Kürzlich ging die Nachricht um, dass Twitter mit einer feministischen Gruppe zusammenarbeitet, um Frauen besser gegen Belästigungen zu schützen. ZB hier:
Um seine weiblichen Nutzer besser vor Belästigungen über das Internet zu schützen, leitet Twitter nun neue Schritte ein: Die Internetplattform wird in Zukunft mit der frauenrechtlichen Organisation WAM (Woman Action Media) zusammenarbeiten….
Die Arbeitsweise wird hier dargestellt:
Is the Internet a safe space for women?
It’s a huge question—yet, more and more, the answer seems to be a clear no. Last month, online abusers drove female video game critics and developers out of their homes with violent threats. One critic’s public event had to be canceled because of a promise of mass shootings. And a new Pew study put the harassment in statistically sharper terms: 25 percent of young women have been sexually harassed online, and 26 percent have been stalked.
This kind of online stalking and harassment isn’t new itself, but its recent visibility has accelerated the conversation about what we should be doing to protect women from abuse on the web. Much of this conversation has centered on Twitter, where so much recent abuse has happened. Because of Twitter’s open nature—any user can send a message to any other user, in public—it’s especially vulnerable to mass harassment and abuse.
On Thursday, the nonprofit organization Women, Action, and the Media—abbreviated WAM! or WAM—announced a new initiative with Twitter, to try to make the service safer for women. That partnership has been widely greeted as a step forward, a sign Twitter is finally taking harassment seriously. To my eye, though, it just seems like another stopgap—and further evidence Twitter isn’t yet willing to invest to protect its most vulnerable users.
WAM, in effect, got super powers within Twitter’s moderating environment. After submitting an abuse report to Twitter, users can now also submit one to WAM. WAM will make sure the users’s claims are credible, then “escalate” the report in Twitter’s system, flagging it for immediate handling by the company’s moderators.
While WAM hopes to bring all expedited reports to a “speedy resolution” within 24 hours of receiving them, it cautions, “we’re not Twitter, and we can’t make decisions for them.” It instead will advocate for users within the moderation system.
WAM will also be keeping track of whose reports get handled and whose don’t. Using its access to Twitter’s moderation system, WAM will be collecting data on how poorly gendered abuse is handled across the site.
“I think it’s a scandal that a tiny, under-resourced nonprofit with two staff members is having to do free labor for [Twitter].”
WAM won’t have these super powers forever, nor does it want them. Its executive director Jaclyn Friedman told me that she thought the program’s initial test period would run for only about a month.
Even only a few weeks, she hopes, will give it a sense of how well or poorly abuse reports are handled across the site. It will also let WAM figure out what Twitter’s moderators consider okay.
Also so eine Art zwischengeschaltete Beschwerdestelle. Aber was lese ich da bei Executive Director? Jaclyn Friedman. Ernsthaft Twitter? Eine radikale Feministin, die so ziemlich alles als Abuse ansehen wird, was Männer irgendwie machen? Die Rape Culture vertritt und diesen mit „enthusiastic consent“ also dem Verlangen nach durchgehender enthusiastischer Zustimmung zu allen Schritten während des Sex als Modell vertritt und auch ansonst alle Unterarten der Privilegientheorien vertritt?
Die diese Vorstellungen über eine „toxische Männlichkeit“ hat:
It’s time for a serious intervention in masculinity. It’s not enough to not be a rapist. You don’t get a cookie or a Nobel Peace Prize for that. If we want to end the pandemic of rape, it’s going to require an entire global movement of men who are willing to do the hard work required to unpack and interrogate the ideas of masculinity they were raised with, and to create and model new masculinities that don’t enable misogyny. Masculinities built not on power over women, but on power with women.
Toxic masculinity is damaging to men, too, positing them as stoic sex-and-violence machines with allergies to tenderness, playfulness, and vulnerability. A reinvented masculinity will surely give men more room to express and explore themselves without shame or fear.
Es ist nicht genug einfach kein Vergewaltiger zu sein. Man muss endlich hart daran arbeiten die Männlichkeit von ihrer Erbschuld zu befreien. Genau die Person, die man bewerten lassen möchte, was Sexismus ist.
Interessantes erfährt man auch auf der Wikipedia-Seite von Friedman:
Friedman is the founder and Executive Director of Women, Action and the Media (WAM!), a North American nonprofit focusing on gender justice and media issues. WAM!’s accomplishments include the successful campaigns to pressure Facebook to enforce its terms of service against incitements to violence against women and to pressure Clear Channel to rescind its decision not to run advertisements for South Wind Women’s Center, a women’s health clinic in Wichita. WAM! also runs chapters in Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, DC, Ottawa and Vancouver.
Da scheint man also durchaus an Einfluss zu gewinnen:
Einen interessanten Beitrag dazu gibt es bei Andrew Sullivan:
Their core objective is what they call “gender justice in media.” That means that they are interested in far more than curbing online harassment. They want gender quotas for all media businesses, equal representation for women in, say, video-games, gender parity in employment in journalism and in the stories themselves. They are outraged by the following:
Less than 1 in 100 of classical pieces performed in concert in 2009-2010 were written by a female composer (and 1 in 15 was written by Beethoven!). Women make up 2% of the standard repertoire of pieces (Repertoire Report 2009-2010).
Less Beethoven – more, er, women! The crudeness of their identity politics is of a piece with their analysis. Instead of seeing the web as opening up vast vistas for all sorts of voices to be heard, they seem to believe it is rigged against female voices, or that women are not strong or capable enough of forging their own brands, voices, websites and fighting back against ideas they abhor with wit and energy and passion and freedom. Instead, WAM’s goal is to police and punish others for their alleged sexism – along the well-worn lines of contemporary and controlling left-feminism. Here’s themindset behind the project:
“I see this as a free speech issue,” Friedman said. She said she knew some would see the work WAM does as “censorship,” but that a completely open and unmoderated platform imposes its own form of censorship. It effectively prevents women, especially queer women and women of color, from getting to speak on the service.
Also die Angst der Feministinnen davor, dass Leute sagen was sie denken. Wie man jemanden letztendlich abhalten soll zu twittern leuchtet mir zwar nicht ein, aber jedenfalls müssen anscheinend entgegenstehende Meinungen verboten werden.
Das Beispiel zur klassischen (!) Musik zeigt aber schon, dass sie Ansichten haben, die weit über das hinaus gehen, was andere unter Diskriminierung verstehen.
Man sehen, wie frei Twitter sie walten lässt. Eigentlich muss man hoffen, dass sie alles umsetzen, was Friedman und Co so als Diskriminierungsabwehr ansehen.
Da hätte man gleich einen netten Shitstorm verärgerter Twitterer.