Support NeoGAF

[Miles Quaritch]

Twitter is facing a barrage of criticism after a journalist and feminist blogger who campaigned for Jane Austen to become the new face of the £10 note was subjected to a series of rape threats.

Caroline Criado-Perez, a freelance journalist who co-founded thewomensroom.org.uk and the Week Woman blog, and fellow campaigners were delighted last week when the Bank of England confirmed that the Pride and Prejudice author would replace Charles Darwin on the notes, probably in 2017.

But Criado-Perez quickly found herself subjected to a sustained campaign of abuse on Twitter, of the type that MPs say should become a criminal matter.

Writing in the Observer, Labour MP Stella Creasy condemned the threats and called for action from both Twitter and its users to push back against online aggression towards women.

"This is about more than making Twitter somewhere fun for everyone to enjoy," she said. "If we want a world where everyone can live hassle-free, then everyday expressions of inequalities need to be confronted – not least as they help ease the big inequalities."

Fellow Labour MP Steve Rotheram tweeted that "hopefully those responsible will be receiving a knock on the door from their local constabulary".

By Saturday afternoon more than 9,000 people had signed an online petitioncalling on Twitter to add an abuse button for those threatened with sexual violence and to make the site responsible for any criminal threats posted on it.

The petition claims: "During a 12-hour period, Caroline Criado-Perez was targeted repeatedly with rape threats. Caroline attempted to stir a response from Twitter's Mark S Luckie. His response was to lock down his account."

Many who have signed the petition have questioned why the online community appears to be subject to different laws from the real one. "This is criminal behaviour in the real world; why should people get away with it on Twitter?" one supporter wrote.

Another added: "Rape threats are a criminal offence in real life. They should not be allowed in cyberspace."

A number of high-profile names have lent their support. The writer Caitlin Moran tweeted: "For those who say, 'why complain – just block?' – on a big troll day, it can be 50 violent/rape messages an hour. Exhausting and upsetting."

The comedian Dara Ó Briain warned that Twitter faced an exodus of users if such messages continued to be disseminated. He tweeted: "If the ladies leave twitter because of all the dumb, rapey 14-year-old boys, then I'm outta here people. Like most grownup men too, I'd say."

Criado-Perez said she had been overwhelmed by support: "Lots of people are saying how inspired they feel by my stance on this."

She said it was important to confront those who used rape threats. "We need to get rid of the idea that you don't feed the trolls. Someone issuing rape threats wants women to shut up and get off Twitter ... We can't let them win."

Significantly, it appears that Criado-Perez was the victim of a sustained and co-ordinated attack. Initially, she was the subject of several offensive tweets, but these died away after about a day. She was then subjected to hundreds of tweets, which suggests that she was targeted by a group of Twitter users.

Criado-Perez believes the affair has highlighted Twitter's inability to respond to such attacks. "If you get an abusive message, you can fill in an online form and make a complaint," she said. "But if you're subject to hundreds of tweets it's not practical … Twitter does not understand the nature of abuse online."

Twitter UK general manager Tony Wang said the company takes online abuse seriously. He tweeted: "We encourage users to report an account for violation of the Twitter rules by using one of our report form. Also, we're testing ways to simplify reporting, eg within a tweet by using the "Report Tweet" button in our iPhone app and on mobile web. We will suspend accounts that, once reported to us, are found to be in breach of our rules."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/27/twitter-trolls-threats-bank-notes-austen

So this is pretty disturbing.


UPDATE.

21 YEAR OLD MAN ARRESTED.

A 21-year-old man has been arrested by police investigating a sustained barrage of threats and abuse directed against a feminist campaigner on Twitter after she successfully campaigned for a woman's picture to be put on a new banknote.

Caroline Criado-Perez has faced a deluge of hostile tweets, including threats to rape and kill her, prompting the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, to write to Twitter to criticise its "inadequate" response to the "disgraceful, appalling and unacceptable" comments.

The Metropolitan police said officers acting on their behalf in Manchester had arrested a man on suspicion of harassment offences. The Met said the arrest was in connection with an allegation of malicious communications received by officers in Camden last Thursday.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/28/man-arrested-rape-threats-twitter

 

[geomon]

Ah yes, Twitter. Bringing the worst part of the internet right to your desktop.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I don't like what they're doing with freedom of expression in this regard.
Sounds like it'll be used by the government to implement various "protective" measures that will end up being nothing more than glorified censoring when it comes to online.

By all means, find those that have made rape threats, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, but I don't want to see new laws against "Online bullying" or the like.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Twitter has pretty much brought the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory to people with no internet experience who are forced to use it for work.

 

[Mesoian]

By all means, find those that have made rape threats, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, but I don't want to see new laws against "Online bullying" or the like.

How can you do one without the other?

 

[Carcetti]

They apparently arrested the guy, some 21 year old troll.

 

[commedieu]

I don't like what they're doing with freedom of expression in this regard.
Sounds like it'll be used by the government to implement various "protective" measures that will end up being nothing more than glorified censoring when it comes to online.

By all means, find those that have made rape threats, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, but I don't want to see new laws against "Online bullying" or the like.

what reasons do you have to believe the government would abuse censorship...

wait. nm.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

How can you do one without the other?

Have the police find out the real life locations and names of those who have made rape threats, and prosecute them under existing threat laws.

 

[daviyoung]

They apparently arrested the guy, some 21 year old troll.

Link?

 

[Acorn]

Twitter has pretty much brought the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory to people with no internet experience who are forced to use it for work.

That theory is rubbish. People are ass holes with their own names on Facebook and Twitter all the time.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

They apparently arrested the guy, some 21 year old troll.

Good catch, I didn't notice the follow up story.

A 21-year-old man has been arrested by police investigating a sustained barrage of threats and abuse directed against a feminist campaigner on Twitter after she successfully campaigned for a woman's picture to be put on a new banknote.

Caroline Criado-Perez has faced a deluge of hostile tweets, including threats to rape and kill her, prompting the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, to write to Twitter to criticise its "inadequate" response to the "disgraceful, appalling and unacceptable" comments.

The Metropolitan police said officers acting on their behalf in Manchester had arrested a man on suspicion of harassment offences. The Met said the arrest was in connection with an allegation of malicious communications received by officers in Camden last Thursday.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/28/man-arrested-rape-threats-twitter

 

[commedieu]

That theory is rubbish. People are ass holes with their own names on Facebook and Twitter all the time.

yep.

we need to apply existing laws of threats to the internet. I too fear the abuse of any new legislation directed at being an ass hat.

violent threats should be cracked down on

 

[Angry Grimace]

That theory is rubbish. People are ass holes with their own names on Facebook and Twitter all the time.

Yeah, and some people are assholes in person. That doesn't prove that humanity is inherently an asshole species.

 

[Mesoian]

Have the police find out the real life locations and names of those who have made rape threats, and prosecute them under existing threat laws.

Isn't that pretty much impossible right now without cooperation between the police and ISP's, which, at least in america, is supposed to be illegal(or at the very least protected)? How do you, for example, stop a person issuing out credible rape threats on 4chan without direct intervention with the ISP and 4chan itself? I don't think, in america or the UK, there's a single law on the books that allows police to do that in a straightforward manner.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Isn't that pretty much impossible right now without cooperation between the police and ISP's, which, at least in america, is supposed to be illegal? How do you, for example, stop a person issuing out credible rape threats on 4chan without direct intervention with the ISP? I don't think, in america or the UK, there's a single law on the books that allows police to do that in a straightforward manner.

If its an illegal threat and its just sitting there on the internet, you just go to a judge and get a warrant for the information leading to the person, I assume.

 

[Mesoian]

If its an illegal threat and its just sitting there on the internet, you just go to a judge and get a warrant for the information leading to the person, I assume.

Which works for something like Facebook or Twitter, where people are using variants of their real names, if not their real name. What happens if this starts coming from a place that prides itself on anonymity? What happens if the servers aren't within your jurisdiction? What happens if the threats are international?

Current Laws can't effectively curb online threats.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Isn't that pretty much impossible right now without cooperation between the police and ISP's, which, at least in america, is supposed to be illegal(or at the very least protected)? How do you, for example, stop a person issuing out credible rape threats on 4chan without direct intervention with the ISP and 4chan itself? I don't think, in america or the UK, there's a single law on the books that allows police to do that in a straightforward manner.

The weak link in that case would be 4chan, who may or may not feel like they have any legal obligation to hand over details, but in a case like this involving Twitter, it'll be a simple case of obtaining a warrant from the courts. Twitter aren't going to fight it for the sake of some misogynistic toerag.

Which works for something like Facebook or Twitter, where people are using variants of their real names, if not their real name. What happens if this starts coming from a place that prides itself on anonymity? What happens if the servers aren't within your jurisdiction? What happens if the threats are international?

Current Laws can't effectively curb online threats.

Er, so what do you suggest? You point out yourself that the problem is with servers that are based outside of the UK. By definition, that's outside of the scope of any law that could be enacted in the UK.

 

[Mesoian]

The weak link in that case would be 4chan, who may or may not feel like they have any legal obligation to hand over details, but in a case like this involving Twitter, it'll be a simple case of obtaining a warrant from the courts. Twitter aren't going to fight it for the sake of some misogynistic toerag.

While true, they aren't doing much to curb it either.

 

[Acorn]

Yeah, and some people are assholes in person. That doesn't prove that humanity is inherently an asshole species.

I never said it did? The theory asserts that anonymous usernames mean people are assholes online, Facebook and Twitter has disproved that theory. Assholes will be assholes regardless of whether they have anonymity or not.

 

[Blair]

Trolling should be about upsetting grammar nazis and spamming ventrilo servers with duke nukem soundboards, not rape threats on twitter.

 

[Mesoian]

Er, so what do you suggest? You point out yourself that the problem is with servers that are based outside of the UK. By definition, that's outside of the scope of any law that could be enacted in the UK.

I don't have any great suggestions, i'm merely pointing out that existing laws are woefully inadequate to curb any form of real online harassment. It will always be there without the advent of a larger structure surveying the happenings of the internet, and that means there will be a lot less freedoms and anonymity on the internet as a whole. It was twitter today, and Twitter has a history of cooperating with the police, but what happens when it's 700 emails sent through a turkish proxy? What happens when it's a hacked facebook account originating from France?

Significant change is necessary for stuff like this to stop happening, and the grand majority of people who use the internet do not want that change to happen. ::Shrugs::

Glad they caught this guy though. Wonder what possible charges he'll actually get.

Trolling should be about upsetting grammar nazis and spamming ventrilo servers with duke nukem soundboards, not rape threats on twitter.

Blame the mass media for destroying any real definition of "trolling". "THAT WORD ON THE INTERNET, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT MEANS BUT LET'S START USING IT FOR PEOPLE THAT ANNOY US!"

If someone breaks your window while trying to rob your house and you catch them, and you say you're "just trollin'", you're still going to jail.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Which works for something like Facebook or Twitter, where people are using variants of their real names, if not their real name. What happens if this starts coming from a place that prides itself on anonymity? What happens if the servers aren't within your jurisdiction? What happens if the threats are international?

Current Laws can't effectively curb online threats.

Then they leave them be, because the alternative would kill the free nature of the internet.
IP is already good enough to track most of these morons, and someone clever enough to obfuscate their identity with current tech will probably continue to circumvent the future censored internet defensive measures.

So the dumb trolls get caught anyway, the clever ones won't get caught in an orwellian internet nightmare, and we the regular joe's will all suffer.

 

[Boerseun]

I'd support Jane Austen on the banknote too if I was from the U.K. After all, Darwin's work is no less fictive than hers but she's definitely the better writer. Good literature should always win out over bad.

 

[Forever]

Darwin's work is no less fictive than hers

Natural selection is fiction?

 

[i hate bees]

On balance, I'd prefer to receive rape threats on the internet rather than set a precedent for arresting people for saying things online.

The guy's obviously a massive idiot, but was there any ACTUAL threat here? no.

He should have had his account suspended and probably deleted.

 

[Mesoian]

So the dumb trolls get caught anyway, the clever ones won't get caught in an orwellian internet nightmare, and we the regular joe's will all suffer.

And it becomes newsroom fodder, and we find ourselves having this same conversation again. The world turns, the system works.

On balance, I'd prefer to receive rape threats on the internet rather than set a precedent for arresting people for saying things online.

The guy's obviously a massive idiot, but was there any ACTUAL threat here? no.

He should have had his account suspended and probably deleted.

Honestly, if you get snatched for something like this, actual internet bans should be in order. Sure, he would never have done anything, but you can't be that stupid on the internet, so no more internet for 18 months. That's fair right? A digital restraining order from the rest of the world on you?

 

[Bony Manifesto]

I don't have any great suggestions, i'm merely pointing out that existing laws are woefully inadequate to curb any form of real online harassment. It will always be there without the advent of a larger structure surveying the happenings of the internet, and that means there will be a lot less freedoms and anonymity on the internet as a whole. It was twitter today, and Twitter has a history of cooperating with the police, but what happens when it's 700 emails sent through a turkish proxy? What happens when it's a hacked facebook account originating from France?

Significant change is necessary for stuff like this to stop happening, and the grand majority of people who use the internet do not want that change to happen. ::Shrugs::

I think it's important not to lose perspective over this. Yes it's terrible that this woman received threats over the internet, but what you're proposing would have further-reaching consequences than I think you understand (not to mention the logistical impossibility of it).

 

[SquiddyCracker]

And it becomes newsroom fodder, and we find ourselves having this same conversation again. The world turns, the system works.



Honestly, if you get snatched for something like this, actual internet bans should be in order. Sure, he would never have done anything, but you can't be that stupid on the internet, so no more internet for 18 months. That's fair right? A digital restraining order from the rest of the world on you?

You can't "restrict" people's access to the internet in a world where more and more activities require the internet.

Such a system could easily be abused as well, if for an example the copyright holder decides that's how pirates should be punished.

 

[i hate bees]

Honestly, if you get snatched for something like this, actual internet bans should be in order. Sure, he would never have done anything, but you can't be that stupid on the internet, so no more internet for 18 months. That's fair right? A digital restraining order from the rest of the world on you?

That's not enforceable, there's too many sources through which people can connect. Sure you could prosecute them if you caught them, but realistically it'd be a waste of the courts time.

In my opinion that's what it comes down to - there was no criminal intent here, it was just a stupid person saying stupid things. I'm all up for more active moderation tools to allow people to weed out stupidity, but I don't think it should fall to law enforcement.

 

[T'Zariah]

If Facebook and Twitter have taught us anything, is that the Internet Fuckwad Theory in general, is false.

A fuckwad is gonna be a fuckwad regardless if he's anonymous or not.

 

[MJLord]

On balance, I'd prefer to receive rape threats on the internet rather than set a precedent for arresting people for saying things online.

The guy's obviously a massive idiot, but was there any ACTUAL threat here? no.

He should have had his account suspended and probably deleted.

But this is the problem. You can't just shrug and say never mind they weren't going to do it anyway. If I went into a public place and started harrassing random people in the street telling them I was going to rape them, You'd be damn sure something would happen even though there might not be any actual threat.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I never said it did? The theory asserts that anonymous usernames mean people are assholes online, Facebook and Twitter has disproved that theory. Assholes will be assholes regardless of whether they have anonymity or not.

You're not understanding the analogy, nor apparently the GIFT itself. GIFT holds that anonymity causes people to say things they wouldn't say without the protection of anonymity.

You're saying, "some people are assholes even with their real names exposed. This disproves that anonymity increases sociopathic behavior" when in reality, it doesn't. The existence of people who are assholes at all times has nothing to do with whether the incidence of assholish behavior is greater in an anonymous setting.

 

[Mesoian]

I think it's important not to lose perspective over this. Yes it's terrible that this woman received threats over the internet, but what you're proposing would have further-reaching consequences than I think you understand (not to mention the logistical impossibility of it).

Yes, and that's my point. People are clamouring for something to be done, but those same people don't want the changes necessary for something to be done on a meaningful level. So in the meantime, we just keep doing the same thing, pretend that assholes on the internet is news, and say "isn't it deplorable, something should be done, as long as we get to keep our freedoms".

 

[Angry Grimace]

If Facebook and Twitter have taught us anything, is that the Internet Fuckwad Theory in general, is false.

A fuckwad is gonna be a fuckwad regardless if he's anonymous or not.

No, not really.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15257832

 

[Acorn]

You're not understanding the analogy, nor apparently the GIFT itself. GIFT holds that anonymity causes people to say things they wouldn't say without the protection of anonymity.

You're saying, "some people are assholes even with their real names exposed. This disproves that anonymity increases sociopathic behavior" when in reality, it doesn't. The existence of people who are assholes at all times has nothing to do with whether the incidence of assholish behavior is greater in an anonymous setting.

It doesn't prove the theory either, I understand the theory(it isn't very difficult) its just bullshit. It isn't even 'some' people there is a tidal wave of arseholes online with their own name, the theory is simplified to a childs level with no understanding of the reality that disproves it.

Hell even here where there is possible jail terms it happens, yet people still cling to the theory that anonymity or no punishments means people suddenly turn into arseholes. It's a nice comic to post that's it.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Yes, and that's my point. People are clamouring for something to be done, but those same people don't want the changes necessary for something to be done on a meaningful level. So in the meantime, we just keep doing the same thing, pretend that assholes on the internet is news, and say "isn't it deplorable, something should be done, as long as we get to keep our freedoms".

I don't think that's the situation at all. Even in the original article, the victim of this harassment is only asking for Twitter to implement a more robust reporting system. There's probably some technologically-illiterate fools calling for some sort of unworkable scheme to clean up the internet, but they don't understand what they're asking for, and should really be ignored.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Which works for something like Facebook or Twitter, where people are using variants of their real names, if not their real name. What happens if this starts coming from a place that prides itself on anonymity? What happens if the servers aren't within your jurisdiction? What happens if the threats are international?

Current Laws can't effectively curb online threats.

Not to be glib, but international threats of physical violence aren't really a top concern for me. Plus different nations have different laws, I don't want photos of gay pride parade marchers being used for international extradition treaties to Russia. I don't want to be hauled off to Morocco for saying their king sucks.

 

[Pau]

Yeah this seems more like a case of harassment than a threat that can be carried out. Not sure what the "offline" laws for that are like though.

 

[Angry Grimace]

It doesn't prove the theory either, I understand the theory(it isn't very difficult) its just bullshit. It isn't even 'some' people there is a tidal wave of arseholes online with their own name, the theory is simplified to a childs level with no understanding of the reality that disproves it.

Hell even here where there is possible jail terms it happens, yet people still cling to the theory that anonymity or no punishments means people suddenly turn into arseholes. It's a nice comic to post that's it.

Except anonymous disinhibition is a well known psychological effect, not something invented in a comic strip. Its just a comical way of presenting it.

See, for example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15257832. Moreover, there have been studies and articles written on the effect of anonymity on behavior for years before the internet even existed, e.g. CG radio behavior. Its not even really a debatable proposition.

You're just trying to disprove it with anecdotal evidence, e.g. "I saw an asshole named John Palmer yesterday, therefore anonymity has no impact on online social behaviors."

 

[Acorn]

It's an actual psychological thing:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15257832. Moreover, there have been studies and articles written on the effect of anonymity on behavior for years before the internet even existed, e.g. CG radio behavior. Its not even really a debatable proposition.

You're just trying to disprove it with anecdotal evidence, e.g. "I saw an asshole named John Palmer yesterday, therefore anonymity has no impact on online social behaviors."

Reality does not reflect it, the anecdotes are held by every single person that has ever used the Internet.

"Some people are assholes behind usernames therefore anonymity clearly turns people into assholes"

 

[Angry Grimace]

Reality does not reflect it, the anecdotes are held by every single person that has ever used the Internet.

"Some people are assholes behind usernames therefore anonymity clearly turns people into assholes"

No, I'm saying anonymity breeds contempt because several psych studies support this conclusion.

As far as I can tell, you're attempting to say your anecdote is better than the studies showing disinhibition through anonymity is a legitimate effect by saying that "every single person that has ever used the internet" knows that your anecdote is true.

 

[i hate bees]

But this is the problem. You can't just shrug and say never mind they weren't going to do it anyway. If I went into a public place and started harrassing random people in the street telling them I was going to rape them, You'd be damn sure something would happen even though there might not be any actual threat.

Those are not equivalent, which would you feel more intimidated by - someone PMing you out of the blue and saying "I'm going to hit you to death", or someone walking up to you in the street and saying "I'm going to hit you to death".

Obviously it's the face to face encounter, of course in that scenario there's a lot of other things to take in to consideration, their body language, expression, inflection in their voice, etc - however the fact of the matter is that they are in physical proximity to you so obviously the threat is significantly greater.

These kind of online threats are toothless, and a gigantic waste of the court/polices time - if Twitter wants to moderate, great - if not, if not - so be it.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Some news from earlier, Police have arrested a 25YO man in relation to the rape abuse. More as it happens.

 

[Portugeezer]

Twitter never fails to disappoint.

 

[Acorn]

No, I'm saying anonymity breeds contempt because several psych studies support this conclusion.

As far as I can tell, you're attempting to say your anecdote is better than the studies showing disinhibition through anonymity is a legitimate effect by saying that "every single person that has ever used the internet" knows that your anecdote is true.

You were arguing this

bullshit was true, when it has been disproved. Why are assholes present whether behind a real name or not?

You specifically cited that comic.

 

[spunodi]

With regards The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (TGIFT) and the Online Disinhibition Effect already mentioned in this thread I don't believe that TGIFT is completely disproven in cases such as these. You have an element of online disinhibition granted by the lack of available social cues. People are generally more likely to receive exaggerated treatment if there is not an immediate physical reaction (disappointment, violence, shouting, facial expressions) because there's an element of dissociation. In person you are more readily able to connect to someone as you have the full range of senses enabling that to happen.

What am I getting at? On Twitter, you may have your real name, there may be some real details on your Bio. There may be a photo of you. But you are only choosing to convey a particular image to the outer world (dissociative imagination) that cannot necessarily be said to be an accurate representation of your offline self (dissociative anonymity). As such, there is a level of distance you can maintain with your actions that arguably make people more abusive than if they were face to face, though not in all cases; exceptions exist everywhere where people are just as reprehensible in offline interactions.

So an element of truth remains in Gabriel's TGIFT as supported in more analytical depth by Suler's Psychology of Cyberspace and a growing body of literature with these concepts thematically at their core.

 

[dewdrop]

terrible idea:

make the site responsible for any criminal threats

pretty much everything else, good idea.

 

[squidyj]

I don't like what they're doing with freedom of expression in this regard.
Sounds like it'll be used by the government to implement various "protective" measures that will end up being nothing more than glorified censoring when it comes to online.

By all means, find those that have made rape threats, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, but I don't want to see new laws against "Online bullying" or the like.

why the fuck not?

 

[spunodi]

why the fuck not?

My objection would be, as has been pointed out, that there are already laws to deal with this. And it would seem that these have been applied in the arrest. Our government are currently becoming more enthusiastic about censoring the internet and I am concerned that this could lead to censorship of criticism they dislike. We are already in the era of 'spin' where facts are twisted and the status quo misrepresented to further an agenda. If opposition to this were to be 'silenced' then there's no holding them to account (you could argue that our system doesn't really allow us to do this with any impactful mandate anyway). Yes, I realise this is a 'slippery slope' argument, however I think that history supports this as a very real possibility.

 

[Adam Scott Aukerman]

why the fuck not?

Quite. Bullying is repulsive behaviour, and I see absolutely no reason why the law shouldn't potentially be adjusted to better protect people from its online forms.

Technology is constantly changing and it's the duty of law makers to protect the people from new dangers that arise from those changes. You can't have static laws in a technological world, it's moronic.

Yes, I realise this is a 'slippery slope' argument, however I think that history supports this as a very real possibility.

I'd argue that there's far greater historical precedent for law changes being more useful to society than harmful. Of course there should always be caution in drafting new laws, but to go to the extreme of refusing change is crazy.