislation regarding online harassment, trolling and cyber-bullying, not simply in Australia, but on a global scale. Furthermore, associate professor of media and communication, Dr Anthony McCosker, contends that the central question for ensuring cyber safety through digital citizenship is “how to account for and promote critical and creative literacies while accounting for conflict, harassment and the wellbeing interests of young people.” Therefore, this week’s topic has highlighted that whilst there are many positive and empowering aspects of digital citizenship and digital communities, there is also a darker side to the Internet and social media, which should not be dismissed, and can unfortunately have a serious, harmful and sometimes irreversible impact on members of society.

Image Source: ‘unknown’ via Pinterest

References

Burnside, N & Roy, T 2019, ‘Online abuse, harassment, cyber trolling costing Australians $3.7 billion’, ABC News, 28 January, viewed 28 May 2020, <https:// www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-28/online-abuse-harassment-costing-australians-3.7-billion/10754196>.

Erica Webber, J 2017, ‘Anita Sarkeesian: ‘It’s frustrating to be known as the woman who survived #Gamergate’’, The Guardian, 17 October, viewed 28 May 2020, <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/16/anita-sarkeesian-its-frustrating-to-be-known-as-the-woman-who-survived-gamergate>.

Fuller, G 2014, ‘Cyber-safety’: what are we actually talking about?’, The Conversation, 27 February, viewed 29 May 2020, <https://theconversation.com/cyber-safety-what-are-we-actually-talking-about-23505>.

Gleeson, J 2018, ‘Explainer: what does ‘gaslighting’ mean?’, The Conversation, 6 December, viewed 28 May 2020, <https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-gaslighting-mean-107888>.

Hopkins, S & Ostini, J 2015, ‘Online harassment is a form of violence’, The Conversation, 8 April, viewed 29 May 2020, <https://theconversation.com/online-harassment-is-a-form-of-violence-38846>.

Lenhart, A, Ybarra, M, Zickuhr, K & Price-Feeney, M 2016, ‘Online Harassment, Digital Abuse, and Cyberstalking in America’, Data & Society Research Institute, 21 November, viewed 30 May 2020, <https://www.datasociety.net/pubs/oh/Online_Harassment_ 2016.pdf>.

Marwick, A E. & Caplan, R 2018, 'Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment', Feminist Media Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543-559.

McCosker, A 2016, ‘Managing digital citizenship: cyber safety as three layers of control’, in McCosker, A, Vivienne, S & Johns, A (eds), Negotiating Digital Citizenship, Rowman & Littlefield International, Maryland, pp. 1-15.

Milne, E 2020, ‘Lecture 11. Digital communities and trolls – understanding social media conflict’, MDA20009 Digital communities, Learning materials via Canvas, Swinburne University of Technology, 27 May, viewed 27 May 2020.

We are committed to giving a voice to all those who wish to share with our readers truthful experiences. Here is one such story told, in their own words:

What happens when you confront Mayte Garcia?

Like me, you're bullied, told you are never allowed to have any affiliation with her or the rescue ever again! You're promised reimbursement for transportation they were supposed to provide as a convenience, only when physical proof you have handed the dog over to a complete stranger.  You are spoken to, by her and her staff, rudely and so condescendingly, you feel like a child, yet your only problem is that a dog, you were not expected to be taking home, began destroying you space and property.  However, when you speak to staff about that issue, you are, in turn, told by her highly trained staff, to smack the dog very hard on the nose, since that is one of the most sensitive parts in their body, and that will get your point across!

Mayte does not make any attempt to communicate with you directly, only thru Josh or Drue. They are her minion messengers. When you have to drive 4 hours to pick up a foster, because unlike Mayte states, they do not provide transportation if they don't feel like it; only when and if convenient for them.  Yet, when get there, and Mayte herself is not there to greet you, of course, because she is too busy at home giving orders via cell phone to Josh, and find that you only have 3 dogs available to choose from because 4 of them are set to go to the adoption event and 4 to 5 others were supposedly taken to the vet. This leaves you with a dog that is food aggressive, one with mange, or one that Josh has had for several months.

When asked about others dogs, one in particular we had asked about before--- that had actually ended up being adopted then being returned within the same week because the adopters went out of the country, Josh had to call boss lady Mayte to ask permission about us taking that dog. I don't know what she actually said to him, but we were told some lame reason why we only had those 3 to choose from. After our 4 hour drive to retrieve a foster, because as Mayte did not provide the transportation she promised, we were rushed out of the haven house in under 30 minutes!!

When things went sour with the dog, that we had no choice in taking because after driving 4 hours, we were not going to leave without a dog, especially since we were set and ready to foster. We contacted Josh verbally via cellphone to explain issues going on with the dog. The dog had been chewing and destroying personal items in our home, chewing electrical cords, and digging almost 4 feet under our fence trying to get out. Josh seemed surprised stating that she had never done anything like that before and found it hard to believe! Yes, it is hard to believe that an 8 year old, well trained dog would destroy anything!? We were told he would talk to Mayte and get back to us. This is where her true colors came out like I stated in the beginning.

We were belittled and told we were banned forever to ever have anything to do with her, the dogs, and the rescue because we only had the "destructive" dog for a week!! Mind you, when you get a dog from her rescue, you do not sign any paperwork of any kind, no time frame on how long you are asked or expected to foster are discussed, no forms for reimbursement are given to you for money spent on the foster which, by law, if you are a legitimate registered animal rescue, that form is legally required to give to each person fostering. None of the "legal" protocol is done at all.  The dog we had didn't even have a licence or rabies tags on her collar, and we were not given her shot record, which made us nervous since we had three of our own dogs at home.

To summarize my horrible foster experience, Mayte will not reimburse you for any money spent for one of her dogs, they used the dog as ransom, stating until with physical proof of handing the dog over to a complete stranger, you in turn will get reimbursed, but only for an amount Mayte wants to give you. In our case, $70, not the $110 we had to spend on gas to get the dog (when she advertises that she provides transportation), then to drive 4 hours to return the dog back, because they were all unable and unwilling to come get "their" dog.

Oh, by the way, after a week of my husbands repeating attempts at trying to contact Josh about our reimbursement thru PayPal, we were never contacted back, and we never received reimbursement! So buyer beware. Do not do any business with Maytes’ Rescue. She will blow sunshine up your behind and act sweet in front of you, but when something doesn't go her way, watch out!! You will be spoken down to and banished and then they will retaliate against you and throw your name and other personal information all over social media, which by the way, falls under harassment!

Despite the unpleasantness of our experience with Mayte’s Rescue, nothing was ever said by me because I didn't want to blast it all over social media.  Since Mayte’s Rescue Vice President, Dave Buchansky, opened his mouth and spread inciteful posts that harass me and provide my contact information, I feel I am owed to speak about the truth now.  Anyone who wants to know the truth can check across FB and IG. They won't find anything negative we have said about them following our experience!

At thefunksoldiers.tumblr.com, we want to remind Dave that his stated position is Vice President of Mayte’s Rescue, it is on her filing paperwork. This means he is an officer of the organization and subject to the laws with regard to the CA Whistle Blower Act as it pertains to employees (Drue) and Volunteers (any person who fosters for the rescue).  Since Mayte’s Rescue is not a CA registered charity, she has no policies regarding whistle blower protection, therefore, the state law applies.  His online behavior in exposing this former foster’s personal information is intimidation and violates the statute.  He effectively broke the law...but keep talking. All he's doing is making it so her organization does not get its CA DOJ registration approved. Remember, they are watching you and all the other officers of Mayte’s Rescue, Dave.  If Mayte does not get her registration, she cannot raise money in CA, then what will you all do with the rescue?

For those who need to see the law that was broken: http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/publications/files/wb_policy.pdf.

Broken Ethics for 501(c)3 organizations: http://www.socialworker.com/nonprofit/management/nonprofit-ethics-nonprofit-handbook/

http://nonprofithub.org/human-resources/7-ethical-dilemmas-facing-nonprofit-organizations/

Volunteers may sue nonprofits under Title VII: http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/volunteers-may-sue-nonprofits-for-harassment-under-title-vii/

https://charityvillage.com/Content.aspx?topic=Workplace_Harassment_What_makes_nonprofits_vulnerable#.WWFHzNUrLrc

#cenefacemnoicutine

One of the key concepts discussed was digital citizenship. A good digital citizen is someone who uses digital technologies responsibly, communicates respectfully with others, and contributes positively to online communities. While social media creates opportunities for participation and self-expression, it also creates opportunities for harmful behaviours such as trolling, cyberbullying, and online harassment.

The lecture introduced online harassment as a broad term that includes abusive messages, spreading rumours, impersonation, threats, and coordinated attacks. What surprised me most was the research showing that women and transgender individuals are more likely to experience online abuse. Studies discussed in the lecture found that many forms of online harassment are not isolated incidents but organised and networked activities involving multiple participants.

Personally, I have seen examples of online conflict on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook. It is common to find people leaving offensive comments simply because they disagree with someone’s opinion. Sometimes users hide behind anonymous accounts and say things online that they would never say face-to-face. I think this demonstrates how the internet can reduce accountability for harmful behaviour.

Another important topic was social media governance. Social media platforms have significant power because they decide what content is allowed and what content should be removed. Governments, technology companies, moderators, and users all play a role in regulating online spaces. I believe platforms should take greater responsibility for protecting users while still allowing freedom of expression.

Overall, this lecture helped me understand that digital citizenship is not only about having access to technology. It is also about using technology ethically and responsibly. Creating safer online communities requires cooperation between governments, social media companies, community moderators, and individual users.

Digital Citizenship and Online Harassment

By emphasizing that internet communities are not always welcoming, safe, or good, this week's lecture helped me get a more critical awareness of them. Social media platforms facilitate participation, communication, and information sharing across international networks, but they also foster situations that can give rise to abuse, harassment, and violence. This helped me realize that being a good or active user of technology is only one aspect of digital citizenship; another is comprehending the moral obligations associated with fostering inclusive, safe, and respectful online communities. 

The idea of online harassment and how it functions in networked situations caught my attention. (Marwick and Caplan, 2018) define online harassment as actions like spreading harmful or misleading rumors, imitation, coordinated attacks, and abusive messages. One particularly significant takeaway from the lecture is that online harassment is frequently social and organized rather than private or individual behavior. Network effects, in which groups of users contribute to the reinforcement and escalation of harmful content, frequently lead to increased levels of harassment. This illustrates how "mob-like" dynamics where exposure and virality aid in the spread of harm can be accidentally enabled by digital platforms. 

The experiences of celebrities like Taylor Swift, who has frequently been the target of organized harassment, body shaming, and the spread of altered or artificial intelligence-generated information, provide a relevant illustration of this. This demonstrates how dangerous content can spread far before it is successfully monitored or removed, and how digital harassment can grow rapidly through networked platforms. 

The examination of how some groups are disproportionately affected by internet harassment caught my curiosity. According to research, targeted internet harassment is much more common among women, girls, and people of different gender identities. For instance, According to Plan International (2020) discovered that 59% of girls in 31 countries said they have encountered offensive or abusive online behavior. This demonstrates that digital spaces are not neutral settings; rather, they frequently mirror and perpetuate current social injustices, such as power disparities and discrimination based on gender. In this way, cyber harassment is a social and cultural problem in addition to a technological one. 

I was also inspired by the lecture to consider governance and accountability's role in resolving these problems more critically. Digital platforms are responsible for protecting users and filtering harmful content, even as they offer avenues for community development and speech. Digital literacy efforts, platform-based moderation systems, community reporting mechanisms, and legal frameworks like the Online Safety Act 2021 all contribute to the decrease of hazardous online behavior. These solutions, however, are not always simple since they raise concerns about censorship, freedom of expression, and the efficacy of automated moderation systems. 

Advocacy groups and public awareness campaigns are also crucial for helping victims of cyberbullying and teaching users about safe online conduct. In particular, social media companies have a big part to play in creating safer platform structures and more successfully enforcing community rules. This implies that a multi-stakeholder strategy that includes governments, platforms, civil society organizations, and users themselves is necessary to address online harm. 

References

Rahman-Jones, I. (2024, January 26). Taylor Swift deepfakes spark calls in Congress for new legislation. Www.bbc.com. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68110476

Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking Male Tears: Language, the Manosphere, and Networked Harassment. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559.

Plan International. (2020). Free To Be Online? Girls’ and Young Women’s Experiences of Online Harassment.

Have you ever received a rude comment online?

Maybe it was a mean reply on Instagram, an insulting comment on TikTok, or someone attacking your opinion in a discussion forum.

Social media is often celebrated as a space for connection, creativity, and community. It allows people to communicate, share ideas, participate in social causes, and engage with others across geographical boundaries.

But increasingly, social media is also becoming a site of conflict. Harassment, trolling, cyberhate, and abuse have become common experiences for many users. What should be a space for participation can quickly become a space of exclusion.

Digital citizenship is often understood as the ability to use digital technologies responsibly and positively to participate in society. According to the eSafety Commissioner and Mossberger et al. (2008), digital citizenship involves developing the skills and knowledge necessary to communicate effectively, create content, and contribute to society through digital technologies. Yet conflict on social media demonstrates that participation is not always equal. Power often shapes who gets to speak, who gets heard, and who feels safe enough to participate.

One of the most common forms of online conflict is harassment. Marwick and Caplan (2018) argue that online harassment is often networked rather than individual. Instead of a single person behaving badly, groups of users may coordinate attacks through practices such as doxing, intimidation, social shaming, and image-based abuse. These behaviours are designed not only to offend but also to silence and exclude particular individuals from online spaces.

Research suggests that these experiences are not distributed equally. Plan International's Free To Be Online report found that 59% of girls surveyed across 31 countries had experienced abusive or insulting language online. Similarly, Haslop, O'Rourke and Southern (2021) found that women and transgender individuals are disproportionately targeted by online harassment. Studies also show that online abuse often reflects offline inequalities related to gender, race, and sexuality.

This raises important questions about social media governance. Governance refers to the systems, rules, and regulations that shape how digital platforms operate. While governments can introduce laws such as Australia's Online Safety Act 2021, governance also occurs at a smaller scale through community guidelines, moderators, and platform policies. Social media companies occupy a powerful position because they effectively determine what content remains visible and what content is removed.

Some argue that stronger regulation is necessary to protect vulnerable users. Others worry that increased moderation may restrict freedom of expression. Platforms therefore face the difficult challenge of balancing safety, participation, and free speech while also pursuing commercial interests.

Conflict, then, reveals something important about digital communities. Rather than being neutral spaces, social media platforms are sites where power is constantly negotiated between users, moderators, corporations, and governments.

The question, then, is not simply whether online harassment is harmful.

WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SOCIAL MEDIA SAFE — INDIVIDUAL USERS, PLATFORM COMPANIES, OR GOVERNMENTS?

References

Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking Male Tears: Language, the Manosphere, and Networked Harassment.

Haslop, C., O'Rourke, A., & Southern, R. (2021). Online Harassment and Digital Citizenship.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. (2008). Digital Citizenship.