Internet 'is Not Working For Women and Girls', Says Sir Tim Berners-Lee (theguardian.com) 377
An anonymous reader writes: Women and girls face a "growing crisis" of online harms, with sexual harassment, threatening messages and discrimination making the web an unsafe place to be, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has warned. The inventor of the world wide web said the "dangerous trend" in online abuse was forcing women out of jobs, causing girls to skip school, damaging relationships and silencing female opinions, prompting him to conclude that "the web is not working for women and girls." "The world has made important progress on gender equality thanks to the unceasing drive of committed champions everywhere," Berners-Lee wrote in an open letter to mark the web's 31st birthday on Thursday. "But I am seriously concerned that online harms facing women and girls -- especially those of colour, from LGBTQ+ communities and other marginalised groups -- threaten that progress."
Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:3, Interesting)
I know how this game works. He comes out with a nicely pre-packaged virtue-signal that ticks all the right boxes. Perfect defensive measure.
We'll be hearing about the 20 year old accusations really soon now.
Incidentally, if "net neutrality" is your religion, how do you square it with wanting mass censorship because "strong" Womyns apparently can't handle the Internet?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read what he is saying carefully you will note that he isn't calling for censorship. He's calling for better spam filtering, essentially.
Email would have died if it wasn't for spam filtering. At one point the vast majority of email was spam. Fortunately effective filters were developed and it remained usable.
If you want a shitpost filter too they should be able to get one. It's not censorship if they just don't want to listen to that crap. It's exercising their right to choose what they read.
Twitter
Re:Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well yeah, here's an actual balanced article for a change:
https://www.theguardian.com/me... [theguardian.com]
It points out that men are actually more likely to face online abuse, but they're less likely to report it. Also have a higher suicide rate. Those are things to consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take the example of not reading the comments. YouTube lets you disable comments on your videos, and actually forces them to be disabled on certain content like video with children (they were getting a lot of comments for paedophiles).
But if you choose to disable the comments it ensures that your video will be less popular due to scoring lower on engagement metrics. What people want is a way to filter out the comments they don't want.
It's not censorship, it's not taking away your freedom. YouTube is a
Re: Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:2)
Content filtering is a-okay SO LONG AS THE USER HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE FILTER. Otoh mass censorship in the name of protecting damsels in emotional distress is just the same old totalitarian evil, dressed up in fashionable new clothes.
Re: (Score:2)
Does every service have to offer that though? Isn't it enough that Disney exists for people who want extremely bland and inoffensive content, and that 4chan exists, and that there are a whole spectrum of sites in-between?
Isn't that controlling the filter by selecting the site you want?
Re:Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you read what he is saying carefully you will note that he isn't calling for censorship. He's calling for better spam filtering, essentially.
From the article (you made me read that junk, just to see if maybe you are right): "Finally, he urged governments to strengthen laws that hold online abusers to account, and the public to speak up whenever they witnessed abuse online." He is calling for censorship, more so, he is calling for government to censor you by passing laws targeted at ill-defined "online abuse".
You know what, I feel really abused by your post. My feeling were seriously hurt. Please report yourself to the nearest detention center, you online-violent brute.
Re: (Score:3)
If you read what he is saying carefully you will note that he isn't calling for censorship. He's calling for better spam filtering, essentially.
If that is what he is saying, then why is he so inarticulate that only you can understand him?
Also, how exactly would a spam filter work on the Internet as a whole? Would it be a packet-level protocol?
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone approves of censorship, as long as they get to be the censor.
Re: Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:2)
This is why you can't get a date. Have you tried not being creepy?
Re:Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:4, Insightful)
Care to explain what is so "good" about demeaning women by saying they are incapable of handling the Internet?
Because that's actually what he's saying in a very patronizing way, it's just that because he used the correct vomited-up PC speech you are OK with it.
Censorship of the Internet is about a million times worse than the fact that *HUMANS* (that would be men AND women) can behave like asses... just like he did with that post BTW.
Re:Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of this stuff is rooted in patronizing/minimizing/infantalizing {insert pet identity group here}, and making them the "victims". This keeps them dependent on various "champions" jumping in an "saving" them. It's pathetic.
Re:Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:5, Interesting)
what's really sickening is when it's intentionally mislabeled as 'empowerment' when it's the exact opposite
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that it's actually women who are saying this is a problem, and he cites them extensively. It would be nice if a woman could say it but then it wouldn't get as much attention as if the inventor of the web said it.
Which is a shame because apparently when he says it people just assume that he's some kind of sexual predator or whatever it is you are describing. It's bordering on misandry. Then again if a woman said it I doubt the reception would be any better, just awful in a different way.
Re: Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:3, Insightful)
"No, this is rooted in listening to what totalitarians are asking for. Helping someone who asks for your help in crushing freedom of speech is always villainous."
FTFY
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why should I answer your completely off topic question and put the ball in your court, letting you set the parameters of the discussion? No one is talking about any mass censorship except you.
I'm not going to play your little victimization game and validate your feelings of being oppressed. You aren't a victim, and you aren't being oppressed. Grow up.
What I will say is that I believe in, honor and support the Constitution of the United States of America. Do you?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What a vague and useless comment.
It's simple. Everyone gets to decide who is being a dick. Everyone gets to decide what they want to do about it. Problem?
To me, it just sounds like you want certain groups disempowered so you can achieve dominance over them. You're sad, because they are banding together and refusing to act like victims. You feel powerless because you can't imagine any other form of power except power over another. You don't understand how power, freely shared, is power multiplied. That is th
Re: (Score:3)
NO u.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Treating people like a special or protected class does nothing to help them. It weakens them and makes them dependent. It still does that whether they are asking for the protection / help or not.
Re:Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:4, Insightful)
"treating injured parties like they have a right to redress through the court system does nothing to help them. It weakens them and makes them dependent."
Sorry, no. The reason we have civilization is so the majority of us who aren't dickheads can band together and put the smackdown on assholes and sociopaths. Mutual defense is the cornerstone of all civilization. You just want one side to unilaterally disarm so you can dominate them. Not going to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
This just cries out for others to join together and "put the smack down" on people like you who want to enforce their sensibilities on others.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes one group more authoritarian than another?
Is this a case where your authoritarian is ok, but others are not?
Re: (Score:3)
Yet what you are arguing for is extra judicial actions to enforce your sensibilities.
Your position has nothing to do with the law.
"If you are talking about the freedom to be an asshole online with no consequences, well, that's not actually a right."
Well, yes, it is a right. And you want to attack that right through the use of extrajudicial actions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Authoritarians in a nutshell.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit, there must be in-groups that the law protects, but does not bind, along side out-groups whom the law binds, but does not protect." -- Frank Wilhoit
Re:Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:4, Insightful)
That is what he means. Then again, if men wouldn't be such asshats, this wouldn't be an issue, would it? But nope, we'll blame the victims, not the incels perpetrating the abuse.
This argument is used over and over, if you have done nothing wrong it shouldn't be a problem. You can use it to justify any consequence, we are spying on you, but if you haven't done any thing wrong nothing to worry about. What if you impose a law saying if you late on your rent the landlord can charge 1000x rent for the week, while it is true you have nothing to worry about if you pay your rent on time, but that would be a totally unreasonable law. The consequence has to fit the crime. If someone tells you "go back to the kitchen" ignore them they are a moron, that is the appropriate consequence to the action.
Another problem here is how do define being an asshat, we are all different, so it means something different to everyone. You can you be sure you are not being one if there is no strict definition. If you don't like people being mean to you it go into some highly moderated echo chamber where can feel safe. I also take exception to the implication that is men who are the perpetrators of this, women and girls are quite tough in my experience, my daughter can be much meaner than I ever was.
Re: (Score:2)
So, according to you, it's women who see women as weak, defenseless victims who can't survive without a big, strong man to protect them?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Mutual defense is the cornerstone of all civilization. Asking for help against an aggressor is not an indication of weakness. It is an indication of strength, because it works. The aggressor gets a beat down and hopefully learns that unprovoked attacks aren't a useful strategy. The aggressor is shown to be the weaker party, because they lost to the people who banded together.
It sounds to me like you just want the license (not freedom) to be an asshole, without consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Mutual defense is the cornerstone of all civilization.
So women must also defend men who are attacked, often with the exact same words, online?
Or is it more mutual for some than for others?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No we don't. That's just you and a small minority of loudmouth assholes.
Re:Looks like he's about to get sued! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everyone is a selfish fuck who only cares about themselves.
Very true. But that's the way to bet.
There aren't any girls on the internet (Score:5, Funny)
They are all dudes pretending.
And if she underage, that is a FBI agent.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't announce that you are male or female (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't announce that you are male or female, and you will be guaranteed equal treatment.
If you want special treatment, I can't help you.
Re: (Score:2)
If only Facebook, etc allowed you to not announce if you are male or female. But they require you to use your real name.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never used Facebook, so could you explain how they force you to use your real name? If I wanted to call myself Caroline Johnson, as opposed to Charles Johnson (or vice versa), how would they know I was using a false name?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That analogy is stupid. There's no information about you that is exposed by default on the internet. You have to actively put that out there. Recognizing that isn't pandering.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the "I will force everyone in the world to know things about they don't care about by shoving it in their faces constantly, and attacking them if they don't smother me in praise for my superiority" argument.
I think we should aim a bit higher than feeding our own ego by bullying others to compensate for a deep seated inferiority complex.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem of trolls and mis* (Score:2)
The main problem, IMHO, is that anonymity (which is an important component for free speech) sets up a positive feedback loop that escalates trollish behavior. Many internet based companies either won't, can't, or are unable to prune content that are contrarian to the population they intend to serve. Add those two together and you get content
Re: (Score:2)
Without anonymity you have enforcement of cancel culture. Yet there are many opinions short of full-throated Hitler support that should not be surpressed by fear of social sanction. Which really is corporate embarrassment leading to firing.
It is my sincere belief... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that most of the vitriol a woman faces online comes from other women telling her that she's doing being a woman wrong.
The same goes for the lgbtdurbv+!&xyz group.
I further think that there's a similar percentage of people just wanting to be asshats in anonymity as there was in the 90s and this people use against you whatever you show a weakness to. We call them trolls.
How is it that this wasn't a problem of existential proportion back then but it is now?
Re: It is my sincere belief... (Score:3)
The complexity and price of the technology required to access the Internet provides a continually lowering bar (lowered at $20 unlimited dial-up, lowered at broadband, lowered at useful accessibility on phones, etc). Someone who had to figure out their sound card had spontaneously changed IRQs and was keeping the modem from working, and corrected it, was less interested in shitting all over what they had worked to connect to.
Also, a lot of the knee jerk SJW culture hadn't developed yet. (I wish to emphasize
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and the solution is almost always somewhere in the middle of the "buck up and do nothing" crowd, and the "internet is not working for group x" crowd. (I mean really? massive improvements haven't been made because of the internet? did you miss #metoo?)
We should always strive to make things better, while at the same time not proclaiming it's the worst thing in the world.
Similarly, these movements would do a lot better if they were *inclusive* - plenty of men and boys hate the shit they receive on the int
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. What everyone calls harassment these days was the norm on most of the forums I used to frequent 10-15 years ago.
Hell, it's the norm every Friday night around here. Ripping on friends is high art for a lot of guys. And it's not always "in good fun."
There's a real point to be made there. It won't be, but that doesn't make it less real.
This shit again (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm 6' and 250 lbs (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, put yourself in the shoes of somebody who's 5'1", 100lbs and has on average 26lbs less muscle then a man. Sure, you can buy a gun, but maybe you don't want to (you're more likely to shoot yourself if you don't get training).
You're strawmaning (Score:3)
I don't have to worry about a man lusting after my body (regardless of their orientation, trust me, I don't). Go look up the stats on the number of women killed by exes sometime. Now think about the number of people that form personal connections to people they meet online, pe
Re:This shit again (Score:4, Informative)
It's called equality (Score:2)
Who hasn't been stalked, badgered and harassed.??
Internet not working for women? (Score:3, Funny)
It's about time we fork the Internet (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases.
You speak of a "universal standard" as if we humans didn't create this massive network that runs on a single communications standard, operates globally, is filled with everything from Alphabets to Zombie porn, and is available to anyone who can connect to it.
Let's just do the logical thing here and recognize Lee's observation for what it is; Yet again, women find something not good enough.
Shocking.
Re:It's about time we fork the Internet (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yet again, women find something not good enough.
I think that's part of it, but there's plenty of men involved with creating this inequality. We need to get these (generally progressive) people to realize that women are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and don't need a separate set of rules or standards. You'll never achieve equality if one group is treated differently from another group.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed...
What does the Internet know about your sex, or skin color, or even species [wikipedia.org]? Nothing other than what you tell everybody. In fact, it is easier to be a transgender online, because you don't even need to dress up (much less disfigure yourself) to "be" whoever you want to identify as.
To pretend, that the soulless cables an
How would he know anyway? (Score:2)
Of course he has shitstorm sites like Facebook in mind, and they are not "working" for anybody anyway, so removing "discrimination" there would effect zero improvement.
Relevence (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Two internets (Score:2, Insightful)
How about to solve the problem we set up another internet, and then make one of them exclusively for straight, white, cis-gendered men, and make the other exclusively for everyone else, and see how that goes?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd definitely hang out on the female internet. You can keep enjoying your sausage fest.
Re: (Score:2)
How about to solve the problem we set up another internet, and then make one of them exclusively for straight, white, cis-gendered men, and make the other exclusively for everyone else, and see how that goes?
That's idiotic. The obvious solution is to make women wear burkas whenever using software that connects to the internet in some way.
online versus real life (Score:5, Interesting)
In real life you could argue that women are physically weaker and can't defend themselves but online
they have all the same options as everyone else. Also, online, if they don't like something they can
just disconnect. Also, online you don't even have to tell people your gender.
Equality is about equality of opportunity not necessarily equality of outcome.
I don't see how the internet doesn't already offer that and you can't increase equality of opportunity past parity.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this...
Your gender online is exactly what you claim it to be and everyone is equal. If you think being a minority transgender will cause you unnecessary hassle then just pretend to be a white male online.
Re: (Score:2)
I know a number of women who would, in a calm, rational way, kick your ass for being such a misogynist loser.
Re: (Score:3)
"Just disconnect" is the other common argument, usually just after the "e-burka" one. The problem is that these days a lot of socialising is done online, and excluding yourself from that is also excluding yourself from your friends and community.
The internet is great for community. We are no longer limited to just people who are physically near us or writing letters to magazines. We can hop online and find like-minded people from all over the world to chat about our hobbies and interests with. That's why tr
Provide evidence. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not claiming any of this is false. I'm saying that a claim in the absence of evidence is meaningless, regardless of who makes it. Claiming that a statement is true because it was uttered by an expert is the definition of appeal to authority. I don't care who makes the claim. Back it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Pew: [pewresearch.org]
Overall, men are somewhat more likely to experience any form of harassing behavior online: 44% of men and 37% of women have experienced at least one of the six behaviors this study uses to define online harassment.
Daily Beast [thedailybeast.com]
On the whole, 2.5 percent of the tweets sent to the men but fewer than 1 percent of those sent to women were classified as abusive. Male politicians fared especially badly,
ya, I've got a crisis, too (Score:4, Interesting)
wish I had some built in excuse for someone else to champion my cause; instead I have to deal with it and work around the fact that nobody gives a shit about me except me; indifference from the the world doesn't indicate a conspiracy to keep me down
like others have mentioned and continuing with the established pattern, there's likely more to this than we're told
By web, does he means all 5 websites on it? (Score:2)
Now the guy who invented CompuServe2 is chastising us for each not being nice to another on there. Without ever men
Internet 'is Not Working For Women and Girls' (Score:2)
What? (Score:3)
Obligatory (Score:2)
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog [wikipedia.org]
As others have mentioned, all you have to do is not disclose details of your identity. Many of us have multiple handles that we use. You can choose what information you reveal about yourself, and where you reveal it. As an example: many people's slashdot handles give no indication of gender or identity.
Some parts of the Internet have always been toxic. Some forums and chatrooms appear to be populated primarily by foul-mouthed 13-year-olds. Everyone who goes there wi
Priorities (Score:2)
For the most part they have better things to do.
Online.. (Score:2)
The problem is that people today are using their real identities online, 20 years ago we were advised to go online under an alias and not give away personal information.
The Internet is all about equality, your alias can be anyone you want it to be and noone knows what (if any) relationship it has to your true identity. There's no such thing as a minority, and the fact that minority views can gain such traction online proves this.
And people had thicker skins... There were trolls who would come and spew rando
Asking for it (Score:2)
Social media ruined the web
Disgust (Score:2)
The privilege and fragility expressed by a majority is formidable.
Sorry, but it's not working for anyone (Score:2)
Social media has ruined the Internet for everyone, not just women. Have you read the comments on any site anywhere in the last 5 years? It makes you want to burn the whole thing down and start over.
It really helps to read TFA (Score:2)
He says:
“The world has made important progress on gender equality thanks to the unceasing drive of committed champions everywhere,” Berners-Lee wrote in an open letter to mark the web’s 31st birthday on Thursday. “But I am seriously concerned that online harms facing women and girls – especially those of colour, from LGBTQ+ communities and other marginalised groups – threaten that progress.”
He proposes:
- Better access to the Internet
- Better AI to combat discriminat
"Sir"? (Score:2)
I struggle to find a mention of Mr. Bernes-Lee, that wouldn't refer to him as "Sir" — because he was knighted, you know, by The Queen [w3.org].
But so were other people, such as Rudy Guliani [latimes.com] — and yet, no one refers to him as "Sir". And hasn't even when Trump was still a Democrat, and Guliani was not working for him...
Re: (Score:3)
Giuliani's title is honorary, Berners-lee's title is substantive. Only substantive titles come with the 'Sir' honorific.
Giuliani isn't eligible for the substantive title, as it can only be granted to individuals who are subjects of the monarch granting the title - ie, citizens of any nation of which the Queen is the head of state. Britain, Canada, Australia, a handful of smaller countries.
Giuliani doesn't get a 'Sir' because he is American, and America already stepped outside the realm of British titles whe
Stupid article (Score:3)
The Internet is just a pipe, it doesn't "do" anything. What he's complaining about is the bad behavior of people, bad behavior that has existed since the beginning of time. You'll never fix that because it's part of our DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
This could be done by people not being complete asshats to each other.
Re:Who else is sick of this? (Score:5, Interesting)
The ultimate problem with this reasoning is that the tyrants will always attempt to redefine what being an asshat means in order to suit their whims. In China questioning the wisdom or legitimacy of the government is viewed as asshat behavior. In many countries blasphemy against $deity is going to get you labeled complete asshat. In the west there are groups that consider you an asshat for even questioning their feminist dogma. The simple truth is that you can't have an internet with free and open discourse if you're never allowed to risk offending anyone. Why should any other group get special treatment if we're still allowed to claim that anti-vaxxers (or any group we don't like) are complete nutters?
Because the real meaning of what most people consider to be asshat behavior just boils down to their own personal beliefs. It's entirely okay for them to be a complete dick to anyone they disagree with and human history is rife with examples throughout time and across all cultures. The internet will be no different and someday you too will be branded a digital heathen and any rights you assumed that you had to prevent you from being subject to asshat behavior will have mysteriously vanished.
Re: (Score:2)
And if we sprinkle pixie dust on ourselves, we could fly!
Sadly, we live in the real world, full of real people, and not matter who furiously we masturbate to our fantasies, they're still not real.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually believe that there is no difference between "women and girls" and "my mother"?
Or could you just not think of any response to what was actually said?
Re:Unlike almost everything else (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
these will get discounted or removed entirely from the discussion as they don't support the foregone conclusions we're all supposed to swallow whole without any real thought
now prepare for others to ignore the message and concentrate on killing the messenger
Re: (Score:2)
Women have the power of the pu$$y which is one of the most powerful forces in the universe.
It's not really that powerful. Money is better, and even that is not so powerful.
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno. The seem equal to me. Either can easily buy the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
And on the internet, the bullying is virtual - unlike physical bullying it can't actually injure you unless you let it.
Whats worse, being insulted online by some random who's halfway round the world, or physically beaten?
Re: (Score:2)
And since it's online, women can pretend to be men, say all kinds of things about other women and then blame it all on men.
Re:not working? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which brings up an interesting point: Look at the reaction a 'thot' gets for posting her own pics. Unbridled rage. And often from the same guys who visit image boards to look for creep shots and whatnot. It's about power and who gets to wield it over women.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how does being exactly what you hate most work for them?
As well as it does for everyone else, that being a near universal trait in humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Groups broken up will mean they infiltrate the mainstream groups.