A really fascinating scholarly article on "trolling" of online feminist spaces

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michelle
A really fascinating scholarly article on "trolling" of online feminist spaces

 

Michelle

quote:


When women gather online, and especially when they attempt to discuss feminism, they are not uncommonly the target of negative attention from individuals, mostly men, who feel threatened by or otherwise uncomfortable with feminism. The literature on disruption of online feminist spaces dates back to the early days of computer-mediated communication research. Balka (1993) traces the history of four feminist forums from the 1980s, all of which experienced some degree of male harassment. Ebben (1994) describes the evolution of the soc.feminism newsgroup on Usenet, which was started in response to an earlier incarnation of the newsgroup (soc.women) having been taken over by men, and which itself has subsequently been taken over by men posting anti-feminist and misogynistic messages (Sutton, 1994). Collins-Jarvis (1997) documents the crisis that befell Comserve’s Gender hotline when several males began bombarding the forum with anti-feminist messages, causing female subscribers to flee the group, and the forum eventually to be shut down. In a similar vein, Reid (1994) reports an incident on a MUD for sexual abuse survivors, in which a male-presenting character with the name “Daddy” traumatized the community by shouting graphic descriptions of violent sexual acts to those present on the MUD.

In the interests of insuring a space in which women feel safe to participate, feminists online have sometimes taken the separatist route of excluding males from participation. Hall (1996) describes the practices of a women-only discussion group for lesbians and bisexuals, its reasons for not allowing men, and the challenges it faces in enforcing its women-only policy. The women-only policy of Systers, an online forum for women in computer science, is explained and justified by its founder, Anita Borg, in Camp (1996). Herring et al. (1995) suggest that women-only groups, regardless of whether they discuss feminism, are a reaction to patterns of male domination in mixed-gender discussion groups on the Internet. Women are discouraged from participating in computer mediated communication (CMC) by men posting more, longer, and more aggressive messages (Herring, 1994; Herring, 1999; Herring, Johnson, & DiBenedetto, 1995; Kramarae & Taylor, 1993; Spender, 1995), and by complaints that women are dominating the conversation even when such is not the case (Herring et al., 1995). Women-only groups create environments in which women can speak and be heard on topics of interest to them. At the same time, such groups are controversial: They risk being exclusionary and thereby provoking further male resentment (Hall, 1996), and they can become “ghettoes” in which women’s online presence is marginalized relative to the Internet at large (cf. Herring, 1994).

As an alternative to excluding male participants, some women-centered groups respond to disruptive or harassing behaviors by implementing participation policies that make it more difficult for future disruption to occur. Thus the Gender hotline re-opened with a moderator who now filters all messages received before posting them (Collins-Jarvis, 1997). The MUD for sexual abuse survivors described by Reid (1994) implemented a process of identity verification, and disabled the feature that allowed users to communicate simultaneously with everyone in the MUD. Other groups introduce a policy that allows disruptive participants to be banned from the group, as occurred in the present study.
...

The literature about on-line harassment underscores the tension between libertarian and communitarian values, in that harassment often arises in spaces known for their freedom, lack of censure, and experimental nature (Brail, 1996; Dibbell, 1993; Reid, 1999). Herring makes an explicit connection between on-line harassment and libertarian values in a study of gender harassment, noting that "[t]his 'rhetoric of harassment' crucially invokes libertarian principles of freedom of expression, constructing women's resistance as 'censorship'" (1999, p. 151).


[url=http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html]Searching for Safety Online: Managing "Trolling" in a Feminist Forum[/url]

If you read further down, you'll see the case study of this guy, "Kent" and the stuff he was writing to the forum. I read a few of the posts they highlighted and thought, that guy would've lasted about 10 posts on babble. Maybe.

[ 01 July 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

remind remind's picture

Who knew? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

remind remind's picture

*bump* because it is an excellent read.

Michelle

I'm curious which discussion forum it was! They said it was the forum for a popular national feminist magazine (in the US, I assume) so I wondered if it was the Ms boards.

In any case, yeah, it's a really good read - it only takes maybe 10 or 15 minutes to read through the whole article, and oh man, the dynamics are SO familiar!

One thing I found interesting was the reluctance on the part of the women to defend their space against attackers, in the name of "libertarian" freedom of speech values. I can understand that, because that's a much stronger principle in the US than in Canada.

It seems to me, though, that they could have easily gotten around it by saying, you know what, we believe in collective, constructive spaces for women, and the internet is a great big place - by not allowing men to wreck this place, we are not stifling freedom of speech since they can go anywhere online and say whatever they like. We're just not letting them disrupt the speech WE want to have.

Basically, by letting trolls wreck your web site, you are giving them control over your editorial decisions for your site, which is the ultimate in lack of free speech. There's no way, as the moderator of a left-wing forum, which is in part an editorial job (attempting to set the mandate and tone of the forum, and keeping it that way), that I would feel obligated to allow people to wreck this space for the people for which it is intended, any more than a magazine or newspaper would feel that they had to print each and every letter and article submitted to them for publication, regardless of quality or subject matter.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]One thing I found interesting was the reluctance on the part of the women to defend their space against attackers, in the name of "libertarian" freedom of speech values.[/b]

Along with that though, is the fundamental stance of inclusiveness held by feminists. However, I believe that is changing that one does not have to tolerate the intolerant just for the sake of toleration.

Also, I found the "ghettoization" of feminists to closed internet feminists sites, interesting. As I find that this being done does more than marginalize feminists voices, it effectively shuts them down completely. Being over 'there' is much more easy to ignore, as opposed to standing firm within the greater framework.

Will S

This was a very interesting article. I was interested in the libertarian-communitarian debates within the forum mentioned. I find myself trying to figure out where I stand on the continuum. The former journalist in me likes the idea of maximizing freedom of expression, but safe spaces for marginalized groups are very important and should take precedence in some situations. I think if people like 'Kent' were actually interesting in debating and open to listening and respecting other opinions a certain degree of flexibility is important, but if you're just present to agitate for the sake of agitating you're not adding anything to the debate.