The EFF tries to address online harrassment, comes up short

[firecat]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment

I'm glad they said something.

It's true that rules and regulations aimed at harrassers are likely to end up being used against the same groups of people who are most often the targets of harrassment (women, people of color, queer people, etc.). For example, Facebook's real name policy has been used to harrass drag queens and trans people.

The suggestions they describe for addressing harrassment are important but they aren't sufficient. Stronger blocking tools that are easier for individual users to employ? That matters, but it's not going to help with doxxing. More control over the online availability of personal information? That matters, but it's a really inadequate tool against harrassment per se. It puts a huge burden on the victim and limits their participation in the public sphere. Counter-speech? That is absolutely necessary, but it's not a solution that allows victims to stay online, especially when the victims are individuals who would rather not spend every moment of every day being reminded of their harrassment.

I have a problem with the phrase "The kind of harassment we are worried about happens when Internet users attract the attention of the wrong group or individual," because it's subtly victim-blaming.

Also the post relegates the demographics of harrassment (e.g. that women are harrassed at a far higher rate than men) to a footnote.

Comments

[emceeaich]

I get what EFF was trying for, but dammit, I want an EFF that gives a damn about culture other than that of tech bros.

[badgerbag]

I made exactly those points in reviewing the drafts!
(I mean, about the footnote/making the details about women and other marginalized people literally in the margins, and, about attracting the wrong people being a bit victim blamey).

[firecat]

It would be nice if the EFF and more of the rest of the world gave a damn about that.

[firecat]

Wow. I'm glad you got an opportunity to review the drafts. And as an editor I sympathize with the irritation of having your points ignored.

[badgerbag]

It wasn't really like that but, there were a lot of discussions. I think the mention was front and center but the details were in the footnote. I still didn't love it but it wasn't completely marginalizing.

my main concern was wanting it to be an opener for more discussion and an invitation to the table in some way.

anyway, i liked it in general.

[legionseagle]

I fell out with the Open Rights Group in the UK (with many of whose aims I completely sympathise) over this. Specifically, it was over this in which ORG appeared to think that their support for MPs Yvette Cooper and Stella Creasy (barraged with rape threats etc on Twitter) should be made conditional on the two MPs supporting the repeal of legislation they didn't like

o balance their calls for strong action on illegal activity, Stella Creasy and Yvette Cooper should callfor Parliament to repeal Section 127 so that matters of offensive but non-threatening, non-harassing speech remain clearly out of scope.

The section in question is shockingly drafted, by the way, but it is the only real basis for prosecuting rape threats etc which are intended to bully posters into shutting up, so basically ORG were demanding that people targeted in this way had to prove that the threats were going to be followed through (so they could be prosecuted as sexual offences) before ORG accepted they were a problem.

[firecat]

Ugh, that's pretty unhelpful to people being harrassed.

[ferentent.livejournal.com]

Написано много, но не совсем понятно


http://huntingcoloradostyle.com/content/frumil-farmacia-comprar-con-la-rebaja-frumil-shipped-no-rx
;
http://huntingcoloradostyle.com/content/female-viagra-buy-overnight-uk-gb-female-viagra-saturday-delivery