#onlineharassment

[pyaariposting]

@tatayshaat

🚨 TW: Sexual Harassment 🚨

This man, who goes by the username @tatayshaat , has been leaving vile and sexually explicit comments online. This is NOT okay, and it needs to be called out publicly.

Here are screenshots of the comments he made (posted just 13 hours ago):

🟥 “I can f*ck your boobs”

🟥 “Show boobs and let me eat Nippls”

Let’s be clear:

🛑 This is not flirting.

🛑 This is not funny.

🛑 This is sexual harassment.

Women and marginalized people deserve to feel safe online. If you’ve experienced this kind of behavior, you’re not alone — and you deserve to be heard and supported.

📢 I’m sharing this to raise awareness and to say: WE SEE YOU.

🧾 Report.

🚫 Block.

📣 Expose.

Let’s create safer digital spaces. Hold these people accountable.

[cenefacemnoicutine]

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

[seanerhh]

📱💥 Who Gets to Govern the Feed? Maybe it’s time we did.

Let’s get real about Digital Citizenship & Conflict on Social Media 💥🧠

Do you ever scroll through Twitter or X, ugh 🙄, or TikTok and feel like you’re watching a never-ending battlefield in 4K? One second it’s memes, the next it’s cancel culture, disinformation, bots, and beefs blowing up over literally anything. But beneath all the drama is a deeper question: Who really governs our online spaces, and how are we as users part of it? Let’s break it down.

First off, digital citizenship isn’t just about being polite online or citing your sources in a discussion thread. It’s about how we, as internet users, engage responsibly, ethically, and critically in digital environments. That includes knowing how algorithms shape what we see, recognizing fake news, and understanding power dynamics between platforms, users, and governments (Ribble & Shaaban, 2011).

Conflict online is baked into the system. From culture wars to celebrity takedowns, social platforms amplify outrage because it drives clicks and keeps people engaged. Algorithms often reward conflict over consensus (Tufekci, 2015). Ever noticed how controversial posts get way more traction than calm, nuanced takes? Yeah, that’s not an accident.

But it’s not just interpersonal drama. Think about how protest movements like #BlackLivesMatter or #FreePalestine are policed by platforms, shadowbanned, flagged, or demonetized, while hate speech can fly under the radar if it’s “profitable.” That’s because platform governance isn’t neutral, and moderation is often more about PR and profit than justice (Gillespie, 2018).

👮‍♀️ So Who’s in Charge?

You’d think the internet is the Wild West, but there are actually layers of governance happening:

• Platform Rules (TOS, community guidelines, algorithmic moderation) • Government Laws (think Malaysia’s MCMC, EU’s DSA, U.S. Section 230) • Community Norms (call-outs, blocklists, meme codes of conduct)

And guess what?

All of these layers can clash. Like when activists get banned for violating “hate speech” policies while calling out actual hate speech. Or when governments use digital laws to crack down on dissent under the guise of “fake news regulation” (Bradshaw et al., 2020).

💬 What Can We Do? (Because We’re Not Helpless)

Being passive won’t cut it anymore. If you’re here on Tumblr, arguably one of the OG digital counterpublics, you already know the value of curating safe spaces, calling out harmful content, and pushing back against exploitative moderation.

So: • 🔹 Educate yourself & others on how algorithms work • 🔹 Amplify marginalized voices & community-led content policies • 🔹 Demand transparency from platforms • 🔹 Organize, because collective action does change policy

Digital citizenship isn’t just about being nice online—

it’s about understanding the systems that shape our digital lives and taking responsibility for how we engage.

Social media platforms aren’t neutral spaces; they’re governed by complex layers of rules, algorithms, and power dynamics. But we have the power to influence these spaces by educating ourselves, holding platforms accountable, and advocating for change.

Let’s work together to make social media a safer and more inclusive space for everyone.

References:

Bradshaw, S. (2020). Industrialized Disinformation 2020 Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation. Oxford Internet Institute.

Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.

Ribble, M., & Shaaban, A. (2011). Digital Citizenship in Schools Second Edition. ResearchGate.

Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic Harms Beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent Challenges of Computational Agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal.

[justacryingbaby]

When Algorithms Amplify Hate: Can Memes Outrun Online Harassment? 

Imagine reporting a death threat on Instagram, only to receive an automated reply: “We’re sorry, but this doesn’t go against our guidelines.” Sound familiar? Welcome to the paradox of social media governance, where platforms profit from engagement - even when it’s hate. Let’s dissect how digital citizenship collides with algorithmic apathy.  

1. Networked Harassment: From Gamergate to Gen Z

Gamergate exposed the gendered nature of online abuse and the role of platforms in facilitating harassment (Salter 2018). Fast-forward to 2023: Trans TikToker @RainbowRiotRae’s videos are buried under “community guidelines,” while neo-Nazi memes thrive. The weaponization of platform governance tools, such as mass reporting, has become a significant issue for social media creators, leaving them vulnerable to content takedowns and account bans (Meisner 2023).  

2. Governance or Gaslighting?

Recent research reveals challenges in regulating online hate speech. Australia’s eSafety duty of care aims to address Islamophobia (Butler 2022), while ineffective social media bans in Sri Lanka suggest a need for targeted moderation (Wijeratne 2018). However, global platform governance complicates decisions on free expression and privacy, raising concerns about transparency and accountability (Bloch-Wehba 2019). 

3. Humor as Resistance: Clapbacks Go Viral

When comedian Hannah Gadsby turned trolls misogyny into NFT art, she flipped the script. TikTok’s #TrollBeGone trend sees creators like @LGBTQNation roast bigots with absurdity - a tactic Galan (2016) call “subversive self-defense.” Even brands like Ben & Jerry’s troll back, replying to hate with ice cream puns. But is humor enough when death threats trend?  

4. CSR or PR Stunts?  

After Adidas dropped Kanye, they pledged $1M to anti-hate groups - yet their factory workers in Cambodia face union-busting. However, social media activism often manifests as performative allyship, exemplified by the #BlackOutTuesday campaign on Instagram, which failed to create substantial progress in diversity and inclusion (Wellman 2022). Real change? Pay marginalized creators to design AI moderation tools.  

Should platforms face fines for every unmoderated slur, or is digital citizenship a collective fight? Drop your hottest takes below. 🔥🗯️  

Reference

Salter, M 2017, ‘From geek masculinity to Gamergate: the technological rationality of online abuse’, Crime Media Culture An International Journal, vol. 14, SAGE Publishing, no. 2, pp. 247–264.

‌Meisner, C 2023, ‘The weaponization of platform governance: Mass reporting and algorithmic punishments in the creator economy’, Policy & Internet, vol. 15, Wiley, no. 4, pp. 466–477.

‌Butler, U 2022, ‘Combatting online Islamophobia and racism in Australia: the case for an eSafety duty of care’, SSRN Electronic Journal, Elsevier BV.

‌Wijeratne, Y 2018, ‘The Control of Hate Speech on Social Media: Lessons from Sri Lanka’, SSRN Electronic Journal, Elsevier BV.

‌Wellman, ML 2022, ‘Black Squares for Black Lives? Performative Allyship as Credibility Maintenance for Social Media Influencers on Instagram’, Social Media + Society, vol. 8, no. 1.

‌Galán, S 2016, ‘Beyond the Logic of State Protection: Feminist Self-Defense in Cairo after the January 25 Revolution’, Kohl: A Journal for Body and Gender Research, vol. 2, no. Summer, pp. 71–89.

‌Bloch-Wehba, H 2019, Global Platform Governance: Private Power in the Shadow of the State, Law.

‌

[happytogether23]

⚡ The Hidden Power Behind Your Feed: Digital Citizenship & Conflict in Online Spaces

💥 Digital Citizenship Isn’t Always Peaceful

Conflict on social media reminds us that digital citizenship is about power—power over speech, platforms, and visibility (Mossberger et al., 2008). Governance doesn’t just happen in boardrooms or courtrooms. It happens in Facebook groups, subreddit rules, and Twitter’s trending tab.

As Marwick & Caplan (2018) argue, harassment isn’t always isolated; it’s networked, often driven by organized hate (e.g., Gamergate). Trolling, flaming, doxxing, image-based abuse—they’re not bugs. They’re part of how conflict operates in digital communities.

🧠 Who Gets Targeted—and Why?

Research consistently shows that women, girls, and trans people are disproportionately targeted by online harassment (Haslop, O’Rourke & Southern, 2021). A Plan International (2020) survey of 14,000 girls in 31 countries found 59% had experienced abusive language online. And a Guardian study revealed that 8 out of the 10 most abused columnists were women—half of whom were women of colour (Gardiner et al., 2016).

These numbers matter because they expose the myth that the internet is a neutral space. It isn’t. Cyberhate reflects real-world systems of sexism, racism, and transphobia.

🔧 So... What Can Be Done?

While legal action is now better supported in Australia (e.g., Online Safety Act 2021), legislation alone isn’t enough. Solutions must be multi-layered:

Legal: Platforms must comply with removal orders within 24 hours under new laws (eSafety Commissioner, 2022).

Humour & Art: Comics like Hannah Gadsby use comedy as resistance.

Advocacy: Platforms like eSafety provide tools for reporting and protection.

Corporate Social Responsibility: Brands must stand with influencers, not just profit from them (Littleton in Crowther & Rayman-Bacchus, 2016).

Let’s be clear: if a brand uses influencers to reach audiences, they must also protect those influencers from digital abuse.

👁 Final Thought: Governance Is Ours to Shape

We must stop thinking of governance as something done to us by big tech. It’s also something we participate in. Whether you mod a Discord server or run a TikTok page, you’re part of the ecosystem of governance.

Conflict isn't just chaos—it's data. It tells us where systems fail, and where citizenship demands more than silent participation.

📚 References

Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016). The dark side of Guardian comments. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments

Haslop, C., O’Rourke, S., & Southern, J. (2021). Online harassment and identity. Feminist Media Studies.

Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: Language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. *Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568

Haslop, C., O’Rourke, F., & Southern, R. (2021). Gendered cyberhate, victim-blaming, and why the internet is more like a men’s rights activist than a feminist. New Media & Society, 23(6), 1548–1567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820912543

Plan International. (2020).Free to be online? Girls’ and young women’s experiences of online harassment.https://plan-international.org/publications/free-to-be-online

eSafety Commissioner. (2022).Online Safety Act 2021: What you need to know. https://www.esafety.gov.au

[haleetaaa]

Digital Citizenship and Conflict: Social Media Governance and Online Harassment

Social media platforms are often portrayed as spaces of connection, community building, and democratic participation. But what happens when these digital spaces become sites of conflict and harassment? Week 10 of our digital communities journey explores the complex terrain of digital citizenship within contested online environments.

Let's consider a recent example: In January 2022, Australia implemented the Online Safety Act 2021, empowering authorities to compel social media platforms to remove seriously harmful content within 24 hours of receiving formal notice. This legislation represents a significant shift in how we govern digital spaces, recognizing that platforms must bear responsibility for the environments they create.

The concept of digital citizenship extends far beyond simply using technology responsibly. As Mossberger et al. (2008: 1) describe, digital citizenship involves "the membership and participation of individuals within society" through digital means. However, this participation is often complicated by power dynamics that determine who gets to speak and who is silenced through harassment.

Marwick and Caplan (2018) demonstrate that online harassment isn't merely individual bad behavior but often organized and networked action. Their research on "networked harassment" reveals how coordinated attacks using techniques like doxxing, image-based abuse, and intimidation have been refined through controversies such as Gamergate, disproportionately targeting marginalized groups.

The research is clear about who bears the brunt of online harassment. Plan International's 'Free To Be Online' report (2020) found that 59% of girls across 31 countries had experienced abusive language online. Similarly, Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern (2021) documented how women and transgender individuals face significantly higher rates of harassment. These findings were reinforced by The Guardian's analysis of 70 million comment threads, which found that of the 10 writers receiving the most abuse, eight were women (Gardiner et al., 2016).

When it comes to addressing these issues, multiple approaches exist. Legal remedies like Australia's Online Safety Act provide regulatory frameworks, but these must be complemented by platform-level content moderation, advocacy groups, and corporate social responsibility initiatives. As Vitis and Gilmour (2016) note, "women are also using online platforms as a way of engaging, resisting and responding to harassment," demonstrating how digital citizenship involves claiming space despite opposition.

Social media governance happens at both macro and micro levels - from international legislation to community moderation in Facebook Groups and subreddits. This multi-layered governance structure raises important questions about who controls online spaces and whose interests are served in their regulation.

What does true digital citizenship look like in environments where harassment is normalized? Can we create digital communities that foster inclusive participation while effectively addressing harmful behavior? And what responsibility do platforms, users, and governments each bear in creating healthier online spaces?

References

Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D. & Ulmanu, M. 2016, 'The dark side of Guardian comments', The Guardian, viewed 20 March 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments.

Haslop, C., O'Rourke, F. & Southern, R. 2021, '#NoMorePage3: Feminist activism for media reform', Digital Journalism, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 812-830.

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.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C.J. & McNeal, R.S. 2008, Digital citizenship: The internet, society, and participation, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Plan International 2020, Free to be online? Girls' and young women's experiences of online harassment, Plan International, Surrey.

Vitis, L. & Gilmour, F. 2017, 'Dick pics on blast: A woman's resistance to online sexual harassment using humour, art and Instagram', Crime Media Culture, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 335-355.

[jajalinh]

Conflict between Digital Citizenship and Social Media: Authority, Abuse, and Governance

The Function of Disagreement in Online Communities

Social media is frequently portrayed as a forum for candid conversation and community development. Nonetheless, power struggles among people, organisations, and platforms influence interactions that take place online. Competition for attention, identity-based discrimination, and political disagreements can all lead to conflict in digital spaces. Therefore, when claiming their presence online, marginalised communities frequently experience harassment or exclusion (Heath, 2018).

Who controls online speech is one of the main problems. Social media companies enforce content moderation policies that may disproportionately silence some voices, even as they support free expression. There are continuous discussions concerning free speech versus platform responsibility as a result of governments and regulatory agencies influencing what content is acceptable (Marwick & Caplan, 2018).

Who Establishes the Guidelines for Social Media Governance?

Government rules, community-driven guidelines, and corporate policies all influence governance in digital spaces. Commercial interests drive social media platforms' efforts to strike a balance between user engagement and financial gain while upholding safety regulations. Although legal frameworks are introduced by governments to control online content, enforcement differs from nation to nation. Furthermore, community moderators create micro-level governance structures by establishing rules within particular groups.

The platform's accountability is still lacking in spite of these governance models. Many businesses do not adequately handle online abuse, which exposes users to algorithmic bias, misinformation, and harassment. Digital citizenship will continue to revolve around debates about platform ethics, content regulation, and governance as social media develops (Marwick & Caplan, 2018).

Digital Abuse and Online Harassment

A recurring problem in digital spaces, harassment can take many different forms, such as online hate speech, doxxing, and cyberstalking. Research indicates that women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and members of racial minorities are disproportionately affected by online abuse. According to Haslop et al. (2021), women and transgender people are frequently the targets of online abuse, and 59% of girls worldwide have experienced online harassment, according to a 2020 Plan International report.

Although online harassment is frequently written off as "just words," the consequences can be dire. Due to recurrent abuse, victims report feeling depressed, anxious, and self-conscious. The issue is made worse by the fact that offenders can evade punishment due to the anonymity of social media. According to The Guardian (2016), combating online harassment necessitates more extensive cultural and structural adjustments because it frequently reflects offline discrimination.

Solutions: Community-Based, Legal, and Accountability on the Platform

Legal Methods

Legal actions are being taken by governments all over the world to stop online harassment. The Online Safety Act 2021 in Australia requires platforms to take down dangerous content within 24 hours. Cyber threats and abuse are covered by other laws, such as the Criminal Code Act of 1995. Enforcement is still difficult, though, especially when it comes to transnational crimes and covert forms of harassment that defy legal definitions.

Digital Activism and Community Opposition

A key component of the fight against online abuse is activism. While artists and comedians like Hannah Gadsby use humour to critique misogyny in online spaces, movements like #MeToo have brought attention to gender-based harassment (Vitis & Gilmour, 2017). However, some contend that humour may not always be a successful tool for resistance and runs the risk of trivialising important issues (Sundén & Paasonen, 2019).

Accountability of the Platform

There is growing pressure on social media companies to improve AI-based detection systems, moderate harmful content, and improve reporting procedures. According to a Pew study from 2021, 79% of users think social media companies are not doing enough to combat online abuse. Platforms have responded by implementing community guidelines and content moderation AI, but these steps frequently fall short of stopping systemic discrimination and algorithmic biases.

References:

Haslop, C., O’Rourke, F., & Southern, R. (2021). #NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide, in a UK student online culture. Convergence, 27(5), 1418–1438.

Heath, M. K. (2018). What kind of (digital) citizen? A between-studies analysis of research and teaching for democracy. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(5), 342-356.

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? Plan International Report on Girls’ Experiences of Online Harassment.

Sundén, J., & Paasonen, S. (2019). Inappropriate laughter: Affective homophily and the unlikely comedy of #MeToo. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119883425

The Guardian. (2016). The dark side of Guardian comments. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments

Vitis, L., & Gilmour, F. (2017). Dick pics on blast: A woman’s resistance to online sexual harassment using humour, art and Instagram. Crime, Media, Culture, 13(3), 335-355.

[mirandatrannzz]

[Week 10]

🌐  The Double-Edged Sword of Social Media: Pressure, Politics, and the Need for Collective Responsibility

Politics vs. Platforms: When Social Media and Governments Clash

The intersection of social media and government regulation exposes a fragile balance between free expression and political influence (Briggs, S. , 2018).

Platforms like Meta have faced criticism for silencing pro-Palestinian voices, with over 1,050 instances of content takedowns and suppression documented by Human Rights Watch during the Israel-Palestine conflict (2023).

📌 This is not mere content moderation - it is a calculated response to geopolitical pressures, raising concerns about platforms shaping political narratives rather than merely hosting discussions (McLaughlin & Velez, 2017).

On the other hand, corporate ambition often clashes with national governance.

In Vietnam, strict data-sharing regulations challenge Meta’s data-driven business model, highlighting how regulatory policies shape user privacy and digital freedoms (Huynh, 2025).

⚠️ These cases prove that social media is far from neutral - it is an arena where corporate and political interests dictate the boundaries of online discourse.

The Dark Side of Online Discourse: Harassment & Hate Speech

Beyond political suppression, social media’s engagement-driven algorithms fuel online toxicity, prioritizing outrage over ethical discourse (KhosraviNik & Esposito, 2018).

The case of Vietnamese pop star Sơn Tùng M-TP is a perfect example of how social media can turn public discourse into a toxic battleground (TUOI TRE ONLINE, 2022).

⚠️ Trigger Warning: This content includes discussions of suicide. Please proceed with caution.

This is the music video that sparked controversy

This is the official music video released after the scandal

🎵 His 2022 music video, There's No One At All, raised valid concerns about its portrayal of mental health. However, the conversation quickly spiraled into mass outrage.

(TUOI TRE ONLINE, 2022)

Algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, amplified negativity (Pohjonen & Udupa, 2017), turning: ➡️ Constructive criticism into harassment ➡️ Discussion into cancel culture ➡️ Concern into hate speech 

This incident highlights the challenges of regulating online content in a decentralized digital environment (Pohjonen & Udupa, 2017).

Once the backlash gained momentum, the sheer volume of hate speech and personal attacks made it nearly impossible to control.

The Sơn Tùng M-TP case proves how social media platforms can quickly become tools for targeted harassment, where: ✔️ Algorithmic amplification fuels negativity ✔️ The rapid spread of outrage overwhelms regulatory systems

⚖️ It serves as a stark reminder that the pursuit of engagement often trumps ethical considerations, leading to a digital world where outrage thrives while nuanced debate is silenced (Pohjonen & Udupa, 2017).

Beyond the Law: Collective Responsibility in Digital Spaces

Given the systemic nature of algorithmic amplification and online toxicity, legal solutions alone are insufficient. The viral spread of harmful content demonstrates the need for a multifaceted approach:

📚 Strengthening Digital Literacy Educating users on algorithmic manipulation can empower them to critically assess content and resist misinformation (Sari & Suryadi, 2022). By understanding how platforms prioritize outrage, users can make more informed engagement decisions, reducing the spread of harmful narratives.

🏛  Holding Platforms Accountable Through CSR Social media companies must take responsibility for the consequences of their algorithms. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives should enforce stricter content moderation policies to prevent the prioritization of harmful engagement over user well-being (Tamvada, 2020). Advocacy groups and public pressure are key to driving ethical platform policies.

🌱 Shifting Online Culture Addressing systemic issues requires a cultural shift in how digital spaces operate (Badel & Baeza, 2021). Beyond regulatory measures, fostering a safer online environment demands ethical platform design, stronger digital literacy programs, and corporate accountability. Without proactive efforts, social media will continue to prioritize profit over ethical responsibility.

Final Thoughts: The Need for Collective Action

⚡ Combating online toxicity and political influence is not the responsibility of a single entity - it is a shared duty. Governments, platforms, and users must work together to create a more ethical digital space.

🔍 Understanding the interplay between corporate interests, regulations, and user behavior is the first step toward moving beyond reactive solutions and toward real change.

Let's build a better, more responsible online world together. 

💬 If this resonates with you, share your thoughts below! 

🔄 Reblog to spread awareness!

References

Badel, F., & Baeza, J. L. (2021). DIGITAL PUBLIC SPACE FOR A DIGITAL SOCIETY: A REVIEW OF PUBLIC SPACES IN THE DIGITAL AGE. ArtGRID - Journal of Architecture Engineering and Fine Arts, 3(2), 127–137. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/artgrid/issue/67840/1002117

Briggs, S. (2018, March 8). About | HeinOnline. HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/collsp52&div=5&id=&page=

Human Rights Watch. (2023). Meta’s Broken Promises: Systemic Censorship of Palestine Content on Instagram and Facebook. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and

Huynh, T. T. (2025). Everyone Is Safe Now: Constructing the Meaning of Data Privacy Regulation in Vietnam. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2024.36

KhosraviNik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018). Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally-mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0003

McLaughlin, B., & Velez, J. A. (2017). Imagined Politics: How Different Media Platforms Transport Citizens Into Political Narratives. Social Science Computer Review, 37(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317746327

Pohjonen, M., & Udupa, S. (2017). Extreme Speech Online: An Anthropological Critique of Hate Speech Debates. International Journal of Communication, 11(0), 19. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5843

Sari, A. D. I., & Suryadi, K. (2022). Strengthening Digital Literacy to Develop Technology Wise Attitude Through Civic Education. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220108.006

Tamvada, M. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility and accountability: a New Theoretical Foundation for Regulating CSR. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 5(1), 1–14. Springeropen. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40991-019-0045-8

TUOI TRE ONLINE. (2022, April 29). Dư luận phẫn nộ vì MV There’s no one at all của Sơn Tùng M-TP có cách giải quyết độc hại. TUOI TRE ONLINE. https://tuoitre.vn/du-luan-phan-no-vi-mv-theres-no-one-at-all-cua-son-tung-m-tp-co-cach-giai-quyet-doc-hai-20220429155227083.htm

[marisdinh]

Week 10: Online Conflict: How Can Digital Citizens Truly Make a Difference?

When I think about online communities, I imagine a space where people connect and share positivity. But when scrolling through comments, it's hard to ignore that social media is also full of conflict, power plays, and harassment. Seeing people get attacked—often just because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation—I keep asking myself: how can we make these spaces safer?

It’s clear that certain groups, particularly women and transgender individuals, face the brunt of this aggression. Studies consistently show that women and minorities are disproportionately targeted online, often to the point where they feel pressured to censor themselves or even leave these spaces altogether (Chadha et al., 2020; Nadim & Fladmoe, 2019). I remember a friend, an outspoken advocate for gender equality, who faced brutal comments simply for sharing her views. The emotional toll of that harassment pushed her away from the digital communities she once loved.

Celebrities like comedian Hannah Gadsby deal with similar issues. Known for her sharp and heartfelt humor, Gadsby uses her platform to challenge the prejudice and hostility she faces. In her show Nanette, she bravely talks about her experiences with online harassment, using humor to raise awareness and inspire others to push back against hate (Carlson & Witt, 2020). Her story is a powerful reminder that we all play a part in making social media a place for support and empathy.

But this responsibility can’t fall solely on individuals. Social media platforms and brands need to step up. As Tamara Littleton, CEO of The Social Element, points out, brands should not only protect influencers from harassment but also provide resources to help them cope. Standing up for safety isn’t just good for branding; it’s about helping create healthier online communities (Suzor et al., 2018).

So what can we, as digital citizens, actually do? First, speak up. If you see someone being harassed, don’t stay silent. Report abusive behavior, use platform tools, and leave supportive comments to help victims feel less isolated. Research shows that even small acts of support can make a difference in helping people feel seen and supported (Vitak et al., 2017; Im et al., 2022).

If someone like Hannah Gadsby can turn her pain into purpose, then each of us can take small steps to build safer digital spaces. Together, we can create a social media landscape where everyone feels respected and empowered.

Refererences:

Carlson, C. & Witt, H. R. (2020). Online harassment of U.S. women journalists and its impact on press freedom. First Monday, 25.

2. Chadha, K., Steiner, L., Vitak, J., & Ashktorab, Z. (2020). Women’s responses to online harassment. International Journal of Communication, 14, pp. 19

3. Im, J., Schoenebeck, S., Iriarte, M., Grill, G., Wilkinson, D., Batool, A., Alharbi, R., Funwie, A., Gankhuu, T., Gilbert, E., & Naseem, M. (2022). Women’s perspectives on harm and justice after online harassment. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6, pp. 1-23.

4. Nadim, M. & Fladmoe, A. (2019). Silencing women? Gender and online harassment. Social Science Computer Review, 39, pp. 245-258.

5. Suzor, N., Dragiewicz, M., Harris, B. A., Gillett, R., Burgess, J., & Van Geelen, T. (2018). Human rights by design: The responsibilities of social media platforms to address gender-based violence online. Policy & Internet.

6. Vitak, J., Chadha, K., Steiner, L., & Ashktorab, Z. (2017). Identifying women's experiences with and strategies for mitigating negative effects of online harassment. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.

[news-of-news]

Karolina Goswami Claims Threats from Dhruv Rathee Fans; Sends Strong Message

YouTuber Karolina Goswami, who has a channel called "India in Details," recently shared a video on Instagram. In the video, she is walking with two security guards in India. The message says, "We won't be scared. We will keep living in India, no matter what." This comes after she says she was threatened by fans of another YouTuber, Dhruv Rathee.

#KarolinaGoswami #DhruvRathee #YouTubeCommunity #KarolinaGoswami #DhruvRathee #YouTubeDrama #IndiaInDetails #YouTubeControversy #SocialMedia #SupportCreators #FreedomOfSpeech #OnlineHarassment

[cenefacemnoicutine]

#cenefacemnoicutine

Teodora, 23 de ani, a fost împușcată în stradă de agresorul ei, deși ceruse protecție. Acest video de 3 minute folosește 30 de slide-uri pe fundal negru pentru a arăta eșecul statului și cum AUR/POT au blocat legi esențiale de protecție a victimelor violenței domestice. Dacă o ignorăm azi, mâine va fi o altă victimă. Distribuie, informează-te și susține un sistem care nu mai tolerează tăcerea. DISCLAIMER: Acest video folosește date publice și imagini create de la zero. Toate afirmațiile politice sunt bazate pe documente oficiale și stenograme de ședințe parlamentare. ❗ Orice abatere de la faptele prezentate și orice interpretare eronată a discursului deputaților pot fi verificate în stenogramele Camerei Deputaților (site oficial) și în rapoartele ONG-urilor specializate în protecția victimelor violenței domestice. 🙏 Îți mulțumim că-ți pasă și contribui la lupta pentru siguranța tuturor femeilor din România!  #cenefacemnoicutine #activismvizual #dreptate #egalitate

[socialmediareflections]

Online Harassment in Politics This article highlights how Telangana Minister Konda Surekha became a target of online trolling, with calls for the BRS leadership to apologize for the incident. It reflects ongoing discussions about the challenges faced by public figures in the digital age, the prevalence of online harassment, and the need for accountability on social media platforms. This issue connects directly to our class themes of online trolling and the broader implications for free speech and political discourse.

[earnmoney25]

Social Media ChatGPT Prompts Digital - Ebooks

A Spark of Inspiration: Social Media ChatGPT Prompts

I recently used the ebook "Social Media ChatGPT Prompts" and found it to be a treasure trove of creative ideas. Whether you're struggling with writer's block for your next Instagram caption or brainstorming content for a new YouTube video, this ebook offers a variety of prompts specifically tailored to different social media platforms.

Fueling Engagement

The prompts are well-organized and easy to follow, sparking fresh ideas that will resonate with your audience. They go beyond basic questions, often incorporating storytelling elements or current trends to help you craft truly engaging content.

A Time-Saving Tool

By providing a starting point, the ebook saves valuable time and mental energy. It's a fantastic resource for anyone looking to boost their social media presence and take their content creation to the next level. Click here

[phonemantra-blog]

The highly anticipated West End revival of "Romeo & Juliet," starring Tom Holland, has been overshadowed by a disturbing incident of online racial abuse directed towards a cast member. Director Jamie Lloyd has issued a strong statement condemning this behavior and pledging to protect his artists. A Dream Cast Targeted: Racial Abuse Casts a Shadow News of the "Romeo & Juliet" revival, featuring Tom Holland reprising his stage roots, generated excitement among theatre enthusiasts. The production, slated to open at London's Duke of York's Theatre in May 2024, features a diverse cast, including Francesca Amewudah-Rivers as Juliet. Unfortunately, the casting announcement was followed by a wave of online harassment, specifically targeting a Black cast member. Romeo & Juliet Revival Tainted by Racial Abuse Director Jamie Lloyd Takes a Stand: Zero Tolerance for Abuse Director Jamie Lloyd, known for his acclaimed productions, refused to let the online vitriol go unchecked. On behalf of his entire company, he released a powerful statement via the Duke of York's Theatre social media channels. The statement condemned the "deplorable racial abuse" directed towards a cast member, declaring: Lloyd's statement went beyond mere condemnation. He emphasized the company's commitment to protecting its artists. He affirmed their unwavering support for the entire cast and crew, stating that "any abuse will not be tolerated and will be reported." This strong stance sends a clear message: online harassment has no place in the theatre industry or society as a whole. A Culture of Respect and Inclusivity: Moving Forward With Purpose The online harassment incident highlights the ongoing struggle for inclusivity within the arts. Casting choices that challenge traditional expectations sometimes provoke negative reactions from certain audiences. However, Lloyd's response demonstrates a commitment to fostering a more diverse and welcoming environment. The statement also emphasizes the importance of artistic freedom. Theatrical productions offer a platform for artists to explore complex themes and challenge societal norms. Online harassment that seeks to silence diverse voices stifles creativity and artistic expression. By taking a firm stand against racial abuse, Lloyd ensures that the "Romeo & Juliet" production can proceed with a focus on artistic merit, not online negativity. The Show Must Go On: Creative Collaboration Takes Center Stage Lloyd's statement concludes on a hopeful note. He assures audiences that the company "will continue to rehearse with generosity and love, and focus on the creation of our production." This statement underscores the core purpose of theatre – to bring artists and audiences together through the power of storytelling. While the online hate speech tarnishes the pre-production experience, Lloyd's resolve ensures that the focus remains on creating a captivating theatrical experience. The "Romeo & Juliet" revival will undoubtedly spark conversation around diversity, representation, and online accountability. However, it's important to remember that at its heart, the production is a testament to artistic collaboration and the enduring power of Shakespeare's timeless drama.

[haanhhuynh]

Week 10: Understanding Gender Disparities in Online Harassment

The advent of the Internet and social media has vastly expanded the realm of free expression, challenging the traditional gatekeeping role of mainstream media  (Bruns 2005) and ostensibly democratizing the public sphere (Ash 2017). However, alongside this newfound freedom, concerns have emerged regarding the polarization of public discourse, the prevalence of aggressive communication styles, and the silencing effects of online harassment (Fladmoe & Nadim 2017)

Gender-based online harassment is increasingly recognized as disproportionately affecting women. However, current claims often lack empirical support, relying on anecdotal evidence or high-profile cases (Nadim & Fladmoe 2019). This post aims to elucidate whether women indeed experience more and different forms of online harassment compared to men. 

In the first part, we will discuss the definition of online harassment. “Online harassment refers to a broad spectrum of abusive behaviors enabled by technology platforms and used to target a specific user or users.” (Blackwell et al. 2017). This harassment often manifests through hyperbolic and sexualized language, including threats and fantasies of violence (Jane 2012; Jane 2014). Studies indicate a prevalence of online hate directed towards women, with women experiencing more sexualized harassment compared to men (Bartlett et al. 2014). While some research suggests that gender differences in online harassment are minimal, women tend to encounter more sexual harassment, while men face more name-calling and physical threats (Powell & Henry  2015). Despite discrepancies in findings regarding overall exposure levels, it's consistent that men and women experience different forms of online harassment (Nadim & Fladmoe 2019). 

It is considered that exposure to online harassment is influenced by factors beyond gender, such as political ideology and online behavior (Nadim & Fladmoe 2019). For example, individuals expressing non-mainstream political views or engaging in aggressive online discussions are more likely to experience harassment. According to Nadim and Fladmoe (2019) women may face harassment targeting their identity traits, whereas men may encounter more harassment related to their opinions. 

In conclusion, contrary to common perceptions, it reveals that women are not inherently more likely than men to face online harassment overall (Nadim & Fladmoe 2019). However, significant gender disparities emerge when considering the types of harassment encountered. Men tend to experience more harassment directed at their opinions or arguments, while women are disproportionately targeted based on their gender. 

Reference list

Ash, TG 2017, Free speech : ten principles for a connected world, Atlantic Books, London.

Bartlett, J, Norrie, R, Patel, S, Rumpel, R & Wibberley, S 2014, Misogyny on Twitter, apo.org.au.

Blackwell, L, Dimond, J, Schoenebeck, S & Lampe, C 2017, ‘Classification and Its Consequences for Online Harassment’, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1, no. CSCW, pp. 1–19.

Bruns, A 2005, Gatewatching : collaborative online news production, P. Lang, New York.

Fladmoe, A., & Nadim, M. (2017). Silenced by hate? Hate speech as a social boundary to free speech. In A. H. Midtbøen, K. Steen-Johnsen, & K. Thorbjørnsrud (Eds.), Boundary struggles: Contestations of free speech in the public sphere (pp. 45–75). Oslo, Norway: Cappelen.

Jane, EA 2012, ‘“Your a Ugly, Whorish, Slut”’, Feminist Media Studies, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 531–546.

Jane, EA 2014, ‘“Back to the kitchen, cunt”: speaking the unspeakable about online misogyny’, Continuum, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 558–570.

Nadim, M & Fladmoe, A 2019, ‘Silencing Women? Gender and Online Harassment’, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 39, no. 2, p. 089443931986551.

Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2015). Digital harassment and abuse of adult Australians: A summary report. Tech & Me Project, Melbourne: RMIT University and La Trobe University.

[imbrianmatthewmarkle]

Cyber Bullying in our Community, a repost by Brian Markle Ottawa.

Case 2: Internet stalking (variants - cyber bullying, criminal harassment). Go Fund Me created for criminal prosecution. Will determine: what constitutes cyber bullying (stalking) and also what is the mindset of the individual who would do this?  What constitutes as cyber bullying (stalking).

· Cyberbullying is when an individual becomes a target by others - using computers, cell phones or other devices - to embarrass, humiliate, torment, threaten or harass. It is often repeated and sustained over a period of time. · The range of cyberbullying tactics is wide and is constantly changing as new technology emerges and different social networking sites pop up. · Sending mean or threatening messages by email, text or through comments on a social networking page is an example of cyberbullying. · Another example is spreading rumours, gossip, or secrets about another person through social networking sites, emails or texts. · Posting online stories to humiliate or embarrass someone constitutes as cyber bullying. As well as hacking their email account. · Tricking someone to open up and share personal information and then sharing that information with others is another form of cyber bullying. · Several Criminal Code offences deal with cyber bullying. Depending on the exact nature of the behaviour, the following current offences could be charged:

o Criminal harassment o Uttering threats o Intimidation o Mischief in relation to data; o Unauthorized use of computer; o Identity fraud o Extortion o False messages, indecent or harassing telephone calls o Incitement of hatred; and, o Defamatory libel.

· If an image of you has been shared on the internet that you want removed, visit needhelpnow.ca for the steps that can be taken to get that picture/video off the internet. · Extortion in the Criminal Code: "Everyone commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence" The Psychology of Cyberbullying. · Power imbalance is a key trait in cyberbullying. The cyberbullies seem often very powerful in comparison to the victims. · People who cyberbully often have mental health problems of their own. This can include aggression, depression, impulsivity and substance abuse. They often struggle with narcissism or psychopathy. These individuals have a low level of empathy for others and may bully people to increase their own self-worth. · Sometimes when individuals are the victims of cyberbullying, they become cyberbullies. This can be because they are looking to gain some control back and may not be able to retaliate in person. Cyberbullying can also be the result of a broken friendship or relationship of some sort and it may be driven by revenge of jealously.

Dark personality traits and anger in cyber aggression perpetration: Is moral disengagement to blame?

From https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox

· Cyberbullying can be used to curb negative emotions, self-protection/privacy, as a form of retaliation, etc. · Victims of cyberbullying or cyber aggression may never feel safe from the perpetrators who can be aggressive at any time from any location and who can publicize their attacks. Cyberbullying: What are the Psychological Profiles of Bullies, Victims, and Bully Victims? · This study categorized the individuals into four groups; bullies, victims, bully-victims, and those not involved in cyberbullying. · Participants who were involved reported higher levels of internalizing problems than those who were not involved. The bully-victim group scored significantly higher on depression, anxiety and stress compared to the rest of the groups.

Are Online Haters Psychopaths? Psychological Predictors of Online Hating Behaviour

From https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00553/full

· Results showed that high scores on the psychopathy subscale were predicators of posting hating comments online. · Online hatred has been shown to inflate negative emotions. Despite how prevalent cyber aggression, little is known about the personal characteristics of people who routinely engage in such behaviour. · Trolls on the internet have a high score on the psychopathy scale. Cyber-bullies score high on the sadism scale. · Dark Triad -narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism (levels of experienced frustration, level of experienced envy and satisfaction with life). · A classic frustration-aggression hypothesis predicts that frustration may lead to aggressive behaviours. · High levels of impulsivity can lead to expressing negative behaviour or insulting someone online.