STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH ONLINE HARASSMENT

Karen Frost-ArnoldHobart & William Smith Colleges

Frost-Arnold@HWS.edu

Outline■A very brief intro to the problem of

online harassment (OH)■I briefly set aside some simplistic

reactions to this problem.■I discuss two different approaches for

dealing with OH– Moderation– Active bystanders

Some examples

(Sarkeesian 2015a)

Is this happening in philosophy?

■May be hidden from view■May not happen as much due to

moderation■Even if not rampant, can still have

dampening effects

Not very long before I was invited to become a blogger here, I had something I wrote under my own name published online (not here) that related to women’s rights. My contact information is available on my department’s website. Naturally, then, in response, I received several emails from people who had read it. Some of them were kind. Some of them were praising. Some of them respectfully expressed disagreement. Some of them just called me names. Some of them said they hoped I would be raped. Some of them said they hoped that I would die. Some of them I interpreted as threats. That wasn’t the first (or last) time I published something on the internet under my own name, and it wasn’t the first (or last) time I received those kinds of emails in response. It was, however, what I thought about when I decided what name I wanted to blog under here. (philodaria, Feminist Philosophers blog 2014)

Recently, there have been several unmoderated blogs … which have as purported aim to comment on other philosophy blogs …[R]ecently, several of the commenters have taken to making personal attacks on some other philosophers. Whereas some of the attacks are directed at men, the attacks directed at women are of a more personal nature, including speculations about their private relationships, revelations about non-public parts of their earlier life…I have not yet been attacked on these blogs. I’ve found myself wondering lately though, whenever I write something on social media or on blogs whether these writers on the meta-metablog or whatever the latest iteration is won’t find this a good occasion to attack me. This is an effective way to silence vocal female members of the profession (“Fear of internet attacks” What is it like to be a woman in philosophy? blog 2014).

Beyond Simplistic AnswersWe need to avoid:

– Ignoring or hating the whole internet■Philosophical cyberspace has some

benefits■The online and offline communities

influence each other■Online attacks harm real world

reputations & can deter people from the profession

Beyond Simplistic AnswersWe need to avoid:

– Simply banning anonymity■Anonymity can be an important shield for

vulnerable people (Frost-Arnold 2014; McKinnon 2015)

Moderation: Not just for blog owners■Philosophy in cyberspace happens in

semi-public spaces like Facebook

■Some spaces (e.g., Daily Nous) use forms of community moderation

Why moderation?■If our goals are at least partly

epistemic, then there is a strong veritistic argument for a diverse online community (Frost-Arnold 2014).

■Veritists take true belief as the fundamental epistemic good.

■Veritistic social epistemology evaluates social practices and institutions according to how well they promote true beliefs in the community (Goldman 1999).

Veritistic argument for moderation1. A diverse online community enriches discussion by

detecting errors and contributing truths that would not available from a more homogenous epistemic community.

2. OH undermines the diversity of online communities by discouraging victims (and potential victims) from participating.

3. Victims of online harassment are disproportionately women and people of color (Jeong 2015). • 60-70% of cyberstalking victims are

women

• 72.5% of cyber harassment victims between 2000-2011 were women (Jeong 2015, 39-40)

Veritistic argument for moderation1. A diverse online community enriches discussion by

detecting errors and contributing truths that would not available from a more homogenous epistemic community.

2. OH undermines the diversity of online communities by discouraging victims (and potential victims) from participating.

3. Victims of online harassment are disproportionately women and people of color (Jeong 2015).

4. So, OH decreases the diversity of online speech, which is veritistically damaging.

5. Moderation prevents some OH. 6. Therefore, moderation has some veritistic value.

Moderation techniques

■Fostering sense of community■Outlining community norms■Initiating new participants■Highlighting good behavior■Hiding bad behavior (e.g., deleting

harassing posts or banning inveterate trolls)– See Grimmelmann 2015 for toolkit

Enforcing norms without formal notions of fairness■Context matters■Overly formal notion of equal

treatment can, in fact, cause unequal treatment (Jaggar 1983, Young 1990, Nussbaum 1999)

■Mary Carr case (Nussbaum 1999, 68)

Enforcing norms without formal notions of fairness■Judge Posner “held that the

asymmetry of power—including its social meaning in historical terms—was a crucial part of the facts of the case. Their use of language was harassing and intimidating in a way hers could not be.” (Nussbaum 1999, 68)

Enforcing norms without formal notions of fairness■Asymmetries of power in our profession

carry over to our online discussions.■Moderators need to take these factors

into consideration and not rely on abstract rules that are applied to all commenters alike.

Implicit bias in moderation■Moderators are socially situated—implicit

biases can shape their perception of users’ behavior.

■We all can work to:– Recognize online unearned advantage– Work to uncover implicit biases and try

to avoid letting them shape our moderation.

Breaking through to trolls■Trolls try to inoculate themselves

against compassion to prevent guilt for harm caused to their victims (Phillips 2015).

■One technique for breaking through:– Personally contacting trolls

(Citron 2015)

[W]hen online comments got “very ugly,” she would try to calm things down by e-mailing posters who provided their e-mail addresses during registration. She would tell them, “Even though you are not writing under your real name, people can hear you.” Posters wrote back immediately and were contrite, almost as if they had forgotten who they were. Bee explained, “They would send messages back saying, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry,’ not even using the excuse of having a bad day or anything like that.” (Citron 2014, 60)

Active bystanders

■Actively engaged in supporting marginalized people (cf. McKinnon in Cherry & McKinnon 2015).

■During harassment:– Offering support– Offering help

■Taking on some workload■Help document or report harassment

Resources

■Feminist guides to protecting yourself & surviving online harassment (include ideas for bystanders).

■https://onlinesafety.feministfrequency.com/en/■https://tech.safehubcollective.org/cybersecurity

/#_=_■http://

www.ashedryden.com/blog/you-asked-how-do-i-deal-with-online-harassment-how-do-i-help-the-targets-of-online-harassment

Active bystanders

■Long-term strategy: preventing damage to victim’s reputation– Google bombing (Citron 2014, 70-1)– Linking to victim’s professional page– Invitations to give talk & posting

announcement of talk

References■ Cherry, M. & McKinnon, R. (2015) “Rachel McKinnon on Allies and Active

Bystanders” The UnMute Podcast. http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/unmute/the-unmute-podcast/e/episode-006-rachel-mckinnon-on-allies-active-bystanders-39718064

■ Citron, D. (2014). Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ “Fear of internet attacks” (2014) What is it like to be a woman in philosophy? http://beingawomaninphilosophy.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/fear-of-internet-attacks/

■ Frost-Arnold, K. (2014a) “Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability,” Episteme 11 (1): 63-81.

■ Goldman, A. (1999) Knowledge in a Social World, New York: Oxford University Press.

■ Grimmelmann, J. (2015). “The Virtues of Moderation.” Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 17(1): Article 2.

■ Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

■ Jeong, S. (2015) The Internet of Garbage. Forbes.

■ McKinnon, R. (2015) “Yikkity Yak, Who Said That?” FEAST conference.■ Nussbaum, M. (1999). Sex & Social Justice. NY: Oxford University

Press.■ Phillips, W. (2015). This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Mapping

the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Philodaria (2014) “Pseudonyms” Feminist Philosophers. https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/12/25/pseudonyms/

■ Sarkeesian, A. (2015a) “One Week of Harassment on Twitter” Feminist Frequency. http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/109319269825/one-week-of-harassment-on-twitter – (2015b) “Anita Sarkeesian’s Guide to Internetting while Female”

Marie Claire. http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a13403/online-harassment-terms-fight-back/

■ Young, I. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.