346
I am a 15-year-old girl. Let me show you the vile misogyny that confronts me on social media every day (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Objectification, hate, rape threats: the politicians debating online abuse mean well, but to truly understand, they need to see what I see

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 8 months ago* (10 children)

If only we could hold social media's billionaires accountable or something. Unfortunately, that is impossible, and we can and should never imagine a better world.

(It's kind of interesting that in a thread about Flock surveillance, people are talking about destroying the nodes. While in a thread about a girl getting abused online, there's a whole lot more defeatism all around.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago

    I generally want to make billionaires pay, just as a general rule.

    But I don't see this one specific instance being their fault.

    We used to burn women alive if they knew how to do math. Since that time, things have gotten a little bit better. But not much.

    People are assholes. All around you are assholes. These assholes go online and continue to be assholes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (8 children)

    There's a little thing called "free speech". Govt doesn't have the power to regulate speech.

    E: Never though I'd live in a world where people were falling over themselves to regulate speech. What a sick sad world it is. Can you just for a millisecond imagine what that looks like when the shoe is on the other foot? What do you think fascists would do with that sort of power?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Sorry what? Tech billionaires don't have to enable the free speech of sexually harassing a child online.

    And if your argument is that sexually harassing a child online is "free speech" - and that's the best argument you have - that's not a good argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    My argument is that it's illegal for the govt to regulate such speech.

    What kind of accountability were you referring to? Were you expecting tech billionaires to hold themselves accountable?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    The article is from a UK newspaper. What is and isn't legal for them to regulate is decided by their Parliament and nobody else. No Kings, and all that.

    Meanwhile, you should know that the "free speech" lectures are getting pretty old from the country that checks social media history at the border to make sure you didn't say anything bad about the Dear Leader, which shuts down TV shows it doesn't like, and generally ensures the media toes the party line.

    (See also - lectures on why kids shooting up schools is a necessary price to pay for that well regulated militia that will be along to save you from tyrants, well, real soon now...)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    from the country that checks social media history at the border to make sure you didn't say anything bad about the Dear Leader

    That's also illegal. A rational person would argue to prevent that. An irrational person would suggest that it justifies the regulation of even more speech by an already fascist govt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Genuinely asking here: do you think the word "illegal" means wrong?

    By definition, if a sovereign government decides it's allowed to do something, it's not illegal. You could say it's unethical (though I'm not sure why you would), but you can't say it's illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    Genuinely asking here: do you think the word "illegal" means wrong?

    ...no? But I think in this particular instance, obviously yes.

    if a sovereign government decides it's allowed to do something, it's not illegal

    ...wat? Why would that be illegal?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent