Woman demands Twitter respond to accusation without evidence. Daily Mail covers

Recently, Caroline Criado-Perez, the woman campaigning to put Jane Austin's face on Britain's new £10 banknote, made the news again following a twitter spat with opponents of her effort.

Craido-Perez attempted to complain to Twitter about tweets she considered threatening, without using Twitter's reporting system.

When Twitter responded by asking her to use the existing system (fill out a form) Craido-Perez whined in blog post that doing so wasn't practical, and therefore Twitter was on the side of the abusers.

In other words, she demanded that twitter act on her accusation without being provided any evidence. This would mean censoring other users on her behalf, based solely on unsupported claims of harassment.

Since then, the story has gotten media attention, and law enforcement has become involved. According to the news, both men and women were involved, but so far it's only been men who have been arrested over the tweets.

Media coverage has dug up some of the tweets that had Criado-Perez so Twitter-pated. Out of her alleged 50 per hour, only two were published, an odd thing considering the tweets are essential to the story, and would drive outrage inspired traffic to any site reporting on them. If more dramatic tweets were sent to Criado-Perez, it's unusual to see the media not pouncing on the chance to capitalize on them for page views.

The two tweets shared in the news are rude and obnoxious, but as Typhonblue has pointed out, the worst tweets the media could find weren't actually threats.

Now, there's a campaign to add a "report abuse" button to every twitter user's profile page. In writing the writing the letter, the petitioner added preemptive language in an attempt to ensure that the standard the petition demanded be applied to male users of the site would not also be applied to female users. The petition focuses entirely on women as victims, with wording designed to insinuate that only women are victims of harassment, and even contains the admonition insinuating that vitriol from women shouldn't be given the same treatment.

Basically, the writer of that petition has turned Criado-Perez's complaints about rude and obnoxious tweets from both sexes into campaign to load twitter with a censorship tool for women to use against men.

[–]Deport777 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexTes 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

They're asking for it to be on every tweet. Its meant to report abuse. Why does the reason or the feminist majority currently campaigning for the button matter?

There was abuse, now people want an anti abuse button. What kind of abuse people want to report with it shouldn't matter as long as the button stays neutral. If you want to use it for, as you would call it, "because-teh-evul-person-hurtz-teh-menz-feelz" reporting, you can.

So you seem to agree that if "reserve its use to only offended women" is not the case, there is no problem. So where is your proof it'll have any such reservations?

(And don't say look at those campaigning, as long as they don't ask (not saying it wont happen) for something that changes the buttons neutrality, whats the problem?)

Let me finally add that I do think the petition and specifically

Women standing up to abuse should not fear having their accounts cancelled because Twitter fail to see the issue at hand.

The report abuse button needs to be accompanied by Twitter reviewing the T&C on abusive behaviour to reflect an awareness of the complexity of violence against women, and the multiple oppressions women face

Is indeed very wrong to focus on women, however as long as it doesn't effect the button itself, there is no issue. If it does read "Report abuse against a Woman" I'll be the first to start another petition on change.org and you can sign it for me.

[–]oneiorosgrip[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

They're asking for it to be on every tweet. Its meant to report abuse. Why does the reason or the feminist majority currently campaigning for the button matter?

There was abuse, now people want an anti abuse button. What kind of abuse people want to report with it shouldn't matter as long as the button stays neutral.

Not according to the petition - they want it on every user's page, not every tweet, and they're asking for the same discriminatory usage that has been approved and used recently on facebook, in which language that offends only women gets treated as a violation.

If there were no history between feminist groups and social networking sites on this, it would be reasonable to argue that there is no reason to suspect uneven handling, but there is a history. Facebook has demonstrated that conceding to this type of request is complete, not partial. They have removed speech that doesn't advocate violence against women, but which offends some women... but they've left up speech advocating violence against men, and religious violence.

If you want to use it for, as you would call it, "because-teh-evul-person-hurtz-teh-menz-feelz" reporting, you can.

This is part of the problem - based on past feminist and social site interactions using this type of system, 1) it's used to censor disliked speech, not just threats, and 2) it's used unequally, applied when women don't like the speech directed at them, but not applied when men experience the same or worse.

Offered already, but no, I don't agree that if "reserve its use to only offended women" is not the case, there's no problem. There's still a problem if it's used when people are merely offended, and not actually endangered.

Let me finally add that I do think the petition and specifically

Women standing up to abuse should not fear having their accounts cancelled because Twitter fail to see the issue at hand.

The report abuse button needs to be accompanied by Twitter reviewing the T&C on abusive behaviour to reflect an awareness of the complexity of violence against women, and the multiple oppressions women face

Is indeed very wrong to focus on women, however as long as it doesn't effect the button itself, there is no issue.

This is a bullshit response - again, it would be different if these women weren't coming from a position of established political power, but they are, and it's one from which women have already successfully gotten a prominent social networking site to do exactly that - effect "the button" by focusing it on women. And let me translate for you what that quote really says:

"Women standing up to abuse should not fear having their accounts cancelled because Twitter fail to see the issue at hand"
is "Women should be able to say whatever we want when we're angry, even if you'd consider it abuse coming from a man."

"The report abuse button needs to be accompanied by Twitter reviewing the T&C on abusive behaviour to reflect an awareness of the complexity of violence against women, and the multiple oppressions women face"
is "Anything that makes women angry counts as violence against women, and therefore excuses any offensive or threatening language women use."

This is designed to preemptively convince twitter that when women reply to disliked speech with abusive language (such as those who have told male rape victims to go kill themselves for daring to bring male victims up in a discussion about rape) it's not abuse, but a response to abuse. Essentially, they're expressing the belief that being upset excuses female dysfunction, while simultaneously claiming that anything men say while upset should be censored.

This is NOT something levelheaded people sit back and let happen. If ignored, it will end up leading to censorship beyond policing abusive tweets, and it will be unequally applied, just as is on facebook.

If it does read "Report abuse against a Woman" I'll be the first to start another petition on change.org and you can sign it for me.

That's a dishonest outlook, as well. The description of the new system doesn't have to be gendered at all for it to be unequally applied - that's been demonstrated by facebook, as well.

[–]AlexTes 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I know this is ages ago, I'd just like to say you should really consider the way you took a stance.

From what you're saying it seems really obvious you don't oppose the idea of a button against abuse at all. Rather you would encourage the idea in a way because you're of the opinion abuse against men doesn't get taken seriously or belittled.

applied when women don't like the speech directed at them, but not applied when men experience the same or worse.

What you do take major offence to is what is considered abuse and what is punished. After all, its hard to imagine anyone that thinks abuse is a good thing.

So go protest what you oppose. I'd friendly recommend to protest the application of the idea. Not the idea, I'd go as far as say, you would like to see applied equally. Simply because thats a very destructive approach to solving the abuse problem.

[–]oneiorosgrip[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think there's a right to shut people up because you don't like what they're saying. There's a right to not listen - and in that vein, users should be and are able to block users who say things they don't like.

They should not be able to prevent users who say things they don't like from saying anything else in a particular forum simply due to their objection.

My illustration of the different attitudes toward abusive language depending on whether it's expressed towards women or men is not a statement of approval of censorship if it were performed in a more evenhanded manner. It's a statement that the women pushing for this are oversensitive and manipulative, preferring aggression against their detractors (banning) to the assertive act of simply blocking the individual.

I've experienced exactly the type of comments on which the complaint leading to the petition was based. A few years ago on another social networking site, I wrote extensively but in vague detail (no names, no dates, no identifying the accuser) about the long-term ordeal my friend was going through involving malicious prosecution and vexatious litigation by his ex-wife.
The ex found the posts about a year after the last post (describing the vexatious litigation case against her and how it was won) was published, and finding them unflattering, went not so vaguely apeshit. She identified herself in the comments and solicited "assistance" with the posts from the local domestic violence victim's advocacy group which had backed her in her attacks against my friend.

This is a group supposedly dedicated to ending abuse in my area. Their philosophy is supposedly nonviolent and nonaggressive, yet I received comments from them and their supporters stating that I should die in a fire, be raped, lose custody of my children, and suffer all kinds of other misfortunes. I was threatened with stalking - not in the "this should happen to you" or "I hope this happens to you" vein that twitter's feminists are complaining about, but flat-out "we'll be watching for you to make a mistake" stalking. In person, I was threatened that if I continued, child protective services would be frivolously called to inspect my family.

I didn't complain about the rude speech or the actual threats. Instead, I answered each one of them, pointing out how they demonstrated the attitudes of those who left them. The vexatious litigant, on the other hand, complained about the posts, even though she was not identified in them.

In the end, the site took my posts down. The wave of flaming commenters weren't considered the problem. According to Gather.com, talking about the case was. I really can't blame them - the complaint was made by a court-confirmed vexatious litigant. They had to cover their ass, and I accepted that. However, the bottom line illustrated by this is that this type of censorship is subjective. The response is relative not to the nature of the speech mods and admins are asked to censor, but to the nature of the people requesting censorship.

A large part of my objection to this is that twitter's femitwits don't differentiate between rude speech and threats, and are wanting that button not to deal with aggression targeting them, but to be able to censor speech they don't like. They've demonstrated that very effectively on facebook by campaigning for targeted rules that ban speech feminists don't like, but don't ban similar speech toward men. This is because the goal isn't really related to "hate speech." It's to gain for feminists a tool of censorship that can be used to silence dissenting speech.

[–]AlexTes 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I must say you have convinced me the "abuse button" is more of an aggressive initiative than a defensive one, which I agree is wrong. The button should not be a way/tool to attack those with subjectively un-agreeable opinions.

I still feel a bit uneasy with the idea of consistent abusers (simple hate-speech) going rampant, but blocking would completely cover the issue.

Thanks for sharing your story, it sounds awful and I get the point, people should not be given the power or granted their wish to impede others' freedom of speech. (Legal matters aside)

I do think you still overgeneralise however.

twitter's femitwits don't differentiate

They've demonstrated

Some women have very legit reasons to feel they need a tool to deal with abuse. Some of them probably signed the petition, not realising its unjust/destructive nature. Again, I end up agreeing, blocking is a lot better suited to solve the problem than "reporting abuse" to make it hard for people to express themselves. But please don't confine yourself to absolutes, even when it seems like you experienced first hand what "those" people are like.

Thanks for the discussion.

[–]oneiorosgrip[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexTes 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course my disagreement is with those who support the petition. There is a huge difference between feeling powerless, and being powerless. These people are asking for the right to label other people aggressive and dangerous and silence their speech entirely over their own disagreement with them.

My disagreement with their choices has nothing to do with whether or not they're "bad people," and honestly, the idea of separating people from their choices is nonsense.

For trying to use their feelings as an excuse to censor other people's speech even when that speech is not directed at them (because the only purpose for a report button on twitter is to contribute to getting a user's account banned) they're entitled princesses. For trying to make the ability to use that button one sided (because they've basically said "it needs to be a violation when men do it, but not when women do it") they're sexist entitled princesses. For using the equivalent of a sledgehammer to hit the equivalent of a thumbtack, they're melodramatic sexist entitled princesses.

Regardless, labeling my point of view "frustration and anger" is kind of puts you in the same category as the melodramatic, sexist and entitled petitioners who are demanding that twitter support their oversensitivity with a ban-hammer; tone arguments are nothing but topic-dodging silencing tools. They're a way of demanding that people not talk about issues the tone argument presenter doesn't want to confront, or not point out things the tone argument presenter doesn't want to admit.

So I merely tried to conclude saying, "I agree, but please be critical of the indiscriminate tone I feel underlies your disagreement, namely that "they are bad".

That's just further tone argument - it has neither meaning nor value.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I heard Caroline Criado-Perez talk about this and her experience to Richard Bacon. She was very measured took pains not to blame it just on men and so did Richard. The media could not report most of the posts as they would have not been acceptable or broken the rules regarding taste and decency in the UK.

First, whether she spoke once without blaming men or not, the story has snowballed into an attack on male speech with the petition movement, which does focus on men. It's irrelevant whether it started out that way. Second, there is always a way to report foul speech without violating acceptable rules of taste and decency, even if one has to paraphrase or block out swear words and leave the actual threat in place.
Even if major media didn't publish them, there should have been screenshots somewhere. Where are they?
And third, if the UK has that much of a hold on online speech that no online source can report on a threat without facing legal reprisal, society there is pretty much fucked, and reactions like this are probably part of the reason.

Also twitter removed the majority of posts as they were notified of them.

This is part of my point - treating twitter as if they did not respond, when they did, is dishonest. Caroline Criado-Perez's complaint wasn't that they didn't respond, but that they required evidence in order to respond. That's unacceptable. You don't have the right to silence someone without proving they've done what you accuse, and that it's bad enough to warrant silencing.

Whilst I don't agree with a lot of what Miss Criado-Perez says (actually most of it) I do think that the level of abuse she has and is suffering on twitter is unacceptable and there should be an easier way of reporting it.

However twitter are not scaled to deal with abuse of any kind and it will seriously affect there business model if they are forced to do so. It is though important that they do implement some for of abuse process that is fair to all.

If that's all that was being asked, there wouldn't be an issue, but it's not. The request is specific - make it easier for women to report abuse, but don't make it easier to report abusive women.

One thing we can do as a movement is to ensure / lobby for a fair and equitable definition of abuse that recognises free speech but does not allow people to threaten to rape, murder, or castrate.

Honestly, when someone threatens violence, that shouldn't be covered up by the site. If someone PMs me with a threat that I feel should be taken seriously, I won't contact reddit about it at all. I'll start with my local police, and go up the chain. If need be, I'll contact the attorney general of my state with it. The same should be done with threatening tweets or speech anywhere else. If someone threatens to rape, murder, or commit any other violence and the recipient believes the threat, it's stupid to delete the evidence.

If harassing speech is not serious, but comes in a flood from the same source like Craido-Perez says she experienced, that's spam, and should be treated as spam, especially if her "threats" were all like the ones published - and unless you have something that specifically contains an "I will" variation, or a "someone could, someone might, I might" etc., it's not a threat.

Lets be positive about how we can affect this rather than whine out how unfair the language is.

Translation: Don't criticize feminist efforts at control. I'm going to use shaming language to try to stop your criticism.

Feminists use "unfair" language to control others. It's been their MO for decades. Perfect example: VAWA, which is designed to make domestic violence a gendered issue by using gendered language. As far as I'm concerned, criticizing the language is where addressing the issue has to start. Without that, you're missing the issue itself, which is that this isn't about abuse, but about control. If it were about abuse, there wouldn't be gendered language in it to criticize in the first place.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

None of what you've said here really addresses what I wrote in my comment - you simply give me assurances that you've read things. That doesn't provide me with anything but your word. Even if that were evidence of anything, it wouldn't be evidence supporting the argument to which I replied, or countering the reply I made.

As for what CCP is asking for, Twitter has a generic abuse process, and the articles available to me quote her as asking Twitter to take her word, instead.

Looking through the lens of a woman who has been online for 20 years, no, this issue is not "much more complex than an MRA feminist one." This is exactly the same as the facebook issue - women wanting control over male speech, and exploiting an individual's experiences to push for it. That's how feminists operate, and apology like you've provided here is one of the things that helps them get away with it.

[–]Everything_Is_Rape 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PersonalityDisorder 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Title	Woman demands Twitter respond to accusation without evidence. Daily Mail covers
Author	oneiorosgrip
Upvotes	38
Comments	24
Date	August 2, 2013 4:32 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1jkm12/woman_demands_twitter_respond_to_accusation/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/woman-demands-twitter-respond-to-accusation.1167346 https://theredarchive.com/post/1167346

Comments