pacman inkee

(no subject)

i ganked the link from hexkitten and i am... trying... to make my way through this article:

Why Are Nice, Normal Girls Getting Bullied Online?
from GLAMOUR
Because all it takes is one jerk with a log-in and a grudge to launch a vicious, nameless attack against you. Here’s how Meghan Pearce and other young women are fighting back...

some quotes:

In the face of this public humiliation, Pearce’s confidence plummeted. She doubled her workouts and briefly considered cosmetic surgery. I have a boyfriend, I don’t go out much, I try to be nice, Pearce said to herself. Who would do this to me?


really? your self-esteem is that low?

Cohen didn’t let that stop her. She asked a court to force Google, whose subsidiary hosted the blog, to identify the site’s author. Last August, in what legal experts call a precedent- setting ruling, a judge ordered the company to disclose the Skanks in NYC author’s e-mail address. Google, which has always defended the privacy of its users, said in a statement that it would provide such information only in response to a court order.


i am sure this precedent won't ever be used to compell information and quell free speech making comment on the government. you totally thought the consequences of your little internet insecurity exercise through.

Although it’s impossible to get a gender breakdown of anonymous posters, the
tone of most of the comments on The Dirty is distinctly male. Where is all of this venom coming from? According to Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law who studies online bullying, the Web has become a haven for women-haters, partly because it’s no longer socially acceptable to sexually harass women at work or school. “We’ve pushed a lot of that animus to the Internet,” she says. “That’s where men who resent women—perhaps because they feel outpaced by them at work or school—can express it anonymously.”


no.fucking.shit. like seriously, as any girl who has had to work in any male dominated field can tell you, working in those fields can suck because of all of the various kinds of male attention you receive. however, you can't let that affect you. like seriously, the second you let it sway you, you have let them win. sure, if someone is actually sexually harassing you or holding you back, use every recourse available to punish them. but just because someone said mean things about you on the internet, letting that affect your personal self esteem gives them so much emotional power over you, why would you give that to someone you don't actually respect? i respect my friends and family and i value their judgement. to a certain extent there are some other people's judgements that i value. beyond that, i don't really care what people think (as evidenced by my entire life) and i certainly don't care whether they find me attractive or not. and i _most_ certainly do not base my self-esteem on that.

i could go on, but the only thing i see about this entire thing is the implications for free speech as a whole. soon you won't be able to dissent against the government because, forget warrentless wiretaps, they will just be able to subpoena your anonymous critical comments since, after all, that one judge did it for some mean things on the internet! i realize i should take any article in fkn *glamour* with a huge grain of salt, but i am so seriously annoyed. argh! trolled by fashion mags once again.
"DID YOU SEE WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT YOU OMG LET ME SEND YOU LINKS."

And people wonder why there are no pictures of me online.
oh ffs. way to make a mountain out of a molehill and strip rights in the process. i understand that words can hurt, but at a certain point its time to suck it up, esp w/r/t online communication
It was interesting that Meghan Pierce routinely went to thedirty.com but never took action against the site until she was the one being bashed. She ate it up, it would seem, until the vitriol was aimed at her.

I don't know if these people can truly affect the freedom of speech online, but I find offensive the fact that it appears many are passively giving it out by consuming the material and comments but then crying foul when they themselves become the material.
I actually scanned the article and then dismissed it almost right away after reading a couple of inane paragraphs. Also. "Nice normal girls." WTF does that mean?
oh i fully understand valuing your appearance and desiring acceptance from those people you respect. that is a given, it is how human nature works and some people it works more heavily for than others. what i don't understand is caring about what a bunch of *anonymous* people think. it's like caring about graffiti on the bathroom wall, ridiculous to lower yourself to that level and give it that level of power in discourse. if it were say, ratings by heads of state, or actual modeling agencies i can see getting super hurt by it, but to care about the opinion of the college gossip equivalent of 4chan is like being a celebrity and caring about perez hilton's opinion.
I agree that, given the option, it's better to be tough and not care what random strangers say. But a lot of people don't have that option. We often can't choose our emotional reactions, and for a lot of people, especially people who already have low self esteem, their emotional knobs are set to ultra-sensitive. Telling such a person, "You can't let that affect you," is like saying, "You can't let knife wounds hurt," to someone who just got stabbed.

That said, there's a separate question of what society's response should be. I think the best course of action is just to ignore it unless there's a threat of violence. While it will hurt the child, it may help build up a tolerance to such abuse so that it hurts less over time.

However once something legally actionable happens, is it really so objectionable to subpoena the email account? Are you arguing that the identity of an anonymous poster must *always* remain anonymous, or just that it's an overreaction in this situation? The latter may be true, but I get the impression you're arguing the former. Freedom of speech is certainly a bedrock principle, but I'm not so sure anonymity of criminal speech (libel, incitement to criminal activity, etc.) should be as well.

What is gained by absolutely anonymous speech (that is, anonymous even when the speech itself is criminal)? It may be argued that it helps protect against oppression, but I would argue that if we're at the point where saying what you want to say openly is dangerous then oppression has already arrived and anonymity will not protect freedom, only physical safety.

This is not to suggest that I think the government must have a mandated back door to every computer system, email account, and crypto scheme. Far from it! That would make it far to easy for the government to dip in whenever it feels like it and surveil without oversight. But if the information exists and the law has been broken, I don't have a problem with the court compelling the identity to be shared. In a case of bank fraud should an executive's bank records be sacrosanct as well? Same principle: when the law has been broken by an individual it isn't tyranny to compel semi-personal information about that individual.
hehe i didnt even report it either. anyone falls for russian spam that aint my fault!