41 Percent of Adults In the US Have Been Harassed Online, Says Pew Study (techcrunch.com)

According to a new Pew Research Center study, 41 percent of adults said they have experienced harassment online, and 66 percent of people said they've seen it happen to others. What's the most common form of online harassment? According to the study, it's offensive name-calling. TechCrunch reports: It's worth noting that while men are slightly more likely than women to be harassed online (44 percent versus 37 percent), women are more likely to be sexually harassed online. For example, 53 percent of women surveyed reported receiving explicit images they did not request. Unsurprisingly, social media is where people are most likely to experience online harassment, with 58 percent of those harassed saying the most recent incident happened on a social media platform. Also unsurprising is the fact that more than half of people harassed don't know the person harassing them. Pew also explored "emergent" forms of online harassment, like doxing (posting someone's personal information online without consent), trolling (intentionally trying to provoke or upset someone), hacking (illegally accessing someone's accounts) and swatting (when you call 911 for a fake emergency and have the police show up at that person's house). "While many Americans are not aware of these behaviors, they have all been used to escalate abuse online," the report states.

Comments

100%

[Narcocide]

Have been harassed in real life.

Re: 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: Most common line used in gay bars?

A: Mind if I push in your stool?

Re: 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet tough guy trolls find out what's real when they wake up in county to a rapo pushing their shit in.

The misinformation spewed by fools like you is extremely tired and more than slightly pathetic.

I've spent time in a bunch of jails and a few prisons too. Rape is _extremely_ rare. I never once witnessed anyone being threatened with rape. Nor did I ever meet anyone who had been a victim of such things, nor did I ever hear anyone else talk about how it had happened. I did however witness people who were willing to engage in homosexual acts get ready to engage in said acts. No, I didn't see them fuck etc. because I don't want or need to see that shit, so I left the area and gave the lovebirds their privacy.

Real life is not like the movies ( surprise ! ).

If you go into jail or prison and act like a man, **always show respect for others**, and mind your own business, there's a very high probability that you will never even be in a fight, much less be the target of a rapist. I speak from close to ten years' experience, which is as real as it gets.

Next time, try only speaking of that which you actually know, and don't pretend to know about things you have never experienced.

Re:100%

[courteaudotbiz]

The notion of "harassment" has got very blurry lately...

Back in my days, I was the little big guy in the school yard. I had to deal with insults, punches in the belly and snowballs in the face. Guess what? The school director did absolutely nothing. I had to learn to defend myself. My grandfather taught me how to fight, and after a few lessons and practice, that's what I did.

Never did I complain to my mother, it would have been cowardice.

After a few good fights where I showed I would not let others make fun of me, they left me alone, and I made some good friends for the rest of high school. With all those millenials pouring in, defended by their parents and having never felt what it's like to be truly harassed, the notion of harassment has got down to almost considering unfriending someone on Facebook as harassment.

I am happy to be born in the early 80's, I may be part of the last generation of real men that had to physically defend themselves to be respected, just as the nature gave us in our genes. Not being defended by our parents or going to the police for a slight schoolyard fight.

Re:100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Well SJW's has redefined harassment to mean disagreeing with someone. If you disagree with this statement you are harassing me.

Re:100%

[Mashiki]

The notion of "harassment" has got very blurry lately...

Reminder that this is the current definition of harassment.

Re:100%

[Shoten]

Why has this not been modded up?

Re:100%

[gtall]

Yep, now days, you'd have been beaten silly by your tormentors' bigger brothers in a gang and left bloody in a ditch.

Re: 100%

[kilfarsnar]

I've spent time in a bunch of jails and a few prisons too. Rape is _extremely_ rare. I never once witnessed anyone being threatened with rape. Nor did I ever meet anyone who had been a victim of such things, nor did I ever hear anyone else talk about how it had happened.

I'm actually quite glad to read this. Not that you were in jail, but that rape is not common there. Sexual assault is not okay, regardless of where it happens or who it happens to.

Re:100%

[kilfarsnar]

Have been harassed in real life.

And it's all done by leftists.

This is pathetic and hilarious all at the same time. And people think Liberals are the snowflakes...

Re:100%

[Jason Levine]

It's nice that you could fight back, but that's not the solution for everyone. I was harassed by a group of kids all through high school. Individually, they wouldn't bother me, but when five or more of them got together, they got very brave. One on one, I might have been able to fight them, but five on one I wouldn't have stood a chance. I would have been beaten up and then made fun of more for getting beaten up.

I complained to my best friend, but to nobody else. That was a huge mistake in hindsight. Bullies WANT their victims to be alone. If I had support from adults and peers, the harassment might have stopped. Instead, I just took it. The result? I developed paranoia. I was sure that everyone who was laughing was laughing at me. I isolated myself from the world. Every day was a struggle to push through while taking every arrow flung at me. When you hear those stories of bullied kids who shoot up their school or commit suicide, I think that I could have easily gone down either path had things gotten a bit worse.

Luckily, my best friend - the one person I confided in about the situation - finally spoke with my bullies. Turns out they thought they were "just having fun" and didn't stop to think about how it was hurting me. They stopped and I got some breathing room to recover. (College also gave me some distance and perspective on the matter.)

I disagree that you need to physically fight to be a "real man." I've been in only a few physical fights and don't think I'm any less of a man. I'm also teaching my sons that violence isn't the answer. Yes, it might need to be undertaken at times, but only as a last resort, not as "prove you're a real man by beating kids up."

Re:100%

[AmiMoJo]

Finding someone saying something silly on Twitter does not prove your point. And anyway, she was probably referring to the talk rather than the individual side, assuming the screen capture is even real (where is your usual archive.is link?)

Harassment has a legal definition in most places. Where would you draw the line? Because endlessly questioning where to draw the line is the favourite tactic of people who want to avoid talking about the really unambiguous stuff.

Re:100%

[penandpaper]

How do you defend yourself from some asshole sending your family letters through snail mail accusing you of being a sex offender?

Re:100%

[networkBoy]

Similar here, except I finally did pop in HS and collapsed a guy's larynx.
Never was picked on again...

I've had a couple fights, some won, some lost, all were the end of it (whatever "it" was).

As to my kids I teach them the following:
I am 100% against fighting, unless I have to, then I am 100% for it.

The message is to avoid conflict unless there is no choice, then don't hold back, hit hard, hit fast, hit first*, hit last.
My daughter was physically cornered by a boy in elementary school. He tried to kiss her against her will. She assessed that she was not in "extreme" danger so refrained from a groin shot and instead waited for him to lean in to kiss her and head butted him, flattening his nose. She was sent home for fighting, he was sent home for bleeding everywhere. I bought her ice cream and had a meeting with the principal where it was agreed there would be no notes in her file about the fight, as it was self defense.

*hit first... a touchy subject indeed. hitting over being called names, no. Hitting as response to other physical contact like a bad intentioned shove? Hell yeah!

As to the bullying part... I'm pretty sure anyone that's been on /. more than 30 seconds has seen trolls and anyone who's posted has met the Asshole named AC that spews shit while being hidden from actual identification.

Re:100%

[rtb61]

Many SJWs define harassment as something they make up to so they can harass someone by claiming harassment with the authorities and getting the authorities to do the harassing.

Re:100%

[mjwx]

The notion of "harassment" has got very blurry lately...

So you didn't read the article, the poll defined different forms of harassment. From offensive name calling right down to sexual harassment.

Never did I complain to my mother, it would have been cowardice.

Ahh yes, the attitude that costs lives.

As someone who was bullied as a kid, I know exactly why the Columbine shooters did what they did. Because they didn't see any other way out of it. Bullies were untouchable, their parents would threaten and bully school teachers if they ever did anything, if you fought back, you were made to be in the wrong because the bullies had backup, the bullies told their parents and the parents attacked and bullied anyone who would speak against them. Your society created them, you must take responisbilty for them. However this never happened, your society blamed video games, rock music, Satan or whatever other scapegoat they could find to to avoid admitting that they created the monsters and they must change.

One of the biggest advancements out of that society was the fact that you can talk to someone about it. Inside and outside the school system. Attitudes like yours belong in front of a student with an assault rifle... because then they'll change very quickly.

I am happy to be born in the early 80's, I may be part of the last generation of real men that had to physically defend themselves to be respected

Actually, you're not a real man. You have the kind of fake bravado that destroyed the class of gentlemen.

I could easily beat you, how, Krav Maga. I have training but I will not start a fight, in fact I will do everything I can to avoid one. If someone is bothering me, I'll find other means to deal with it like an adult. Being a real man isn't about beating your chest and picking on easy targets, being a real man means keeping your cool under pressure, it means being better than the person who thinks might makes right. Being a man means understanding and valuing concepts like valour, intelligence, integrity, honesty and fairness.

I'm not a man because I can beat the crap out of you. I'm a man because I wont unless you leave me no other choice. Beyond this, I'm a gentleman because even though I'm capable and if no other path out of a fight exists, willing I still will not revel in hurting another. Valour often means I smile through an insult and bravery often means I'll turn away from an easily winnable fight.

Oh, and do you want to know how I stopped being bullied... I developed a sense of humour and made everyone else like me (I didn't start learning Krav until my 30s). The truth of the matter is that bullies never work alone, so you never win the fight against them. Yes, its true that they're inherently cowards so they'll never put themselves in a position where you can beat them on your own... This also means they'll leave you alone if everyone else likes you, they fear being outcast.

Re:100%

[yuriklastalov]

The snowflake status comes from the generation itself, not any individual ideology. It's not the Millennial's fault they were ruined by their parents and the stupid pseudo-scientific , pop-sci "parenting methods" that have been running rampant since the 50s.

Looks like we can pin all the worlds problems on Baby Boomers once again.

Re:100%

[sysrammer]

Damn straight. And when the boomers are gone, the boomers kid's kids can blame everything on the Mills.

"And so it goes." - Vonnegutt

Re: 100%

[KGIII]

Right or wrong, evidence would suggest that it is, indeed, a part of life.

Re:100%

[Jason Levine]

My son was attacked back in elementary school. (He's in high school now.) They were, ironically, waiting in line for an anti-bullying program. A kid jumped forward in line right in front of my son. My son is touchy about his personal space (he's on the Autism spectrum), so he put his hands up to protect himself. The kid kicked him in the ribs hard enough to send him to the nurse and leave a mark.

The next day I met with the principal, teacher, and teacher's assistant. First, they said nobody witnessed the incident. Then, they said that the teacher's assistant actually witnessed it and my son started it. (By putting his hands up to protect himself. Mind you he never laid hands on the other kid.) Finally, the principal looked at me and said that my son "isn't the kind of kid to be bullied." (Her exact words.) At that point, I realized that the principal wanted to bury the whole thing and didn't care about addressing it. I ended the meeting as quickly as possible, called my wife, and she came to pull our son out of that school. We went to the superintendent and demanded he be placed in another school in the district that took bullying seriously. He was placed in another elementary school and wasn't bullied again.

The point of all of this is that not only is the child's response important, but the response of the adults is important too. Your daughter should have been asked what happened and, when they found out that the kid tried kissing her without her permission, he should have faced consequences. I would understand if the school had to impose some token "punishment" on your daughter as a "we don't condone violence" tactic, but he definitely shouldn't have gotten away without punishment by the school. Sadly, too many school administrators think that they can insist they don't have a bullying problem and maintain that facade by ignoring bullying or actually acting as adult bullies towards kids who report incidents.

Re:100%

[Mashiki]

Finding someone saying something silly on Twitter does not prove your point. And anyway, she was probably referring to the talk rather than the individual side, assuming the screen capture is even real (where is your usual archive.is link?)

You mean besides what you can dig directly out of the vine video? Just google it, it's not difficult. Where is my usual archive link, over there where I left it because I'm too lazy to post it. Why? Did you need me to do all the hard legwork for you or something?

Harassment has a legal definition in most places. Where would you draw the line? Because endlessly questioning where to draw the line is the favourite tactic of people who want to avoid talking about the really unambiguous stuff.

Harassment also requires intent. Saying "I'm tired of this person lying through their teeth and being an attention seeker" isn't harassment. Posting it online without sending it to them isn't harassment either. Posting it 43 times in a row to the person is harassment. Saying "you suck" a single time isn't harassment either.

Re:100%

[Mashiki]

Oh and just because. Remember this is harassment but it's not harassment when we do it. Also if someone on the "alt-right" or 3rd party troll used the #gamergate hashtag there would be around 40 articles on all the popular sites. But uh, kinda quiet out there isn't it. Must be because Laci Green walked off the plantation and that makes her an unperson now.

Re:100%

[AmiMoJo]

I'm looking at the link but I can't see where it says "let's kill her instead", except for in the actual tweet you linked to. Who is supposed to have said that?

All I see is someone pointing out that people do get killed and their killers get away with it because of "trans panic". That's actually a thing, there are numerous cases of it happening and the perpetrators using the "trans panic" defence successfully in court. Even if they went the jail, the victim is still dead/beaten.

Laci Green is an interesting example. As you have noticed, the mainstream media doesn't cover random YouTube bloggers much, regardless of political affiliation. What is noteworthy is how progressive YouTubers have tried to be conciliatory and reasonable with her. The screenshot Ian Miles Cheong is actually an example of that - someone calmly explaining the problem to her.

By the way, what does this have to do with gamergate?

Re:100%

[networkBoy]

I generally agree with you.
The details were:
daughter sent home for being involved in a fight, no mark on record.
boy sent home, mark on record, suspension.
boy came back to school with a gauzed nose to be greeted by "you got beat up by a girl" from his peers.

Punishment fit the crime on an overall basis. Add to that he's treated my daughter like a princess ever since, and hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) bothered another girl at school either.

Re:100%

[Cinnamon Beige]

Of course! Have you seen the shelf life of bad ideas in pop psych? There's parts that Freud himself complained about which are still there! It helps a lot that people don't really want to talk much about how bad pop psych can be and how much damage it can and has done.

Re:100%

[Cinnamon Beige]

Because endlessly questioning where to draw the line is the favourite tactic of people who want to avoid talking about the really unambiguous stuff.

How you define harassment and who gets to do it is part of the really unambiguous stuff. There are people out there who would say you are harassing them, merely because you happen to be existing in the same public space as they are; is anybody like that somebody you want to have defining what is harassment? It's also important to regularly checked to make sure that the definition of harassment being used is not constructed so only certain people can be harassed, be harassers, or both. I've been around a few too many rounds of people using (absurd) claims of harassment to harass somebody to be particularly comfortable with it.

Re:100%

[Mashiki]

Who is supposed to have said that?

You notice that little @ symbol in front of the name? That's the person who said it. @symbols in the body are who they are to. Check the chain, it's there though you might need to dust off archive.is

ll I see is someone pointing out that people do get killed ...

You mean you don't see a part where a group of pro-trans individuals are talking and then one in the threaded chain says "let's kill her instead"?

Laci Green is an interesting example. As you have noticed, the mainstream media doesn't cover random YouTube bloggers

Really? Green is such a nobody that she has millions of followers on social media, popular enough that she was employed by MTV but she's a nobody? Well that sure explains how literal nobodies like Wu and Quinn were all over the news right? And how the media is all over someone with under 100 twitter followers, and it's plastered all over the media to the point where someone is waiting at the airport they're landing at and takes pictures of her.

What is noteworthy is how progressive YouTubers have tried to be conciliatory and reasonable with her.

Some of them yes. Most of them no. Go back and look through her twitter profile, especially after it came out she was dating Chris Raygun. "She needs to be killed" "she should be raped" etc. Those weren't 3rd party trolls either, those were from people who had followed her on social media for years.

By the way, what does this have to do with gamergate?

You can't judge BLM or social justice advocates when they threaten and harass people. See they're just loners. All gamergaters are sexist, racist, homophobes who are worse then ISIS. Figure it out yet?

Re:100%

[AmiMoJo]

You mean you don't see a part where a group of pro-trans individuals are talking and then one in the threaded chain says "let's kill her instead"?

No. It's literally not there. A search of the page text shows that the only person who said that is the one posting the fake quote (the linked tweet). The screenshot they posted does not contain any suggestion to kill anyone either.

Green is such a nobody that she has millions of followers on social media

Er... She has 250k followers on Twitter, and many of them are probably following her on other platforms... So not quite the superstar you think she is.

Well that sure explains how literal nobodies like Wu and Quinn were all over the news right?

They were in the news because they were victims of gamergate. By the way, "literal nobodies" is part of gamergate's attempt to dehumanize them. Using that phrase, along with "literally who", reveals your true colours.

You can't judge BLM

Bringing them into it now... Is this some bizarre conspiracy theory where they are all part of some vast social justice oppression movement or something?

Pew Pew

[turkeydance]

got 'cha

Help!

[Script Cat]

Help Help, I'm being oppressed!

Spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

People who spell it harassed deserve harrassment.

Re:Spelling

[Script Cat]

They may be Harised

Re:Spelling

[ClickOnThis]

No, "harassed" is the correct spelling. Both Oxford and Merriam-Webster say so.

There. I corrected you without harassing you.

Re:Spelling

[penandpaper]

I corrected you without harassing you.

Is that even possible? I think you just proved to everyone here that you are a shitlord bent on harassing the poor spelling-impaired minority.

Yea, doesn't feel too good when you're receiving it, huh? That'll teach you to correct anyone's spelling and grammar!

Re:Spelling

[sysrammer]

I've had it up to hear with all you grammer antifa's clogging up the site!

Re:Spelling

[BarbaraHudson]

I've had it up to hear with all you grammer antifa's clogging up the site!

Spellcheck not working again?

Re:Spelling

[penandpaper]

Spell check is part of the capitalist patriarchy.

Re:you're all idiots

[Script Cat]

Stoppit! Your hurting my feelings :'(

Society is so violent

[lucm]

What's the most common form of online harassment? According to the study, it's offensive name-calling.

Name-calling is not mere "harassment": it's psychological violence, same as people (so-called "friends") not Liking a motivational image posted on Facebook while you never fail to Like theirs.

The FBI or DHS should get involved, we can't let society go down that path.

Re:Society is so violent

[TheRaven64]

it's psychological violence

Often, it isn't. Harassment implies sustained pattern of behaviour, but the legal definition (at least in the UK) does not and the problem with this is that it often trivialises real problems. Humans are pack animals and a sustained pattern of behaviour that isolates someone from their pack and demeans them can have real mental health consequences. Calling someone an asshat once almost certainly won't (unless everyone does it to the same person). Counting the two in the same category does a serious disservice to people who are actually harassed.

Re:Society is so violent

[Ian A. Shill]

Bravo to you, gentle Sir.

Post of the day.

If we had one.

We don't. It made some of the others feel inadequate and uncomfortable, comparatively speaking of course.

To summerise: great post.

Re:Society is so violent

[Kjella]

Often, it isn't. Harassment implies sustained pattern of behaviour, but the legal definition (at least in the UK) does not and the problem with this is that it often trivialises real problems.

Not necessarily. I can very easily imagine a teen gang roving around picking victims at random or harassing strangers wandering into their turf. Basically those who stop short of more serious crime like violence, robbery or sexual abuse. It's just a different form of harassment from the sustained bullying of a particular victim. I think for the law proving a single incident is enough, but that repeat offenders or harassment over long periods of time should be treated much more harshly. The alternative would be to not nip it in the bud and wait until is it a sustained pattern before you can take any criminal action.

Re:Society is so violent

[penandpaper]

I don't understand why parents beat their children when psychological damage lasts so much longer.

I for one

[rsilvergun]

have never been harassed online.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

have never been harassed online.

You have now, ignorant fuckhead!

[just kidding -- peace out]

100% of Slashdot has been harassed

[phantomfive]

100% of Slashdotters have been harassed online. And if you're reading Slashdot, and you haven't been harassed, you're a stupid piece of shit.
There. It's back at 100%.

Re:100% of Slashdot has been harassed

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn. I made it 23 years on the internet without being harassed, and you ruined it :(

Re:100% of Slashdot has been harassed

[Capsaicin]

And if you're reading Slashdot, and you haven't been harassed, you're a stupid piece of shit. There. It's back at 100%.

Well no. I'm proud to be a stupid piece of shit, so telling me that isn't harassment. Even on the untoward assumption that 100% of Slashdot readers read that particular comment, there's enough of us around to stop you getting your 100%. :p

And in any case, you forgot about yourself.

Re:100% of Slashdot has been harassed

[phantomfive]

I'm a dumb fool, but I hope you die in a fire.

Re:100% of Slashdot has been harassed

[Capsaicin]

I'm a dumb fool

Ah you've attempted include yourself (not sure this is actually possible), glad to be of assistance.

I hope you die in a fire.

The irony of fate being what is is that this will probably happen now. Not only to me, but to my lovely wife and our 4 and 2 year old daughters as well. Well done you!

If you notice me stop posting ...

Cyber BS

[geekymachoman]

I'm on internet since 1998 roughly. I'm 32 now... so started pretty young. I also spend 10+ hours on the computer per day, since 2001), so one can say internet is pretty important thing in my life, more so to me than to these that got _harassed_ probably.

First thing, most people are just asking for it. They subconsciously dig themselves into these holes, like they are unknowingly addicted to drama. It's like ghost stories.. the only people that seem to see ghosts are those people that believe in ghosts.

Furthermore, "Cyber" bullying ? Seriously ? Bullying is if i slap the shit out of you, yell at you, and take your lunch money, and I REPEAT it every day. That's bullying.
Somebody wrote a nasty comment on your facebook ? Are you kidding me ? Maybe I have this attitude because I "grew up" on IRC in early 2000s where these "abuses" were actually just a normal day, and I seen real bullying in the same time at school, but anything that happens on internet is totally insignificant, it's bordering make-believe, especially if you connect to internet with that intent, and it's not that hard people. Why take internet and platforms on it such as social media so seriously ?

Maybe this is happening because people choose to upload their lives on retarded platforms like facebook, maybe not, either way... you have control over it all, so all you doing calling this bullying is marginalizing real bullying. There's only one life that matters, and it's called Real Life.

I'm sure there are hordes of geeks that will attack me for saying cyber is make believe.. but that's just uh... like, your opinion man.
And screw them too.

Re:Cyber BS

[number17]

Somebody wrote a nasty comment on your facebook ? Are you kidding me ?

I think its more along the lines of somebody creating accounts on multiple social media sites and befriending your family, friends, or co-workers then posting docotored embarrassing photos for all to see so people think thats you.

Re:Cyber BS

[freeze128]

On usenet in the mid 90's, sure there were the occasional jerks who would just rip into everyone. You added them to your kill filter, and that was pretty much the end of that.

More forums need kill filters.

*PLONK*

Re:Cyber BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Why take internet and platforms on it such as social media so seriously ?...There's only one life that matters, and it's called Real Life.

The internet is part of reality. The internet is real life.

Social media is a serious medium of social interaction. People well-established in their careers and already married can possibly ignore it, but for anyone younger you need to have a social media presence to get a job and have good romantic prospects.

Social media is how people network. Social media is how people build and retain contacts. Social media is how people get jobs. HR people have been saying for years that not having a Facebook account is a mark against you. That story is from 2012. The importance of social media has only gone up since then.

Although the majority of people that use linkedin exclusively for their job searches do not come up successful, the MO for hiring managers makes it so that if you are not on linkedin, you are invisible. People find eachother on social networks. They might not use those platforms for contact or hiring decisions, but if you don't have a presence at all, your odds of being hired tanks very hard.

And these points don't even begin to cover the social pariah you make yourself out to be if you do not participate. Many people that do not have a Facebook account have stories of missing out on family news, social experiences, invites to events, and more. Your dating options dwindle down to less than your tiny circle of contacts if you are not participating. What do potential partners do before they willingly go on a date? Check a person's profiles and see if they are creepers, interesting, or have unnecessary drama in their lives.

Why take internet and platforms on it so seriously? Because they are real life. Society moves on. Once you could get by without a telephone. For many years you could get by without internet. For a few years social media was no big deal, something teenagers foolishly post their entire lives to. Today, the internet and social media is a big part of your identity, your career, your dating prospects; your reputation in the world exists online.

Technology improves and changes. Society changes too.

Re:Cyber BS

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is part of reality. The internet is real life.

It has become this way thanks to zuckbook, but it really shouldn't be. The people who do think this way are among the most insecure to date.

A serious medium? If this means that people getting butthurt over an offhand comment can destroy the commenter's entire life over it, then I have to agree. Otherwise, no. It's 99% rubbish with the content level of celebrity gossip TV. Social media has done little but breed a generation of spineless, perpetually offended, crybully groupies, then gave them the power to lord it over everyone else.

HR departments think everything unique or individual is a mark against applicants, yet if they ran across someone who conformed to every bulletpoint, he'd be utterly incapable of doing the job. Their roles are to filter people out so that management can justify hiring more H1-Bs at 1/5th the wage...oh and to impose the cult of diversity.

Quoting a linkedin sponsored shame-ad as a reason for using social media isn't much of an argument. Look up 'circular reasoning.' I suppose if you were born a generation ago, you'd be that idiot punching the monkey because the ad told you to. Now instead of an occasional idiot, we have a whole generation of people doing this.

Far from the shield of anonymity where people had the opportunity to build up their spines and toughen their skin lambasting each other, modern social media users never had the chance to shield their fragile egos from mass criticism. Instead of being forgotten, small disagreements now explode into life altering events over really stupid shit. The real life stakes of modern social media has created a society of perpetually insecure adolescents. Your entire post reeks of it. Contrast this with the days of anonymous IRC, IM, and forums, where the worst case was an abandoned account or username, maybe a ban or g-line. Sure, occasionally net drama entered real life but it was the exception instead of the norm because the anonymity kept the relevance contained.

What do potential partners do before they willingly go on a date? Check a person's profiles [wojdylosocialmedia.com] and see if they are creepers, interesting, or have unnecessary drama in their lives.

Did you actually read this article? It suggests that dating non social media users is much more pleasant and productive.

Technology improves and changes. Society changes too. [imgur.com]

Change for change's sake is never a good argument.

Re:Cyber BS

[Ian A. Shill]

I should have stopped reading at the end of the second sentence. Bravo to you that I got almost the whole next paragraph into me before that realization hit me.

Re:Cyber BS

[AmiMoJo]

Modern tech seems to have escalated the bullying. Back at school, at least when I was a kid, you were pretty unlikely to get doxxed or send unwanted dick pics. Nowadays... Kids will humiliate each other, take a photo and spread it online so fast it can't be stopped.

Same thing happens online. It's just too easy to anonymously fuck with people can get away with it. And again, it's worse than it used to be.

Trying to separate "real life" and "online" is silly. They are the same thing.

Re:Cyber BS

[Mashiki]

Modern tech seems to have escalated the bullying. Back at school, at least when I was a kid, you were pretty unlikely to get doxxed or send unwanted dick pics. Nowadays... Kids will humiliate each other, take a photo and spread it online so fast it can't be stopped.

Yes and no. What's escalated bullying is that many bullies have figured out how to operate within the rules, this is doubly true in places that use "zero tolerance rules" and so on. A bully will push the bullied person to the point where they snap and fight back, the bully will receive zero punishment the person who fought back will be suspended and up to expelled. Said bullied person will then likely kill themselves because they see no way out of being constantly bullied. Check your local school board, you'll be able to get reports that teachers, principals, and so on knew that this was the case and either did nothing or simply ignored it all the way down.

Thing is, a dick pick isn't harassment. It's stupid but nothing more. Most if not all kids have nothing that relates to doxing. But those rumor mills existed when you were a kid, and the only real difference is that they've moved from just being "at school" to being "at school and also at home" because it's expected that kids have some type of social media. There's a very easy way to separate "real life" and "online" don't give a shit about online.

Re:Cyber BS

[AmiMoJo]

Not sure about US law, but in the UK sending someone an unwanted dick pic deliberately would almost certainly be sexual harassment. Could even be sexual assault if persistent.

Isn't it illegal to flash your genitalia where you live? I mean, if someone went out in public and exposed their genitals to you, would there be nothing you could do about it? Personally I'm not bothered by nudity, although if it was done in a sexually suggestive way I might not appreciate it I guess, but legally speaking most places don't seem to tolerate it.

Re:Cyber BS

[AmiMoJo]

Let's be honest, kill filters were ineffective. They were okay if the person you blocked kept the same username or email address, but anyone really wanting to troll would just keep switching faster than you could keep adding them. Usenet was unauthenticated and easy to spoof.

That's why kill files don't work for email spam, and why blocking users doesn't work on Twitter.

Re:Cyber BS

[Mashiki]

Not sure about US law, but in the UK sending someone an unwanted dick pic deliberately would almost certainly be sexual harassment. Could even be sexual assault if persistent.

In Canada it isn't sexual harassment, neither is it sexual assault. It may fall into corrupting morals, it may fall into publication of child porn(in an under 18 setting)--though the aggressor party would more likely get a stern talking to by police before it even went to juvenile law. In Canada we don't have a defacto "sexual harassment" law, because existing laws already cover this. Between adults it's more likely to be indecency.

Isn't it illegal to flash your genitalia where you live? I mean, if someone went out in public and exposed their genitals to you, would there be nothing you could do about it? Personally I'm not bothered by nudity, although if it was done in a sexually suggestive way I might not appreciate it I guess, but legally speaking most places don't seem to tolerate it.

Yes, and no at the same time. Welcome to Canada. It may be indecency, it may be against public morals, it may be against disorderly conduct. It all comes down to intent, whether it's repetitive behavior, and so on. But there is no flat "this is sexual harassment" because that's overly broad, and thus a charter violation. Laws in Canada, much like the US don't generally operate on "how a person feels" it requires actual and provable damages against the person.

Re:Cyber BS

[Ian A. Shill]

Mark, please go.

And stay go.

Re:Cyber BS

[Ian A. Shill]

With respect sir, when it comes to people flashing their genitalia at me in public or vice-versa, it hasn't reached a situation in my life that I have involve the authorities and/or invoke legalities.

Maybe life in Canada is different.

Re:Cyber BS

[penandpaper]

It's still better than nothing. I don't think there will be any solution to that unless you do paid subscriptions that people value. Obviously, the troll values the laughs they get more than the time they put into to annoy someone for said laughs. How can anybody make the amount of time for laughs not worth it? The adage has always been don't feed. It isn't perfect but it does work.

Re:Cyber BS

[penandpaper]

if someone went out in public and exposed their genitals to you

Not sure if it would be sexual harassment it would depend on the state and city but it would be public indecency for certain. I honestly doubt it would be sexual harassment.

But you missed another problem with the dick pic these days and when we are talking about school kids (high school and younger) the law defines those pictures as child pornography. Even if the recipient wanted to see that pic if the sender was caught and was underage they would be labeled a sex offender proliferating child porn. There have been cases like this where laws meant to protect children are now being used to ruin their lives because of social media and how it is used.

I think the point is, many of us here have learned various lessons online to help us navigate trolls and the like. Kids growing up on the internet do not have that opportunity because attaching your real identity to social media is the norm when it was the exception when I started online. I don't' envy kids in that regard and there are plenty of examples where it goes terribly wrong.

Re:Cyber BS

[penandpaper]

Did you just sexually harass me?

Re:Cyber BS

[ebvwfbw]

The flame.

Re:Cyber BS

[eionmac]

"the only people that seem to see ghosts are those people that believe in ghosts."
Not so. A squad of soldiers (I was one of them) stopped for lunch in remote valley and saw a horse walking on the grass on other side of the lake at the bottom of valley. One of our squad was a trained horseman and he saw that a part of the equipage was broken, which would normally happen when a horse shed its rider. We confirmed this through binoculars. We reported the horse incident to local police in the nearby village later that day as we throught a rider might be missing or injured. The police just said, 'no problem; its a gost horse seen by many folk these past years'. Thereafter we (the squad of soldiers) who did not believe in ghosts , having seen one in broad daylight just after noon, did believe.

Re:Creimer! Creimer! Creimer!

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Well, you can say what you want, but he's putting up a good fight!

the author is a bona fide SJW 'journalist'

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.meganrosedickey.co...
https://techcrunch.com/author/...

Re:the author is a bona fide SJW 'journalist'

[Anonymous Coward]

No. she is not a journalist. she is a propaganda artist.

Been harassed all my life, nothing new

[Nyder]

I don't know what world people live in, but I have been harassed all my life. Long before we were online. If it's not neighborhood kids putting you down, it's the bullies, the fellow students, the teachers, all adults in your life and mainly your family.

Most people just grow a thick skin and move on, because there isn't much else you can do.

Re:Been harassed all my life, nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you might be a nerd.
The last several years I've been the only nerd moving in non-nerd circles, and apparently people like that don't get the lifetime of putdowns that someone like me just assumes are normal for everyone. I've seen major freakouts that ended with social sanctions against the "abuser" for stuff I wouldn't even notice.
The interesting part for me is that these victims have the social power to fight back. There *is* something they can do, if they cry the right things the rest of the social circle flocks to their defense, so they never had to learn to grow a thick skin like you and I. Now they're in an environment where their social power doesn't work, and it's freaking them out. We're all nerds on the internet, and they never had to learn how to live with it.

Re:Been harassed all my life, nothing new

[Tablizer]

Most people just grow a thick skin and move on, because there isn't much else you can do.

Amen! Life is full of assholes and bullies, and the earlier you learn to deal with it mentally, the better off you'll probably be. Disclaimer: I've never tested that theory in a controlled experiment (although I think it's being tested on a national level right now.)

Re:Been harassed all my life, nothing new

[AmiMoJo]

Great insight. This also explains why many of the effective tools for dealing with harassment look a lot like the social consequences of harassing people in real life.

Re:Creimer! Creimer! Creimer!

[50000BTU_barbecue]

I've never really heard of him until about a month ago, for some reason I noticed his user name and all the replies he generated. I can certainly see how he rubs people the wrong way, I read his stuff here and on his site and just roll my eyes. Although I gotta say he does recommend good books now and then! He turned me on to Chaos Monkeys, which I dutifully checked out from the library. It is well-written and enjoyable!

I'll for sure check out his other recommendations, even if I don't always agree with the *way* he presents his ideas.

But I don't agree with the flood of penis pictures directed at him.... You know, there's banter and derision, but those pics cross a certain line. If someone had directed that at me using my real name, I'd be displeased as well...

Name-calling is harassment?

[gweihir]

That seems more than a bit over the top. Or are people really this easily made to feel uncomfortable these days? That would not be good at all.

Re:Name-calling is harassment?

[ClickOnThis]

I understand what you're saying, and I follow you to a point.

Yes, name-calling is not necessarily harassment. But repeated name-calling is harassment, IMHO.

Harassment is not about lashing out at someone during a brief period of anger. (We have all done that -- even the best of us.) Harassment a systematic pattern of abuse that lasts for a longer period. And yes, it happens online. And some of the members of this site engage in it.

Re:Name-calling is harassment?

[Mashiki]

That seems more than a bit over the top. Or are people really this easily made to feel uncomfortable these days? That would not be good at all.

Sure it's over the top. But remember that this is what victim culture is pushing. And the people that are curating this victimization are feminists, social justice advocates, and so on.

Let's compare: A feminist politician receives the following and claims it's harassment: "I wouldn't even rape you." Mass exposes in the media about how this is terrible, terrible harassment. A male politician receives actual identifiable threats to them and their family, but nary a peep in the media over it. Then there's all the claims that things like saying "you suck" is harassment. Or the claims that critiques of a persons work is harassment. Welcome to the always-victim mentality that's been fostered over the last 20 years by educators, the brilliant helicopter parents, the idiot young child educators and so on. Why do you think there's particular groups pushing safe spaces, push no-platforming, running off to the UN and claiming harassment. Hell you can look at the bullshit mentality in action, look at how many people supported CNN when they decided to threaten to dox a person for a gif. Actual harassment, and coercive behavior but the same people that claim someone else saying "your pov is shit" is harassment, are also defending that harassment.

Re:Name-calling is harassment?

[Mashiki]

sounds just like a troll justifying trolling...

abuse is abuse

Sure let's go with that. Going by your own post, the above is harassment. Please send victimbux to email address next to UID.

But let's roll with some examples: Kotaku defends why they incited harassment against nintendo. Leftwing journo say's they're being harassed after lying and sicing antifa on other journalists. One of the "big name" people who claimed Gamergate=harassment engaging in harassment. Her organization engaging in targeted harassment, media gives no shits because it doesn't fit the narrative. People directly linked to her organization engage in doxing and harassment. Just remember it's okay when one ideology does it, but only one. Also remember existing is harassment. If you want more examples, try Tim Pool.

Re:Name-calling is harassment?

[AmiMoJo]

If you read the actual report, they looked at a spectrum of behaviour ranging from just name calling to doxxing and stalking. That's a pretty typical way of doing a study like this - you want to measure both how much low level asshattery goes on and how much serious, possibly illegal stuff happens and compare with other factors like age and gender.

It's all just data to help understand what is happening, it's not meant to imply anything. Perhaps harassment isn't quite the right term for some of it, but let's not get bogged down in the language.

Re:Name-calling is harassment?

[AmiMoJo]

Who is manufacturing victimhood now?

You know your argument is weak when you have to use Breitbart and YouTube videos as your sources.

Re:Name-calling is harassment?

[gweihir]

So basically, the "41%" number is nonsense. Figures.

Re:Name-calling is harassment?

[Mashiki]

Who is manufacturing victimhood now?

Manufacturing victimhood? You mean where actual harassment went on. Or would you like to explain how a self-proclaimed anti-harassment expert, wasn't committing harassment by trying to dox someone to shut them up. Or where people were actually harassed for daring not to fall in line with someone elses ideological narrative?

You know your argument is weak when you have to use Breitbart and YouTube videos as your sources.

You know your argument is weak when you can't dispute a single thing. And you can tell that a person is an ideological coward when they start whining about sources instead of disputing something. Go on, dispute something. I'll wait.

Re:Name-calling is harassment?

[AmiMoJo]

Talk about redefining harassment. You are claiming that saying "gamergate was about harassment" is somehow harassing everyone involved with gamergate.

All the ranting you do about "criticism is not harassment" and people needing to have thicker skins, yet when someone claims gamergate isn't about ethics at all, all that goes out the window and everyone's a victim of a sustained hate campaign.

Re:Name-calling is harassment?

[Mashiki]

Talk about redefining harassment. You are claiming that saying "gamergate was about harassment" is somehow harassing everyone involved with gamergate.

A shit poor job of gaslighting there. Want to try again? I'll give you another chance.

All the ranting you do about "criticism is not harassment" and people needing to have thicker skins, yet when someone claims gamergate isn't about ethics at all, all that goes out the window and everyone's a victim of a sustained hate campaign.

So you want to make the claim that doxing and harassing someone is now criticism? No bad tactics, just bad targets huh? Is your real name Bob Chipman?

oh dear!

[ooloorie]

What's the most common form of online harassment? According to the study, it's offensive name-calling.

Clutch your pearls! Harder!

Definitely.

[Bing Tsher E]

I got trolled really bad on a BBS back in about 1990.

Pretty much wrong

[s.petry]

Saying "no", "you are wrong|irrational|delusional|ignorant|etc..." is not "harassment" but can be perceived as such by the recipient. If you receive some form of criticism and take it as harassment, perhaps you should check to see if the person criticizing is right!

When people say I'm ignorant, I ask for references so that I can be a better person and educate myself. When I am told my opinion is wrong, I ask for facts so that I can challenge my opinion. Sometimes I am irrational and delusional. That is all part of being a normal, breathing, thinking human who also has emotions.

But hey, keep promoting that victim culture. It's worked so well as a tool to educate the masses and make people accountable responsible members of society.

Re:Pretty much wrong

[AmiMoJo]

If you read the actual survey it has categories like "physically threatened", "stalked" and "sexually harassed".

Same that the summary links to some clickbaity reporting rather than the actual study. It's not the best study, but it's not measuring how often people were told they are wrong.

Re:Pretty much wrong

[AmiMoJo]

Oh, so you are saying I should have added other non-harassment items to my list?

No. If you could get past your assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is an "SJW" you might see a more reasonable interpretation, e.g. that the study is looking at a whole range of behaviours, some of which are quite serious and might even be illegal. Focusing on name calling and assuming that the report is trying to define harassment (it isn't) is silly.

Conflating terms is marxist tool

LOL, but yes, conflating a survey on frequency of incidents with an attempt to define harassment is deliberate misrepresentation, a common tactic in internet debates.

Re:Pretty much wrong

[s.petry]

Oh come now. This "survey" is based on people's claims and feelings. The same exact way that they can claim fake crimes to gin up hostility everywhere else in society. It's propaganda, plain as day to anyone who cares to look.

Yes, SJWs are pretty common. People who don't care about actual justice, but what they feel should be done to other people based on injustice portrayed as "right" to them. Justice has a pure meaning, and is correctly symbolized by the empty scale.

Now stop stalking me you criminal! You need to turn yourself in and be jailed for harassing me!

The other 59% ...

[CaptainDork]

... were busy harassing.

41 Percent...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder, are the following concepts included or not in the definition of 'harassed' regarding this poll?
1.) 'Triggered' - using the contemporary meaning
2.) 'Micro Aggression' - as in having been, as determined only by the recipient
3.) 'Called Out' - corrected on a point of objective fact
4.) Being treated fairly based on merit rather than as if everyone deserves a trophy for participation

These things are not harassment rained down on a victim. Rather, it is interacting with other people in the real world.

2+2=4 even if that reality triggers you. The fact that black people have more melanin in their skin than white people is true even if you call it a racist micro aggression for saying so - nature doesn't care. Who the hell cares anyway? Melanin content isn't relevant to living in daily society its just a biological sunscreen. It isn't sexist to point out that health care for women actually is more expensive on average than it is for men. It isn't sexist to point out that auto insurance is actually is more expensive on average for men than it is for women. These are facts. Sexism enters the debate when we talk about whether they should be or not and are matters of opinion. Effort vs. results. In some things, results matter more. No, you don't get a trophy for TRYING to land that beach at Normandy - you just get shot or blown up. No, you don't get a renewed contract as a financial advisor for TRYING to give good advice - you should get fired or demoted when your clients move to other advisors.

Clint Eastwood has some wisdom to share :

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're really in a pussy generation. Everybody's walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I did Gran Torino (2008), even my associate said, "This is a really good script, but it's politically incorrect." And I said, "Good. Let me read it tonight." The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, "We're starting this immediately.”

- Clint Eastwood

Is it still harassment

[rsilvergun]

if you're into that sort of thing? I'm asking for a friend.

After or before voting for trump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously the world has full right to harass at least 41 of idiot US Americans for voting for him. I wonder it's not more. The fucking idiots deserve it.

According to Anita

[sidevans]

They are all women too!

Small math error in the study

[Picodon]

41 percent of adults said they have experienced harassment online, and 66 percent of people said they've seen it happen to others.

Correction: it should read:
    “41 percent of adults said they have experienced harassment online, and 59 percent of people said they’ve, huh, seen it happen to, hum, well you know, others...”

Trolling is harassment?

[superwiz]

Well, I, for one, am appalled (appalled!) that Democrats post their views online.

Re:C'mon we can make it to 42%!

[Oswald McWeany]

Fuck all of you.

41% of adults have been harassed online. The other 59% haven't visited Slashdot yet.

I didnt think slashdot had that many users.

[hbean]

Millions!

Time changes

[DrYak]

...and your grand parents have probably been needing to learn to defend themselves with guns, whereas I (roughly the same age as you) live in a country where I don't even see why the hell I would be needing any weapon.
(That's even if I live in one of the few western European nation where it isn't that complicated to legally obtain a gun and corresponding license).

Re:C'mon we can make it to 42%!

[avandesande]

Really it's the wrong headline. It should be "41 Percent of adults consider be called names online harassment"

If name-calling is harassment

[Austerity Empowers]

Then the number should be closer to 100% of anyone who has posted anything online in a place where comments can be left. Certainly 100% if you include meatspace interaction.

When it comes to "being harassed online" I think of more dangerous harassment, including swatting, doxing, and otherwise taking the stream of trolling offline and into meatspace somehow. Name calling is the last resort of the weak mind precisely because grown-ups ought to be able to just ignore it without it troubling their psyche, it is therefore a futile gesture. That people really believe they are being harassed by this suggests we're doing something wrong.

Re:C'mon we can make it to 42%!

[Evtim]

More like the other 59% have never been online :)

Re:C'mon we can make it to 42%!

[Oswald McWeany]

More like the other 59% have never been online :)

Or they don't realize people are making fun of them behind their backs online.

Re:you're all idiots

[penandpaper]

Here, I started a patreon so you can recover from your PTSD. Shine on you brave soul!

So you must be ...

[Martin S.]

An Anti-Social Criminal Coward.

Re:C'mon we can make it to 42%!

[Falos]

>41%

you're all ugly and smell bad

>41.1%

and thus ends the demonstration of Why We Don't Give A Fuck About This Headline

Re:Creimer! Creimer! Creimer!

[sysrammer]

I had trouble dealing with "bags of dicks"; now I have to contend with "floods of penes"?

Re:Creimer! Creimer! Creimer!

[BarbaraHudson]

I use my real name, and I've had just as bad. I realize that the people doing it are really, really lame, no-life monkeys who, as long as they're wasting their time on me, aren't going after someone else. Plus it's really pitiful when you find out that the guy doing the harassing is an obese 50-something virgin, and in another case just an obese idiot who got fired over using government computers to cyber-stalk me, then after multiple warnings, pretended they were still doing so from government computers.

Get rid of anonymity on the net and people will be a lot less likely to harass anyone.