Dear Facebook

Reblogged from The Melodramatic Confessions of Carla Louise

Originally posted on December 31, 2015

Dear Facebook,                                                                                                    

I love you. I really do. When I lived eight hours away from my family and twelve hours away from my friends, you made it so easy (and affordable) to keep in contact with everyone.

However, recently, I’ve realised that you are letting me down – and other women – on a continual basis.


Well, according to your Community Standards, Facebook is designed to “keep you safe”. (Yes, I know we all need to be realistic in regards to “safe”. If you post a naked photo, it’s the internet, it’ll never come down. If you criticise your boss, and he or she sees it, they may fire you. “Safe” is a relative term; but please, bear with me.) We can report people and their content can be removed and disabled if we are being threatened, harassed and abused – among other things (like hate speeches and symbols).

Supposedly, according to your standards, you work to “encourage respectful behaviour”.

However, when I reported a man’s threatening, abusive and racist behaviour (on behalf of another woman), your review came back saying you found that his comments didn’t violate the community standards you say you uphold.

Don’t believe me?

I took screenshots.

It gets worse … trust me.

Despite the fact that this man insulted people of colour, Jewish people, women who “consorted” with people of colour, and said that she would get “ravaged a pack of feral n*****”, you did not deem any of this to be harassment. Or hate speech. Or anything. And this was all one man, to one woman, who just ignored it. You responded with your standard, “This does not violate Facebook’s Community Standards”.

Really? How?

So then I decided to report my own abuse and threats that I was currently receiving, and you responded in the exact same manner.

So I started taking more and more screenshots.

Jack, my lovely friend Jack here, as you can see below (I’ve only snipped parts of it …. his conversations were incredibly long, and while I was originally going to include all of it, I figured that the ‘general gist’ was better than the whole nine yards which were hundreds of words long) felt it perfectly acceptable to insult, abuse and harass me.

He’s okay with calling me a retard:

And a fuckwit:

And a moron:

And he’s comfortable with insulting domestic violence victims, while calling me a dumbass:

Then he started posting in public forums about me, because I blocked him for continually insulting me (I’m crazy like that – and it may not seem like much, but I have 35 copies of Jack’s insults. That’s thirty-five screen-shots I could use to prove just how many times Jack insulted me. Let that sink in just for a moment before telling me “It’s not that bad”.):

Then he created a new profile, because I blocked him (and he called me a twat … but I guess that’s okay, in your standards, Facebook? Because he didn’t use c***? And it’s obviously not harassment when someone creates a second profile and comes back to find you on an old thread to insult you. This was an old thread. Days old. He says he came back to see what I was saying, but I said nothing after I blocked him. There wasn’t anything to say; he was clearly a troll. However, despite this, he continues to harass me for a bit longer):

My response to Jack’s harassment; he posted a comment saying I was a ‘coward’ for blocking him, among other insults.

Apparently, I am only allowed to be offended if they’re ‘gendered’ insults, in Jack’s mind (and edit – I did not call Jack any of these names. I try and always keep my discussions civil; I was merely recounting the names he’d called me, because I said that ‘feminism was needed because of the insults women face on the internet. Clearly, Jack feels it’s okay to insult women if they aren’t gendered insults):

And he’s not afraid to call me crazy when I call him out:

And does not understand the definition of ‘harassment’:

He also believes stereotypes are okay, and introduces a new insult (I guess after a time ‘fuckwit’ and ‘moron’ get boring):

And then tries to shame me (unsuccessfully) after creating the second profile, because I don’t want to listen to his abuse or be bombarded by his constant harassment. But apparently, feeling that this is unacceptable behaviour from anyone is ‘cowardly’:


And so I reported Jack. And blocked him for the second time:


And despite the fact of all of this, Facebook still tells me that this does not define harassment. Or abuse. Or indecent behaviour of any kind.

Oh, and what about when I reported “John Hunt”? Whose account is obviously fake, as he uses Jon Hamm’s photos and has maybe 30 friends, most of which are naked women, used solely to troll and insult women because #menimism.

Almost all of his pictures are supported with the hashtag #servethecock.


And here:

And here:

(There’s more, but I think you see my point.)

Yet, you, Facebook, deemed not one of these to be offensive. Somehow, this does not violate your community standards – but women showing pictures of breast feeding (and no visible nipple) is not okay? Women showing their recovery after a mastectomy – where there is no nipple to even show – that violates your community standards?

And somehow, #servethecock does not violate these standards?

A man creating a second profile to track me down and further harass and insult me also does not violate your standards?

A man saying he hopes a woman gets raped is not a violation?

I am a woman, and I am tired of being insulted and shamed and abused and threatened when I’ve posted anything on Facebook.

Also, Facebook, please keep in mind that Jack’s screenshots were all taken in the past twenty-four hours.

Imagine the screenshots I’d have in a week.

In a month.

Think of all the times a woman – or a man – is abused, threatened and harassed and you do nothing because somehow (god knows how) but you say that this doesn’t violate your community standards.

So please, Facebook. Maybe you need to be clearer about what violates your “community standards” because I’m shocked and confused about about how #servethecock and “I hope you get raped” is somehow not worse than a breastfeeding photo.

You are not protecting anyone.

You are not keeping anyone safe.

And you need to rethink, seriously, about how people can report profiles, memes, and comments, because right now your reporting process is beyond unacceptable.

Perhaps start by separating the categories – harassment and hate speech shouldn’t be together; nor should a lot of other categories. Give a person 50 words or less to write and explain why they are reporting an image or a person (so, for example, you know that I’ve had to block Jack for his behaviour more than once and perhaps maybe you’d take that into consideration).

And just so it’s clear: this is not about revenge; not on any of these men. This is not about maybe getting someone fired from a job – which is why, for the most part, I’ve tried to block out everyone’s names and pictures (except for John Hunt … because, you know, obviously fake). I am not trying to shame any one individual; I’m trying to make a point. The point is that Facebook’s current system, it’s “community standards” is a failure.

Your current system is despicable. I’ve tried telling you this each time you’ve “failed” when I’ve reported something, and nothing has ever happened. My only hope is that this message gets enough attention that you see it.

And get the problem.

Fix it.



Note: Facebook, after you failed me twice, Twitter is far more helpful. You see, because Jack is a stalker who does not understand harassment, he is tracking me down on every able source, because it’s “fun”. (And other women; so thanks for failing, Facebook.) However, because Twitter gives you the opportunity to explain why you want to report a person, I actually had the opportunity to explain the reasons why he actually was harassing me. But thanks, Facebook. Way to show “safety” in a community.


WIN: Misogynistic bullying account terminated

Craig Kelly MP – working for his electorate by rubbishing the ABC and pandering to Islamophobes

#mikebairdMP                 #jrobertsonmp

Craig Kelly is the Liberal Federal MP for the seat of Hughes.

When this story and picture surfaced of a man allegedly bashed by police during a  raid on his home connected to Operation Hammerhead, Craig joined in the jeers from his anti-Muslim Facebook fans with a swipe at the ABC for *gasp* reporting the news.


We don’t have much evidence that Craig is very bright so we will tell him that bashing suspects is NOT correct police procedure. In some rare instances an officer may need to act against an alleged suspect to protect the lives of themselves, their colleagues or someone else at a crime scene.

This was not the case in this instance.

We are not aware either that this man has been charged with any crimes.

What Craig should have done before opening his mouth was to request an investigation by his State colleagues. After all he has more clout with Police Minister Stuart Ayres than we do.

We are also told that the Police Commissioner would regard such allegations as serious and is keen to emphasise that unprofessional conduct by the police is not sanctioned.

It is the job of the ABC to report news, not to make life more relaxed and comfortable for the current shambolic Federal government. And we know that the ABC sometimes goes overboard in brown-nosing the current government in an effort to silence its yammering critics, all of whom are besties of the Coalition.

But we hope the voters in Hughes remember at the next Federal election that their current member prefers cosying up and having a laugh with his rabid Facebook cronies as well as rubbishing the national broadcaster rather than actually doing any electorate work.

Racism And Technology Is Evolving Faster Than The Law

Reblogged from Vice

By The Anti Bogan  |

Hey remember that racist lady on the train? You know, the one who offered the heartfelt apology on Channel 7 while using a pseudonym? Yeah, she was horrible but she said sorry so she’s not racist anymore and anyway it was justified because she’s been the victim of racism before and she isn’t really a racist because she has a friend who is half Indian. And it’s okay too because she was splashed across mainstream, independent and social media for days and charged by police for public racial abuse within 48 hours. Thank goodness that’s over and will never happen ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, again.

When it comes to dealing with public discrimination, Australia has the state and federal legislation, but not the teeth. When a YouTube video of a venomous bigot spitting racial diatribe goes viral, it becomes newsworthy. It’s pure gold to mainstream television networks that push voyeuristic sensationalism to an audience hungry for car accidents, home invasions, shootings, and dogs on surfboards.

When this chunk of people power feels offended it’s suddenly vital for authorities and tall poppies to be seen to address the issues immediately. Enter the police spokesperson or local member for Boganville.

It often feels like incidents of racism are on the rise—particularly at the lowly public-transport-riding-citizen level. But a contributing factor is that every person with a mobile phone is now carrying a video camera. The same can be seen in the online world of racism: levels of bigotry have always existed, but now anyone with the Internet has a public voice and the ability to publish their opinions to the world. Camera phones and You Tube may give the impression that we’re more sensitive to racial injustice than our parents, but the actual system in place to protect people against racism is about as effective as clicking ‘like’ on a Facebook post.

Racism was, is and will always be a problem. But the less visible issue arising now is that our legal system isn’t evolving at the same rate as our racist outlets. The enforceable statutes that are in place to protect people from barbs of discrimination are clear and imposing, yet were implemented in a time when incidences of public rants and raves were limited to drunks and creeps on the street beating their chests and dragging their knuckles. It is frequently asserted that people can be ‘prosecuted’ or ‘convicted’ under the Racial Discrimination Act. It is regularly said that section 18C serves to protect hurt feelings at the expense of free speech. In actual fact, neither assertion is true. Additionally, 1 out of every 3 complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is declined due to a complex variety of reasons.

At the most basic level, the Racial Discrimination sector of the AHRC states that racial discrimination is against the law and that citizens may lodge complaints. But it continues by stating that it is “not a court” and cannot prove that discrimination has occurred. Additionally, the HRC will generally only accept complaints lodged by a member of the affected group. For example, if you are offended at a television advertisement where Indian people are portrayed in a negatively generalising way, you may only lodge a complaint with the HRC if you are of Indian descent.

At the authoritative level, making a statement at your Local Area Command (LAC) police station will generally prove to be fruitless as well. Officers will tell you that in order to act on online threats or acts of discrimination they will need to conduct an investigation into whether or not the person on the other end is who they say they are. According to one Constable at a local Sydney LAC, it would take up to three months to perform what is called an iASK. This is the same procedure undertaken by police officers when responding to victims of harassment via email or mobile phone. Dealing with online harassment is difficult due to the fact that people share computers and are tech savvy enough to use VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) that throw their IP location to far reaching corners of the world.

At the holy-shit-I-just-want-to-be-protected level, officers may assist you in applying for a PVO (Personal Violence Order), which can prevent a certain person from harassing you, but this is a lengthy procedure and requires you to be present in a court of law. Additionally, it only prevents one person from harassing you and does not stop them harassing others in the same way.

Our impotence to fight racism isn’t just confined to trolls, but rather compounded by a Scott Morrison inspired Government that attempts to demonize asylum seekers by calling them “economic migrants”. Our own Attorney General George Brandis floated the idea to remove what little protection we presently have (see Section 18C Racial Discrimination Act) because “people have the right to be bigots”. Luckily that didn’t come to fruition.

To say our discrimination legislation is in need of a refresh in an understatement— it was drawn up in a time when our Indigenous population was being referred to as “fauna” and refused the vote. Racism in Australia is an ugly shrouded reality, one generally muffled and confined to family homes and the boozy BBQs. In Australian culture racism is like smoking, just because it’s not allowed in public spaces doesn’t mean a huge section of the population is willing to give it up.

Media and law enforcement should be reacting to online discrimination with the same vehement opposition afforded to public transport bigots with equally, if not harsher penalties. Unlike Sue Wilkins (aka Karen Bailey), there are literally tens of thousands of bigots lining up on social media to offer their real names, smiling faces, and Bali holiday snaps in stark juxtaposition with their hate-filled opinions of people who are culturally, religiously, sexually, physically and politically different minded. To the rest of us, these people are achingly awkward and produce uncomfortable giggles and smirks. It’s hard to laugh at discrimination, but easy to guffaw at nutjobs who are losing their shit on public transport. Poor fools. They’re in a way the victims, to be honest. Victims of a sensationalist media and fear-striking Government that wants them to think they’re in need of saving from the unwashed, coloured mob.

Of course it is naïve to believe that discrimination will fade away and see us living in a harmonic utopia simply on the back of harsher penalties and legislation. It takes a multi-pronged and sustained effort of education, shifts in media and entertainment, endorsement from influential people, denouncement from politicians, and better guidance from parents to see bigots change their ways. But first things first, we need 21st century protections against abuse – if racism and hate can keep up with the times we need to make sure so can we. And if heaven forbid, you ever find yourself chucking a wobbly at some Asian on a hot train on your way home from 28 failed job applications, just make sure you say sorry and pretend your name is Richard Head.

Facebook supports misogynist killers – and their cheerleaders

#JointDestroyer   #stillgray  #CCriadoPerez  #timjsimmons   #guardian   #YesAllWomen

From the Department of Why are we not surprised

Destroy the Joint is not surprised either



Scores of people on Facebook and Twitter, as well as in  The Guardian, complained.




Some of the responses in The Guardian

…”The page itself may have been created specifically to provoke”…

I’m sure it was and the person responsible is obviously a complete tosser.


Why won’t facebook listen to it’s users and enforce it’s Rights And Responsibilities code? It shouldn’t take a newspapers involvement to bring about the removal of the page.
This isn’t the first time it’s happened either. Seems as if their conscience is only pricked when bad publicity comes calling.

How many hate pages are still up on Facebook despite thousands of reports?

I reported it as well.
Might have to post to the page, including a photo of a nipple. That might get FB to act.

Facebook has a weirdly warped concept of “Community Standards”. One wonders what loony “community” they reference.

The First Amendment does not apply to Facebook having to give a platform to people. The person who claimed it did is either lying or very stupid.

Someone needs to tell Facebook that. Do they think that anti-social entities like racists, bigots and killers and their supporters are more likely to click on their shonky sponsors’ ads?

What the fuck is Facebook’s problem? How can it possibly defend hosting a tribute page to a murdering psychopath? I’m all for defending free speech. But when it becomes a platform for bigotry, and rabid sexist bilge it is no longer a champion it is a symptom of the murderous social malaise besetting America.

I’m glad its taken the page down but the fact it did so under protest I find revolting. Especially when it will delete a pic of a woman breastfeeding with gusto.

Facebook has very disturbing issues it needs to address. Get some therapy.

One wonders indeed at the intelligence and mental health of people at Facebook.

The fact that one individual could target women is terrible, but I would not jump to the conclusion because of E Rodgers that misogynistic thinking is now the norm in western culture. However what is truly terrifying is Facebook’s continuing failure to remove sites glorifying violence against women. What does this say about our society? …They haven’t even got the decency to have a proper customer complaints department and show complete arrogant contempt for their users. .. Apparently there is still a site showing a young girl being gang raped which they refuse to take down. What really goes through their minds? Why have we allowed internet based corporations to operate outside normal boundaries? The press, TV, cinema and Advertising outlets all have to operate within codes so why do we think that the internet is different? There is no effective age restriction either;all this is available to children.This is not freedom of speech but oppression, terror and incitement of hatred. It needs an international government response.

Rape sites which can be seen by children – that’s Facebook for you

Facebook wins the hypocrisy stakes (yet again)

Scene – drought-stricken Western NSW

A drought-breaking rain, a joyful young farmer celebrating with an impromptu naked rain dance.


Enter Facebook censors yet again.

… Mr Rogers soon found himself the butt of Facebook fury, with users reporting the image for graphic content or nudity.

The picture was taken down, and Station Photos was issued a warning and a subsequent 24-hour Facebook ban.

Queensland-based page Higgins Storm Chasing also re-posted the picture and received a warning and a ban.

“I went and made a page for it, and mine got blocked,” Mr Rogers said.

The 22-year-old said he did not understand how such a good-natured photo could be so controversial.

“I couldn’t believe it… it was just a harmless joke and it kept going,” he said.
“There’s much worse things on Facebook than that.”

What Facebook thinks is acceptable

And some reader comments we liked

There’s far worse stuff on Facebook full of hate, racism, violence, religious intolerance, homophobia, bullying and revenge. Show nature au naturel and a bunch of sad twats fall over themselves rushing to point their mouse over the report button. Conservative forces of eras past have got all the prudes, puritans, evangelicals, anti-fun police frothing at their flat screens and had their twisted values shoved squarely down the throat of society once again. A big raspberry to you all. If only all that misplaced energy could be turned against the hate and misinformation about science that is so tolerated as conversation on Facebook and some mainstream media.

Facebook is a complete joke, they will sit on their hands and let people open up hate pages, bully others and even let pedophile rings pass around photos of children. But when they get a few complaints about a struggling farmer celebrating showing his bum, look out alarm bells start to ring.

You can easily find loads of picture that have woman showing of the breast and bums and also see pages that are very border line socially unaccepted. They don’t stop people doing stupid or dangerous things and posting that on Facebook either.

I think it is time for all of us Australians to start supporting our farmers and what better way to do this then start posting pictures of our bums on Facebook in support and a show of respect to James Roger….. Come on Australia who’s with me!!!!! 🙂

I really don’t see much that I like about the USA! It’s ok to blow people up at weddings and show the results on the evening news but anything to do with the flesh is totally banned! Remember Janet Jackson showing her boob to the world, major controversy with government inquiries being held…. Would have hardly rated a mention here…

Read more

Swinburne Uni racist dropkick attacks Aussie star

#Swinburne   #GuardianAus   #Utopiana   #markdreyfus

Jessica Mauboy courtesy ABC

Singer, actor and songwriter Jessica Mauboy is one of Australia’s most popular, recognisable and well-loved stars. She is a multiple award winner and a great role-model for young women, particularly young Indigenous women. Only 24 years old, she has crammed more achievement into her short life than most people three times her age.

However there are always failures who are so inadequate and talent-less themselves they are only too willing to attack  those who have succeeded. And if they can set up a racist page on Facebook to do so under the cover of anonymity then they will.


This moron not only set up a Facebook page (to which we won’t link) but edited Jessica Mauboy’s Wikipedia page.


However this was to be its downfall because from the edits we were able to track it to Swinburne University of Technology.

And an alert moderator at Wikipedia has removed the edits.

But it gets worse. When the page was reported to Facebook, this was the reply.


So as you can see despite the previous Labor Government and its Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus having put Facebook under notice, Facebook is still obtusely lazy, thoughtless and unethical as it continues to accept racism of the worst sort on its site.

We are hoping that Dropkick will be asked to remove itself from Swinburne after having dragged its good name through the mud. Perhaps that will enable a more deserving student to take its place.

Racists do not belong anywhere

What you can do

1. Contact the Vice-Chancellor at Swinburne University of Technology Professor Anthony Cahalan

2. Report the offending group and any other pages which attack Indigenous Australians

The Pantograph Punch – Aping Intolerance

by Matt Harnett

On 24 May, the Sydney Swans smashed the Collingwood Magpies at the MCG, winning by 47 points in an historic blow out. The game was part of the Indigenous Round, when the Australian Football League recognises the contribution Indigenous Australian players have made to the game and its culture. It was therefore unthinkable that a 13 year old Collingwood fan sitting near the pitch should single out Adam Goodes, a Sydney player of Indigenous descent who was having the game of his life, and yell “Ape!”

Goodes had his back to the girl. “When I turned around, I just saw this young face and I was just, it was just sad…” He stood stock still for a moment, then pointed at her. “It just hit me, that’s why I had to leave the arena, it just broke my heart.” He retired before full time to the team’s changing rooms. He’d never in his career played so well. He was a grown man, but a 13 year old girl had looked at him and in a moment of rabid thoughtlessness screamed something hateful, and he was done. The girl was kicked out of the stadium, and subsequently apologised. You can’t say that sort of thing in public and expect to get away with it, not any more.

Goodes gave an excellent press conference the next day, explaining his reaction and why he had to leave the field. “I felt I was in high school again, being bullied, being called all these names because of my appearance. I didn’t stand up for myself in high school. I’m a lot more confident, I’m a lot more proud about who I am and my culture, and I decided to stand up last night.” An Australian website posted an interesting etymology of the insult.

And in the mainstream media, that was the end of that.

Like Adam Goodes, Luke Damon is a keen footy player. He’s not quite in the same class: he plays for a little local club, the Chelsea Seagulls. They’re based on the Mornington Peninsula, south of Melbourne. He works for a company called Ja & Ja Concreting, and went to Mt Erin Secondary College. He’s got blue eyes and an attractive partner. A dog, too – a beautiful chocolate Labrador.

I know all this because Luke doesn’t know how to use Facebook.

Should we give Luke the benefit of the doubt? Does his ‘Who am I????’ belie legitimate existential angst, or even self-loathing? I suspect it does not. My suspicion was shared by Luke’s mum, a woman of striking sense and punctuation:

I’m not sure how long Luke kept the post up before some neurons fired and he deleted it or someone reported it, but it’s gone now. Gone from Facebook, anyway. Unfortunately for Luke, the internet doesn’t forget. I didn’t catch wind of his galling racism by feverishly refreshing his entirely-open Facebook profile in hope of documenting some indiscretion; I saw it on the antibogan.

The antibogan is an Australian website that shames people who promulgate racist, sexist or homophobic points of view on social media. It’s also a platform for occasional writing on race and gender in Australian society, and often features commentary after particularly ugly incidents. They usually manage to post something new every day or two – pretty good for a team of six with other jobs.

Much of the website’s content feels deliberately incisive and confrontational, at odds with the typical liberal impulse to pause and engage in a quiet, meaningful dialogue with political incorrectness. Sometimes it feels nasty – a sense of righteous outrage more usually attributed to the right of the political spectrum. You get an impression that the people who run the site are genuinely angry at some of the things that are broadcast online, a feeling of seething frustration that people could be so stupid. It shares these characteristics with another site I follow, the American STFU Conservatives, but it’s much more explicit in the naming of those it says “abuse Aussie freedom of speech.” As you can see in its story on Luke Damon, it even tracked down a news article about him, and suggested outraged readers get in contact with his employers and footy club.

I like their moxie. A lot.

I asked one of the site’s admins, Ed, a few questions via email. I was especially interested in their filtering process – do they ever decide to take things down after they’ve been posted?

“Not usually. We have no obligation to remove a post but generally do if the person has shown remorse or apologised. There was a guy who posted some disgusting racist rants recently that allegedly had a mild form of Aspergers. Even though the claim has not been confirmed, we still felt it necessary to remove that post in respect to the legitimately mentally disabled.”

Similarly, if that girl had written her slur instead of shouting it, she wouldn’t have been featured on the site: “Minors are out and if there are minors in photos of people that we obtain, we blur them out. Other than that – anything goes. If a person is pictured (publicly) with a partner and we obtain that photograph, we don’t usually blur the partner out. We believe that the offending person needs to do some explaining to all parties involved and consequently hurt.”

I wondered though whether the site might have an opposite effect than the one intended – that racists or homophobes or whoever would see other people like themselves appearing on the antibogan, realise that their point of view was shared by others, and feel encouraged. An echo-chamber that accidentally legitimised hate speech, effectively. Ed’s answer surprised me: “Yeah, that’s a problem, but we all believe that the overwhelming majority of society are completely against it.”

The antibogan works on a centrally optimistic principle, even if that’s sometimes hard to see past the screeds of wearying, rote viciousness. It works because it realises the people who mount these attacks already feel a sense of comfortable entitlement, feel like they’re coming from a position where people mainly agree with them, and so see nothing wrong with saying what everyone’s thinking. Their self-conceived privileged centre gets quickly marginalized when it’s scrutinized by a group outside their regular associates: the general public. Ed doesn’t have to change the mind of every shithead on the internet; he simply has to rely on a fundamentally decent society being fair-minded enough to object to them.

As he says, “Our website doesn’t exist to stamp out racism – it exists to highlight its appalling and ignorant nature. It also exists so that when employers, family members and partners Google search these idiots, our site is one of the top hits.”

Maybe it’s tempting to cry foul on the how the antibogan obtains its material. “People are messaging us and writing on the wall all the time… people are constantly sending emails with screenshots and links.” Friends of friends, people like Luke with wide-open profiles: fair game. One of the admins “looks after content passed on via Twitter and the rest monitor Facebook and infiltrate bigoted groups and pages, screenshotting as they go.”

Imagine if you wrote something meant for a small circle of friends, and the next day found yourself at the centre of a campaign of vilification, with calls being made to your employer. That’s bullshit, of course, but it reveals a cognitive dissonance we tend to carry around – somehow yelling ‘ape!’ in a crowd is a contemptible offence, but being called out for telling the whole world a racist joke is creepy and invasive. Though the forum differs, the intentionality behind the act is the same. Complaints that the site exploits people unfamiliar with social media’s privacy settings miss the point. It’s as if a man were unable to control the volume of his voice, and accidentally screamed a sexist insult at a woman walking down the street, rather than muttering it under his breath as he’d intended. We wouldn’t sympathise with his modulation issues, we’d rightly condemn him for being a sexist prick in the first place.

Ed obviously agrees. “People who harbour these thoughts and intend on broadcasting these views to even 10 people deserve to be shamed. Fair enough – some people harbour hatred and resentment, but when such hatred and resentment is irrational and unfounded – and then made public – they need to feel the consequences. We don’t phone tap private conversations or write fabricated stories, we just republish what has been made public.”

Not everyone sees it that way, least of all the people who find their faces and phone numbers on a website visited by thousands weekly. “I personally haven’t received any threats, nor have the majority of the current admin team. But several of the previous operators copped a lot from the fanatical right wingers. Death threats, phone calls, publishing of private details and photos of family members/partners.”

The last thing I asked Ed was if he could ever see himself giving up the project entirely – if the unceasing tide of hate speech might eventually render him fatalistically inert, as the sea slowly wears down stones. “Of course,” he replied. “None of us are overwhelmingly satisfied with what progress we make with the site. It is a necessary service though, and until any of us comes up with anything better, it will push on.”

I’ve talked to a few (white) friends in Melbourne, and they’re not shy about labelling their country racist. They’ll readily admit that some of their fellows harbour deep and nasty resentments against minorities, but they’ll usually also insist that the people espousing these views live elsewhere – up north, or in the country, or rural towns. They’ll name entire states ‘especially bad’ offenders, and possibly list a few structural inequalities that prevent Indigenous Australians, say, from equal participation in society. But that 13 year old girl was shouting from Melbourne, Victoria, and so was Luke Damon. Like charity, racism begins at home. We’re quick to malign Australia as a land of xenophobes, but then we publish things like this in our newspapers and our Race Relations Commissioner says there’s nothing racist about it:

Perhaps the antibogan’s not the perfect solution to combating online hate speech, but it’s a start. Every redacted status or deleted tweet is one fewer reason for a potentially vulnerable person to feel unsafe or discriminated against on the internet. Shame’s a powerful weapon.

I wondered recently if Nisbet were to republish his cartoons via social media, whether the antibogan might devote a post to him. After all, you can’t say that sort of thing on Facebook and expect to get away with it – not any more.

Matt Harnett is a New Zealand blogger


Daniel Hayward: “Blow one of the boats up and see them stop coming then.”

On the 9 News Facebook page


Oh and here’s Daniel Hayward


Daniel lives on the Northern Beaches. And his mates are Pacific Islanders so we presume he’d say “I’m not racist” – we wonder if he gets the irony of that.


He’s closely followed by Andrew Charlesworth.


Andrew’s humane attitude to asylum seekers is matched by the groups he likes to join. Stupidity and hate love company.


Andrew then reinforces his stupidity by using the phrase “border protection“.


“Border protection” would have to be the dumbest concept ever dreamed up by anyone.

It unfortunately conveys a picture of millions of invaders perched at the edge of the continent waiting to overwhelm us while millions of Facebook racists stand on the parapets waving their keyboards, bottles of steroids and fridge magnets, instead of its worthy original and real intent of keeping the country safe from plant, animal and human pandemics, and the smuggling of illicit drugs and other prohibited imports.

Actually Australia is not all that attractive a place for an invader, being mostly baking hot desert but maybe these guys would like it if they were after a warm climate.

Millions of determined invaders from the south want to breach our border protection.

Presumably keyboard heroes like Andrew will beat their puny chests and prepare to “defend arr siol”.

Now for Stephen Thomas.




Please note Stephen’s employer. We are sure they’d be impressed by how he practices his Christianity.


Now here’s a real rocket scientist who has somehow managed to link asylum seekers to some bogot myth about Christmas and Easter. And she wants to join the blokes and bomb asylum seekers as well.


Guess that beats being bored in Glen Innes.

You can read the rest of the hatred here

Feel free to speak about whatever I want you to

The Australian Independent Media Network


Part A

In an address to the IPA titled “Freedom Wars”, Tony Abbott declared that it is his intention to repeal s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, claiming that this section of the Act impacts upon Freedom of Speech. This ideal of freedom of speech is that which we should all aspire to, however, as a friend once stated: You mean the freedom to be an asshole. We will explore this later.

The text of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) can be found via Austlii.

Section C18 of the Act, that being which Tony Abbott so vehemently opposes concerns offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. That’s correct, it’s offensive behaviour, with the specifics being:

For an act to be unlawful it must fulfill the following criteria:

  • that the action causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or…

View original post 1,688 more words