Troll wack-a-mole is a losing game

With the latest discussion about the need for a “report abuse” button on twitter, the discussion about how to combat online bullying and abuse rumbles on.

A month or so ago these discussions were largely focused around misogynistic content on facebook.  Emer O'Toole described this kind of content as “an opportunity for feminists”. I would tend to regard it more as an unfortunate distraction.  

While I admire the noble attempts to get every last piece of violently misogynistic/pro-rape content off of facebook & twitter, I cant help feeling that it's a futile exercise which can only do further damage by drawing extra attention to this content. Personally, I had not encountered any of the groups mentioned in the above article & others similar to it, until their well-intentioned authors brought them to my attention. Of course, I imagined they were probably out there, but the internet is full of deeply disturbing content, and we cannot expect to police this in the same way as the images and messages we are exposed to in say, the public space in the form of advertising, or the mainstream media. 

The point is that the facebook or twitter censorship battle cannot be won. Anymore than the battle of the likes or comments can be won on youtube. At least, not without radically changing the nature of all these platforms.

There is no engaging with people determined to provoke. They are by nature irrational and uncooperative. Similar content is bound to reappear instantly. By either condemning them & demanding they be silenced, or by simply pointing others in their general direction, we are giving this online scourge the oxygen that it needs & seeks out in order to thrive and justify its own existence. We ought instead to make them feel as if they are in an echo chamber. And those who make direct, personal threats should be shamed and stigmatized, as was so effectively done to this lowlife, resulting in a most unedifying, and yet somehow not remotely satisfying, crawl-back.  

As for the ladies, I think our time would be better spent producing and focusing on our own content. 

The trolls* may be relentless, but if we multiply the counter-voices we can more than hold our own. I suppose this is what I'm trying to do right now. And this is exactly what Laura Bates, the creator of the everday sexism project, has done. The format is elegant and simple - not leaving any space for comments, arguments or trolls, simply giving a voice to girls (and sometimes men) to express something which in wider society is often invisible or taboo.

But Bates's ground-breaking exercise has also exposed her to a massive outpouring of misogyny - not only in the form of anecdotes, but also web content. I read recently that she had to undergo therapy after seeing close-up footage of a woman being beheaded with a knife. Exposing ourselves to this is both damaging (even though we may feel the damage has already been done) and pointless.

There is something slightly perverse about trawling social media for content that makes one's blood boil, purely to demand its removal. Not to claim of course, that I've never done so myself.

There are two options - troll them, the way male idiots so often troll feminist blogs and articles, or ignore it in favour of other content.

Of course it happens to stumble across this kind of content when one is not looking for it, but I think this is primarily an issue of concern when it comes to children. If I was a parent, even if facebook were to make solid assurances to remove all objectionable content, I'd still regard it as madness to allow my children to surf the internet without any restrictions in place. Young minds (especially female) can be deeply affected by this kind of thing, but perhaps the eventual encounter is inevitable. Loss of innocence is unfortantely, a sad reality hard to avoid forever. But for those of us who wish to continue to protect our own as far as possible, the answer is to just dismiss is as gratuitous provocation, and click away.

I am not saying that these groups are not extremely problematic and potentially harmful, but their reach is not comparable to the more normalized and insidious sexist discourses - such as those vehiculed by politicians, religious figures, or media and advertisers who objectify women all day every day, in public spaces that none of us can avoid. The more "real-world" feminist campaigns - like the banknote and anti-page 3 campaigns in the UK, or the pro-choice movement in Ireland, take on forms of sexism that are widely accepted and deeply entrenched in our societies. If we accept that there is a finite supply of resources and energy within the feminist movement, I'd far sooner see it put towards these efforts - that is, where a tangible goal can be fought for & eventually acheived. With online content that goal is always going to be elusive.

Many of those who engage in crude humour and make rape jokes know better in real life and would never dream of allowing this crude "humour" to manifest itself in their actual interactions, as with so much internet troll-itude. And we should not kid ourselves, the ones who film themselves beheading their girlfriends, even the most stringent facebook moderation can do nothing for.

Tanya Gold has it exactly right when she says, “I deplore rape jokes but I would not think of banning them. I would rather the comics who make them played to empty theatres – and eventually, the solitary mirror. Can our consciences not be our policemen? I have been a journalist for 15 years. I have learned to ignore – even welcome – the hatred. It comes from men who will never be on banknotes, and who publish anonymously..”

Rape threats, and other forms of online misogyny, are a pathetic and cowardly means of trying to assert power by those who evidently do not really have any. We should take this as a sign that things are moving in the right direction.

* I'm aware that points have been raised recently expressing that a distinction exists between a troll (someone who is deliberately and insincerely inflammatory, or who just strings someone else along in a debate for the sake of it) and someone sending violent threats directly to another person. I agree, but for lack of a better word, and because the misrepresentation of trolls is not high on my list of concerns, I'm lumping them together for now. 

Let's hear it for the boys.

I woke up on saturday to find my social media feeds awash with feminism. This is always heartening. But it was especially heartening this time in that there seemed to be so many men on the case. Essentially, the recent discussions have centered around the absolutely shocking abuse and relentless rape threats targeting Caroline Criado-Perez, who is also part of the everyday sexism project - a tumblr that is so depressing and so close to the bone that I'm barely able to read it, at least not without vowing to myself that I will never, ever bring a daughter into this world.

Each in their own way, Sunny Hundal, Owen Jones & Charlie Brooker have been giving boys (and girls) across the UK & beyond a masterclass in real-world feminism lately.

Hundal has been excellent in highlighting the problem of misogynistic abuse on social media & the internet in general on his blog and has been very vocal in campaigning for better safeguards on social media to report abuse.

Jones has too, and I was particularly impressed with this tweet of his from Sunday.

Turned down media requests about the twitter abuse situation because the debate really needs to be dominated by women. Come on producers!
— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) July 28, 2013

Feminism is, on the whole, not so popular with men. Nor is it with women for that matter, many of whom describe it as "extreme". But a uniquely aggressive brand of hostility (even among men I would regard as very politically progressive) is reserved for the suggestion that if men want to do women a favour they could stand to pipe down occasionally. This is often regarded as akin to censorship for men, and as patronizing to women.

But when you see panels on television and conferences everywhere that are entirely dominated by men, when you see the same male pundits over and over again, when you sit back in a room and observe how much the men are speaking versus the women (even when women are the majority) you start to think maybe things need a little nudge in the right direction. In the case of public appearances, perhaps it simply did not occur to the producers/organizers to ask a woman who may have equal (or superior) expertise and experience on an issue (especially if that issue concerns women directly!) and simply chose someone with a higher profile out of sheer lack of imagination.

In the case of sitting in a room and realising that women outnumber men 2 to 1 but are only speaking for 20% of the time, yes - here the ladies do need to take a measure of responsibility. It may well be (in fact it is) that we've been socialized into speaking more concisely than men and are more reluctant to come forward on the whole, especially if we doubt our knowledge on an issue, but we need to somehow override this default setting if the balance is ever to be rectified. It cannot just be a few confident and outspoken ladies doing all the legwork to fix the ratios. We all need to speak up, no matter how hard it might be.

But the men sitting in the same room also have a role to play. I've witnessed firsthand the rather disturbing outrage that the suggestion that men should sometimes hold back and listen a bit more is generally met with. But Jones shows us how it's done. Giving up a platform isn't some kind of dishonourable show of cowardice or self-censorship. If you really want to change things, sometimes it's necessary. In the case of suggesting a female colleague to speak in one's place on an issue because she would simply be a better choice - it's also just a fair and sensible thing to do.

Then there is Brooker, whose recent Guardian column not only draws attention to the plight of female writers, but also expresses why he himself does not wish to continue to occupy a platform when he feels he does not have something particularly valuable to contribute. This is not necessarily just about women of course. It's a sentiment which is admirable for a range of reasons. Realizing that you have enough profile, and taking a step back - is just a very decent and humble thing to do, whether or not that space is likely to be taken up by someone from any group less well represented than heterosexual white men.

This is what it means to check your (in this case male) privilege. But it's also just about showing empathy towards other human beings.

So - let's give the boys a hand.