Slashdot Mirror
A Woman on Twitter is Abused Every 30 Seconds (fastcompany.com)
That shocking statistic comes from a study conducted by Amnesty International and AI software startup Element AI. From a report: In the study, called Troll Patrol, Amnesty International and Element AI looked at data from 288,000 tweets sent to 778 female politicians and journalists in the U.S. and U.K. in 2017. Using machine learning on the data, the group then extrapolated just how wide-ranging abuse toward women is on Twitter. The result: 1.1 million abusive or problematic tweets were sent to the women in the study during the year -- that's one abusive or problematic tweet every 30 seconds. And it's even worse for women of color -- and especially black women -- who were targeted more frequently than white women.
that criticism is trolling.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
How many men are abused or sent problematic tweets on twitter.
Why limit research to one segment to create a self confirming headline?
Without a meaningful baseline to compare against, what does the stat mean? (from what I've read, they didn't bother measuring the abuse frequency against male tweeters - sort of the same as when it's mentioned the appalling statistic that 10,000 women committed suicide in 2016 whilst deliberately neglecting to mention that 35,000 men committed suicide the same year)
Not a peep about how many abusive tweets were sent to men, using the same criteria.
Why would that be, exactly? Is it because women are the weaker sex, and hence need to be protected from this sort of thing, whereas men are stronger and hence don't need such protection?
Or is it that nobody gives a shit about men, whether they are stronger or not?
Or maybe men get WAY MORE abuse on twitter, but pointing that out won't substantiate the desired narrative?
Typical "intersectional" reporting. What is the base rate of abuse? Always be suspicious of people who quote absolute statistics. If you look at the research on this, you find that men are abused more than women, and that when a woman receives abuse, it is more likely to be from another woman. But the facts don't suit the narrative of the poor innocent woman being persecuted by the evil mens. PATHETIC.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
And what constitutes "abused"
The disturbing part isn't that somebody published this absolutely idiotic study. (I won't go into why it is idiotic, since literally every other post has pointed out one or more serious flaws in the study-- rarely have I ever seen anything ripped to shreds quite this thoroughly). No, the disturbing part is that Amnesty International was involved. THIS is what Amnesty International is doing these days?
I mean I'm not an expert, but I always thought Amnesty International was one of the most respected of all human-rights organizations-- the sort of organization I would donate money to. Not any more.
And what constitutes "abused"
Saying anything I don’t like.
This. Without any baseline to compare against the statistic quoted is meaningless.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It also very much depends on how you define attack. I would rather like to see the precise definition before rushing to any judgement.
I think you'll find that opinions run the gamut from actual abuse, to disagreement.
These claims often trend to the silly. My wife is asked out all the time on line. In today's world, that is sexual harassment. She just giggles and tells the guy he's not man enough, but many women need intensive counselling for the grave damage done.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.