Breaking the Network: Countering Online Harassment
Introduction
In recent years, online harassment has become an increasingly prevalent issue, with movements such as GamerGate gaining notoriety for their campaigns of abuse and intimidation. In this article, we will delve into the tactics employed by such movements and explore the strategies that can be used to counteract them. By breaking down the network of harassment, we can hope to minimize the damage caused by these campaigns and empower victims to take back control of their online experiences.
The Dark Side of GamerGate
GamerGate, a harassment campaign that targeted individuals in the gaming industry, serves as a prime example of the destructive power of online harassment. The movement relied on multiple levels of harassment on various forums to radicalize individuals and fuel a culture of hate and stalking. Restraining orders, such as the one taken out by one of GamerGate’s prominent victims against her ex-partner, proved ineffective in resolving the abuse. Even if they had been successful, it wouldn’t have stopped the deeply ingrained toxicity of the campaign.
The Role of Crowd Dynamics
While the lieutenants of GamerGate played a crucial role in identifying targets and amplifying the movement, they relied on the participation of a larger crowd to truly inflict pain on their victims. Crowdsourcing nobodies were needed to make the targets feel the full force of the campaign. Unfortunately, restraining orders and legal action cannot be issued against a crowd, leaving victims without adequate protection. The constitutional right to freedom of speech further complicates the matter, as even the most horrible speech is protected. The ferment of discourse within these networks provides the basis for more overt forms of abuse, rationalizing and justifying heinous acts towards the targets.
Breaking the Network: A Strategic Approach
In order to combat online harassment effectively, it is vital to focus on breaking the network that propagates and sustains these campaigns. By increasing the friction and obstacles faced by those seeking to access platforms like Kiwi Farms, a notorious hub for online abuse, it becomes more difficult for these individuals to find and recruit like-minded people. This decreases the likelihood of deranged individuals going the extra mile to launch direct attacks on their targets. When these networks are disrupted, their members are deprived of the emotional intensification and justifications that they provide, weakening their ability to cause harm.
- Adding obstacles and friction to accessing platforms like Kiwi Farms
- Reducing the recruitment pool of like-minded individuals
- Diminishing the emotional intensification and justification for abuse
The Benefits of Breaking the Network
While breaking the network does not entirely eliminate the problem of online harassment, it significantly improves the situation. The more difficult crowdsourcing becomes, the greater the chances of a harassment campaign failing. Kiwi Farms, for instance, still poses a threat, but it is weaker than before. The number of foot soldiers available for recruitment has decreased, and it is more challenging for night stalkers to comfortably access the site. By disrupting the network, the power and impact of these extremists are diminished, making it harder for them to cause the same level of damage as before.
Empowering Victims
If citizenship and politics mean anything, they must include agency and active resistance from the victims of online harassment. It is essential to ensure that they can be more than passive victims, capable of taking action to change the rules of the game. Political theorist Hannah Arendt highlighted the importance of action in our human existence, emphasizing the ability to do something new and be unpredictable. By embracing this notion, victims can play a pivotal role in countering the malice of online abusers.
The Debate on Deplatforming
The question of whether platforms like Kiwi Farms should be allowed to prosper remains a divisive issue. Banning such sites may seem like a solution, but it would not necessarily prevent abusers from finding alternative platforms. Nonetheless, the resistance displayed by Kiwi Farms victims must not be discounted. Keeping these sites online demonstrates the enduring struggle against authoritarians who abuse their power. Ultimately, it is necessary to find ways to disrupt the networks of extremist abusers, even if these measures are only partial or provisional in nature.
The Way Forward
In conclusion, breaking the network of online harassment is a crucial strategy in countering these destructive campaigns. By focusing on disrupting the networks, increasing friction, and empowering victims, we can begin to address the root causes of online abuse. It is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach involving legal, technological, and societal interventions. However, by taking action and embracing the power of collective agency, we can create a safer and more inclusive online environment for all.
Summary
In this article, we have explored the harmful impact of online harassment campaigns, using GamerGate as a prime example. We have discussed the role of crowdsourcing in intensifying these campaigns and the limitations of legal actions such as restraining orders. By breaking the network of harassment, we diminish the power of extremists and reduce their ability to cause harm. Empowering victims to take action and disrupt the networks is vital to countering online abuse. While the debate on deplatforming continues, it is clear that alternative strategies are necessary to address the root causes of online harassment. By actively engaging in this issue and implementing comprehensive solutions, we can make significant progress in creating a safer digital landscape for all.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
One of the most prominent victims of GamerGate’s harassment campaign took out a restraining order against her ex-partner, whose false accusations fueled the movement. The restraining order did nothing to significantly resolve the abuse, but even if it had worked, it wouldn’t have stopped GamerGate. Campaign. The campaign relied on multiple levels of harassment on various forums that radicalized angry young people (mostly men) into hating their targets, obsessively stalking their online presences, and sharing the reasons for the abuse with each other.
While GamerGate’s lieutenants played an important role in calling out targets and amplifying the movement’s less followed members, they also needed those crowdsourcing nobodies to make their target truly feel the pain. You cannot issue a restraining order to a crowd, nor arrest them. No matter how horrible his speech is, it is constitutional. But the ferment of that discourse is what creates the basis for more overt forms of abuse, rationalizing and making it seem justified to dox and crush a target, leave a dead animal on their doorstep, stalk them and send the photographs to their loved ones. Parents, leave it. threatening messages on your door, etc.
Thus, breaking Your network is the main strategic objective. It is the least intrusive option that is still effective. That’s why people like Fong-Jones and Lorelei chose the targets they did. If you add obstacles (friction) to those looking to access a site like Kiwi Farms, it will be much harder to find people. You make it more difficult to attract enough people in the base hope that one of them will be deranged enough to go the extra mile to attack the target in more direct ways. These networks radicalize their members, intensify their emotions and provide them with justifications for their abuses and more.
Breaking the network does not eliminate the problem, but it does improve it. The more difficult crowdsourcing is, the more likely it is that a given harassment campaign will fail. Kiwi Farms is still capable of causing harm, but it would be a mistake to suggest that its resilience online means its victims have failed to thwart them. They are weaker than before, there are fewer foot soldiers to recruit from, and it is more difficult for night stalkers to comfortably access the site. When these extremists are reduced to their most devout followers, they are still a threat, but they lack the manpower to cause damage like before.
If citizenship and politics mean anything, they must include the type of agency organization exercised by Kiwi Farms victims, to ensure that they can be further than passive victims. After all, this is what political theorist Hannah Arendt meant by the word “action.” That simple word, for her, meant exercising the very ability to do something new, to change the rules, to knock down the board and be unpredictable. According to her, it is at the center of what makes us who we are as a species and at the essence of a politics worthy of the name.
Allowing Kiwi Farms to prosper would not have protected anyone anywhere in the world from the malice of authoritarians who seek to abuse power at every turn. They could have used banning Kiwi Farms or the Daily Stormer as a fig leaf to create “precedent,” but keeping these sites online wouldn’t have stopped the censors. Why would the Kiwi Farms victims have sacrificed themselves? Will the shameless do what they want and the decent suffer what they must?
What this experience reveals, and what is generalizable to future dilemmas of this type, is that breaking a network of harassment remains the least intrusive option on the table. Perhaps pressing the deep stack this way is not optimal. The EFF is right to raise serious doubts, doubts that I share. But then, this key insight into the network effects of harassment campaigns means that the solution, however partial or provisional, lies in finding other ways to disrupt the networks of extremist abusers. If anyone should be left with the straw that breaks the camel’s back of pluralism, it should be them.
—————————————————-