55,000 Sign Twitter Abuse Petition After Jane Austen Campaigner Threats 421
AlistairCharlton writes "A petition campaigning for Twitter to improve its measures against online abuse has received more than 55,000 signatures in two days. The petition was set up in support of feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez, who faced a torrent of abusive tweets, including threats to rape and kill her, after successfully campaigning for a woman's picture to appear on a banknote; Jane Austen will appear on £10 notes from 2017."
Zimmerman? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as it apples to everyone.
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/13/twitter-lynch-mob-threatens-to-kill-george-zimmerman/
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's still cavemen in 2013?
I think the current Slashdot quote is appropriate:
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein
What's the big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you abuse someone for trying to get a woman on a banknote? I can't comment for the UK, but in Australia we've had the Queen on a note since forever, and Edith Cowan on the $50 since the 90s. Some people need to realise that it isn't 1678 any more.
Re:In fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
...Jane Austen is just awful.
Then, frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. Well maybe you do. But I've yet to meet anyone who says what you did and does.
If you're reading e.g. Pride and Prejudice as a romance novel then you're basically missing out on most of what's there. There's a lot more there. If you look under the surface even slightly you will see a rather bleaker and very insightful social commentary. There's more to it than that as well. There's interesting observations and reflections on family interaction too. At the most basic level, it seems that parents will never cease to be an embarrassment to teenage children and vice versa.
And he's pretty much the 20th Century equivalent.
Fuck no.
Why is twitter involved? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In fairness (Score:2, Insightful)
It does not matter what messages it contains, the writing is awful.
It could be the best social commentary ever written, but the writing is still awful.
I am not sure why the writing styles of so many writers that English Lit majors adore are so terrible to read. I think it is some sort of hipsterish bullshit.
I understand the need for history and seeing how the novel as a work evolved, but some of these writers seemed to be trying for Vogon poetry.
Re:Zimmerman? (Score:1, Insightful)
Problem is always the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
The inherent problem with things like this are always with making sure that you don't infringe upon free speech -- hyperbole, sarcasm, irony, humor, and rudeness -- and only get involved in situations where realistic threats are legitimately intended and made. I understand this is in the UK, but do people really want a "zero-tolerance"/TSA style "everything ever uttered is suspicious and must be investigated and vetted" approach? Further, there are already relevant laws in most places to deal with things like this, so . . . how about we leave it at that instead of a business and a mob of users superseding it?
I often feel people simply aren't prepared to handle the internet. As if most of us haven't been on the receiving end of "abuse" online? Haven't been "attacked" or even threatened? Or told that they should be killed? Ever read youtube comments? How about the comment section on any news article that Matt Drudge links to? How about if someone "feels threatened" (or simply offended) by something? We see a lot of that in the real world, as it is. People being punished for something, not because of what they said or the intentions behind it, but how some busy-body "received it"? Does it apply across the board? Is it, as the article's commentary seems to imply, only an issue for "women"?
Hell, have I crossed the line, simply for having the wrong genitalia and not simply jumping on the bandwagon of support for this? (Because, yes, my concerns about people's freedom of speech and people not taking everything seriously and as a threat or offense totally means that I'm in favor of people being threatened and stalked and physically abused... right?).
This all goes back to that whole thing with the MySpace girl that was tricked/harassed (verbally) by neighbors (including adults) until she committed suicide. Or that Youtube girl who committed suicide after her escapades with a grown man brought judgement and insults from people at school both before and after she committed suicide. Yeah, it was harassment and bullying, but we also acknowledge that words don't directly force you to harm yourself. We all hate that bitch and her family for what she did to that poor girl and the consensus seems to be that most of the world wished harm on her. . . but that is distinct from using the law to determine when and why to make exceptions. That being a meany-head is suddenly a crime. That free speech isn't so free, any more. That my thin-skin or lack of a support-group around me is your fault. And those events caused a lot of frustration on Slashdot, too -- because people found themselves so angry at what happened and the idea of someone "getting way with it" . . . . yet opposed to infringing on people's rights to express thoughts. Even shitty ones.
In other words, here too, people need to back the fuck up from "wow, that's shitty -- of course we should do something about it!" and take the time to consider the greater impact of some institutionalized response.
Re:In fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
Pride and Prejudice was written in 1813. The majority of its style is simply what was commonplace at the time amongst the literate elite; indeed, most English-language writing held echoes of the same manner of elocution until the later half of the twentieth century when it had become strictly a formal mode of communication and literature was reinvented to be more casual. The style reflects the content of the subject matter.
I would highly recommend working your way up to understanding a thing or two about literature before trying to pass such sweeping judgements on it. Literary studies, and indeed most of the Humanities, are concerned with history; to try and pull them apart or to focus only on the present is to completely fail to understand and ignore most of the greatest books ever written. It really does not look good to make such brazen statements.
Re:Why is twitter involved? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they don't want someone to have to go to the courts and actually prove that anything happened or was intended. They want to be able to hit a little button on a message and force businesses to supersede the process and make determinations themselves about the content and intent of conversation.
If someone makes a threat on your life that you have reasonable and plausible cause to fear as legitimate, then go to the police. It's already a crime. I don't like the idea of Twitter stepping in and taking on that role any more than I liked the idea of Youtube replacing the court system to deal with DMCA legal complaints by facilitating copyright complaints *themselves* (think, someone wrongly claiming rights to content in your video and being granted the right to put ads on your videos and receive money from them without Youtube giving you the opportunity to address the situation in court, as per the DMCA process).
Everyone cares about free speech and nobody honestly thinks anyone should have to put up with _serious_ actual threats (note, this is different from harassment or "verbal abuse") . . . but how do you properly deal with one while not overstepping onto the other? And do you trust a business and a couple people clicking a "I don't like this comment you guise!" button to make the call?
Re:Zimmerman? (Score:4, Insightful)
Haters gotta hate. Might as well let them rant on the Tweeters so we at least know who the haters are, than trying to hide them. If you are going to start deleting all they misogynist comments, how about deleting all the misandrist ones, too, including the ones from haters like Joy Behar and Catherine MacKinnon?
Interestingly, my spell checker knows all about misogyny and its variations, but doesn't acknowledge the existance of misandry at all.
Re:Oh the humanity! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In fairness (Score:2, Insightful)
Totally! Just because it is social commentary and not a romance doesn't mean it isn't awful, you should totally trust the anonymous coward and the many well-read, intelligent people he is making up!!
And yes, he did not provide any counter-arguments other than his inexpert opinion (which is so much better than your English literature major opinion on English literature), but still this is something that he just knows because of his faith and if you believe in something with enough faith we all know it automatically makes it truth.
Of course some people will argue that even if she was a terrible writer that does not give people the right to harass a woman that campaigned for something she wanted but those idiots are missing the point, and I don't have to tell you what the point is because several well-read, intelligent people I am making up know what the point is.