Of course the Brookings folks aren't actually concerned about harassment, they are concerned about how to weaponize third-party noise against people they don't like.
"Online violence" as the term for "some anonymous Twitter person saying nasty things" is an Orwellian construction on its own.
I'll go further: if you haven't received death threats and harassment on the internet, it's only because you've either said nothing, or the only things you say are so banal that nobody could ever form an opinion about them one way or another.
It's simply the price of admission for participation.
It's pretty ironic that the Brookings article will undoubtedly release a torrent of exactly the same behavior they call out Greenwald and Carlson for, but in their direction. And the authors will sleep soundly at night in blissful carelessness at best, or secretly pat themselves on the back for unleashing it at worst.
I mean, we can be honest and admit there's a huge difference between not being able to control how your fans/followers react to people one posts about and someone who has a FOX news show with viewership in the millions, that implicitly calls out people as enemies of a free society?
EDIT: trillions -> millions, that typo was bugging me
I'd go even further than Freddie's final paragraph here and bring it back to the start - the "gendered" aspect. Women are, by and large, more likely to see things through a lens of experience and feeling and less in principle. (This isn't a value judgement one way or another, incidentally; just an observation.) As such if Taylor Lorenz suffers, and Taylor Lorenz is a woman, she's suffering through her womanhood, and womanhood being currency in the great market of victimhood, of course that's going to be front and center.
I've been online since the mid 1990s, when it was by and large geeky white males from North America and Europe and Australia who inhabited the English-speaking part of the internet. Since then the Anglophone internet has globalized and feminized. It's changed remarkably, and not just due to technology. What I won't say is that the increased feminization of the internet - and academia, media etc. - has made toxicity worse, per se. I don't think it has, or if it has it's incidental. What it *has* made - and this is, in my view, absolutely undeniable - is accusations of toxicity that much more valuable, and we all have to sit around with our big sad faces on not because the toxicity exists, but because the toxicity is targeted at someone with a particular status, e.g. "woman on the internet."
That this lends itself with absolute perfection to crybullies like Taylor Lorenz's increasing success and wealth is inevitable.
I think some people are just dicks. Since everything must be political, the claim "X is a dick" doesn't hold much water. Instead, you need to say "X is a causing violence" or "X is sexist" etc. Personally, I think Greenwald is a smug dick, and won't subscribe to his Substack because of it. But the idea that he's causing some grave social harm is dumb.
I've had similar mental experiences over the decades, but never in a public venue. In fact, few no of it.
All that to say... I can't express my admiration to You and this for essay enough. Do You wonder if suffering suffered "successfully" encourages resilience and strength? Dunno, may just be a nice fantasy.
I think it would be constructive for these dipshits at the Brookings Institute (of the Mentally Impoverished as Evidenced by Their Nonsensical and Useless Studies) to expand their sample to include their own online behaviors, and provide those reading their horse-shittery and nonsense complete access to everything they've posted over the past 10 years. I'm sure that would be instructive and quite possibly damning.
This calls to mind a tired expression that, its tiredness notwithstanding, still holds true: those in glass houses should not throw stones. There is another weary expression these glad-handing assbags would like likewise benefit from: treat others as you would like to be treated. I think the world, particularly the fantastical world online, would be a far less shitty place if everyone simply observed these well-worn adages. Perhaps that will prove to be the case in the long run. I'm not optimistic.
Interesting reading as always, Mr. deBoer, and thank you for sharing what was undoubtedly a dark time in your life. That must have been difficult and I think it was worth it as it underscored perfectly the asininity of this study's premise.
Of course the Brookings folks aren't actually concerned about harassment, they are concerned about how to weaponize third-party noise against people they don't like.
"Online violence" as the term for "some anonymous Twitter person saying nasty things" is an Orwellian construction on its own.
I'll go further: if you haven't received death threats and harassment on the internet, it's only because you've either said nothing, or the only things you say are so banal that nobody could ever form an opinion about them one way or another.
It's simply the price of admission for participation.
Not sure incorporating an outside study into a newsletter counts as "presenting."
I'm sorry, Freddie, that you had to deal with such a thing. As the Wicked Witch of the West said, "What a world, what a world!"
It's pretty ironic that the Brookings article will undoubtedly release a torrent of exactly the same behavior they call out Greenwald and Carlson for, but in their direction. And the authors will sleep soundly at night in blissful carelessness at best, or secretly pat themselves on the back for unleashing it at worst.
I mean, we can be honest and admit there's a huge difference between not being able to control how your fans/followers react to people one posts about and someone who has a FOX news show with viewership in the millions, that implicitly calls out people as enemies of a free society?
EDIT: trillions -> millions, that typo was bugging me
If the bocce set is still going, I'm interested.
I'd go even further than Freddie's final paragraph here and bring it back to the start - the "gendered" aspect. Women are, by and large, more likely to see things through a lens of experience and feeling and less in principle. (This isn't a value judgement one way or another, incidentally; just an observation.) As such if Taylor Lorenz suffers, and Taylor Lorenz is a woman, she's suffering through her womanhood, and womanhood being currency in the great market of victimhood, of course that's going to be front and center.
I've been online since the mid 1990s, when it was by and large geeky white males from North America and Europe and Australia who inhabited the English-speaking part of the internet. Since then the Anglophone internet has globalized and feminized. It's changed remarkably, and not just due to technology. What I won't say is that the increased feminization of the internet - and academia, media etc. - has made toxicity worse, per se. I don't think it has, or if it has it's incidental. What it *has* made - and this is, in my view, absolutely undeniable - is accusations of toxicity that much more valuable, and we all have to sit around with our big sad faces on not because the toxicity exists, but because the toxicity is targeted at someone with a particular status, e.g. "woman on the internet."
That this lends itself with absolute perfection to crybullies like Taylor Lorenz's increasing success and wealth is inevitable.
That sounds awful and I’m sorry it happened.
I think some people are just dicks. Since everything must be political, the claim "X is a dick" doesn't hold much water. Instead, you need to say "X is a causing violence" or "X is sexist" etc. Personally, I think Greenwald is a smug dick, and won't subscribe to his Substack because of it. But the idea that he's causing some grave social harm is dumb.
I've had similar mental experiences over the decades, but never in a public venue. In fact, few no of it.
All that to say... I can't express my admiration to You and this for essay enough. Do You wonder if suffering suffered "successfully" encourages resilience and strength? Dunno, may just be a nice fantasy.
TY again, sir.
Not the biggest fan of “I’m sorry that happened to you” but nonetheless completely heartfelt in this case.
Your work makes a tremendous difference. It provides very unique, meaningful insight. Whether you need to hear it or not, it’s true.
I think it would be constructive for these dipshits at the Brookings Institute (of the Mentally Impoverished as Evidenced by Their Nonsensical and Useless Studies) to expand their sample to include their own online behaviors, and provide those reading their horse-shittery and nonsense complete access to everything they've posted over the past 10 years. I'm sure that would be instructive and quite possibly damning.
This calls to mind a tired expression that, its tiredness notwithstanding, still holds true: those in glass houses should not throw stones. There is another weary expression these glad-handing assbags would like likewise benefit from: treat others as you would like to be treated. I think the world, particularly the fantastical world online, would be a far less shitty place if everyone simply observed these well-worn adages. Perhaps that will prove to be the case in the long run. I'm not optimistic.
Interesting reading as always, Mr. deBoer, and thank you for sharing what was undoubtedly a dark time in your life. That must have been difficult and I think it was worth it as it underscored perfectly the asininity of this study's premise.