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.

How?

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.

See?

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.

Yours,

Carla

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.

STOP PRESS

WIN: Misogynistic bullying account terminated

The ups and downs of an anonymous, anti-fascist life

Reblogged from Overland

Anonymity is a funny thing. ‘The one barrier me and my buddies have regarding beating the shit out of you is your anonymity,’ an anonymous critic once informed me.

I declined to provide the angry Aryan with my personal details, but his message, and many more like it, reinforced the idea that giving the general public – and hence neo-Nazis – my name and address would probably not be a good move.

‘What’s your name?’ is a very common question, the answer providing a potential wealth of information. The relationship between a name and a person is something I’ve had reason to seriously contemplate over the last few months, especially as it relates to my monitoring the activities of the far right. Happily, the Internet makes it possible for a person to assume any number of names and to affix to them a variety of personalities.

Malcolm Harris writes that a ‘fundamental anonymity means names stand not for individuals, but for contingent singularities, subjects that are not who but what they say’. For some, this can be a liberating experience: anonymity provides a shield, from behind which they can express ideas their position otherwise precludes them from doing, or doing in relative safety. In my experience, anonymity has its downside too: maintaining it is time-consuming, I’m unable to claim credit for a large amount of the work that I do and I’m often unable to take advantage of opportunities to do other, equally interesting kinds of work.

Several years ago, there was some public discussion regarding blogging and anonymity, occasioned by the public exposure of several local bloggers. In one 2008 case, several Victorian Liberal Party staffers lost their jobs after it was discovered they’d been attacking their party’s then leader, ‘Red’ Ted Baillieu, on an anonymous blog. In 2010, The Australian (editor’s note: it was James Massola) took it upon itself to out the political blogger Grog’s Gamut as Greg Jericho, a public servant. Although these unmaskings were decidedly unwelcome, the staffers who lost their jobs have gone on to bigger and better things, as has Jericho. This year, on behalf of the Australian Writers Centre, he judged The Koori Woman as the best commentary blog of 2014. He continues to write for The Guardian and the ABC’s Drum. His research on blogs and social media was eventually published as a book, The Rise of the Fifth Estate, ‘the first book to examine the emergence of social media as a new force in the coverage of Australian politics’.

Some have argued that online anonymity is like a cancer on the body politic. In 2009, Clive Hamilton wrote that an ‘ugly culture of dogmatic and belligerent interventions now dominates social and political debate on the Internet’. In Australia, The Anti-Bogan regularly documents aspects of this culture and publicly names and shames those engaged in racist, sexist and homophobic abuse online. The Melbourne-based Online Hate Prevention Institute has declared that it aims to ‘be a world leader in combating online hate’ and ‘change online culture so hate in all its forms becomes as socially unacceptable online as it is “in real life”’.

Perhaps the most telling argument for the importance of anonymity is the act of whistle-blowing – consequently, hacktivists are always seeking to stay one step ahead of authorities. One of the latest such ventures is Media Direct, ‘a secure communications platform facilitating direct and anonymous contact with leading journalists’. Launched in May, Media Direct represents a further evolution in whistle-blowing technology, according to its Australian coordinator, Luke McMahon. ‘We’ve produced a self-contained system,’ he says. ‘Media Direct brings together technical and non-technical tools to realise the most appropriate approach to the contemporary media environment. Media Direct, unlike Wikileaks, is not a publisher, but rather allows whistleblowers to safely convey information to select journalists directly.’ In this context, anonymity exists at the opposite end of the spectrum to celebrity.

The ability to convey information safely is obviously key to whistle-blowing, but in the context of anti-fascist organising, both collecting and conveying information to the public present certain difficulties. Daryle Lamont Jenkins, of the US-based antifascist organisation One Peoples Project, acknowledges that ‘as with anything there are pros and cons to being anonymous, but a big issue is that within antifa circles most of us are’. This is justifiable, ‘understandable and oftimes when it comes to gathering info, necessary. Problem is, with so many of us taking that route, it makes us that much more inaccessible and detached. That’s a problem. Antifa need to be more public.’

For activists, the chief obstacle is that being public can mean serious harassment. The Australia First Party, for instance, has recently published a series of increasingly bizarre claims regarding my blogging activities, both on its website and on leading White supremacist website Stormfront. Party leader Dr James Saleam is a veteran fascist with a long string of criminal convictions, most notably organising a shotgun assault on the Sydney home of African National Congress representative Eddie Funde in 1989. Stormfront itself is ‘the web’s most famous and ubiquitous white supremacist and neo-Nazi website’ – and has numerous Australian members.

While post-Second World War Australia has largely been spared fascist violence, elsewhere in the world the story is very different. Last week in Las Vegas, a former neo-Nazi skinhead named Melissa Hack pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to murder two anti-racist skinheads, Dan Shersty and Lin Newborn, in 1998.

As documented in such films as Antifascist Attitude (2008), numerous antifascists have been murdered by neo-Nazis in post-Soviet Russia. Indeed, one of the stars of the film, human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov, was murdered in Moscow in January 2009, alongside journalist Anastasia Baburova. Another documentary, about the life of murdered antifascist Ivan Khutorskoy, has just been released; there was also a European tour by two Russian antifascist bands to raise funds for his family that finished just last month.

The journalist who outed Greg Jericho argued that ‘if you are influencing the public debate … it is the public’s right to know who you are’, and that there may be tactical advantages to going public. But given the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary and the election of the NPD’s Udo Voigt to the European parliament (Voigt was denied a visa to Australia in 2003 to address a fascist gathering on the grounds of his poor character), the consequences of engaging in antifascist activity in much of Europe will likely escalate. How antifascists negotiate these opposing concerns will determine, in part, their success in combating the rising fascist tide.

 

ADF Plant Operator Harasses Young Aussie Girl; Calls For Civilian Deaths

Remember this guy?

Shannon Austin, shit kicker who once kicked shit for the Australian Defence Force has been trolling. His comments below speak for themselves, but what we haven’t shown is the posts where he posted private details of young Australian teenagers and threatened to contact their employers. You can see those posts here, as Facebook would have no doubt felt it appropriate to leave them and not delete them. He has a history of making threats so it seems as though he hasn’t changed much.

 

So the guy has form. Oh well. At least he has turned over a new leaf. He used to be a massive homophobe.

Neo-Nazis Promise to Visit Sydney Schools

About two weeks ago, someone calling themselves ‘Breivik’ was posting here at theantibogan making wild accusations about who they believed to be behind this website. They pointed the finger at a few people, name-dropping with gay abandon. One of the people they mentioned is a Sydney school teacher, and ‘Breivik’ is apparently planning a ‘reception committee’ to visit his school to harass him in front of parents and children.

So, a few points for the person behind this threat to consider:

Just in case this individual fondly believes he is above the law, let us draw his attention to a little-known law about trespassing on or near schools.

And the definition of “inclosed lands”.

Source