A female journalist reporting on a demonstration outside an abortion clinic received a comment saying, “You are so ugly that if you got pregnant I would drive you to the abortion clinic myself”.
A British Muslim writing about her experiences of Islamophobia was told by a reader to “marry an ISIS fighter and then see how you like that!”
A black correspondent reporting that another black American has been shot by the police was told they were “a racist who hates white people”.
These are just a few examples of the 1.4 million demeaning and insulting comments that have been blocked on the Guardian’s website since it first invited readers’ opinions in 2006.
As part of a series on the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian recently shared the results of its research into the 70 million comments left on its website over the last decade. The results were shocking but won’t come as a huge surprise to people familiar with the state of internet discourse.
We focused on gender in this research partly because we wanted to test the theory that women experience more abuse than men. But both writers and moderators observe that ethnic and religious minorities, and LGBT people also appear to experience a disproportionate amount of abuse.
Of the ten regular writers who got the most abuse:
- Eight were women
- Four of the women were white, four non-white
- One of the women was Muslim and one Jewish
- Two of the women were gay
- The two men on the list were both black, one was gay
The ten writers who received the least abuse were all men.
The Guardian has more male writers than female and their output isn’t evenly distributed across all subjects and sections. The rarer female voices are on a given subject, the more likely they are to meet abuse it seems:
Articles written by women got more blocked (ie abusive or disruptive) comments across almost all sections. But the more male-dominated the section, the more blocked comments the women who wrote there got (look at Sport and Technology). Fashion, where most articles were written by women, was one of the few sections where male authors consistently received more blocked comments.
The Guardian also goes on to recognise that the abuse often extends beyond its own website. Writers often also receive abuse on social media, where mobs can form quickly, competing to see who can be the most cruel.
And while abused journalists often find it hard to escape the abuse across the different dimensions of their virtual lives, for some it also encroaches on their physical lives too. Examples include stalkers assuming their identity and sending men to the front door in search of sex.
In its findings, the Guardian questions whether this is actually causing wider harm on a social scale by
…silencing people who might otherwise contribute to public debates – particularly women, LGBT people and people from racial or religious minorities, who see others like themselves being racially and sexually abused.
So, what does the news giant plan to do about it? As a start it has made a commitment to tackle the problem. While the paper hopes to do more research to uncover what is going wrong, it doesn’t plan to close comments altogether on its site – just cut down the number of stories open to comments.
Meanwhile, as the Guardian gathers its readers’ opinions on what sort of web they want, have you considered whether this is the kind of culture you want to live in?
Image of Angry people screaming courtesy of Shutterstock.com
Mike
I have often wondered whether an enforced delay between reading an article and making a comment wouldn’t cool the tempers of those involved. It seems that a large number of people are posting before they think.
Not just hateful comments either, there are always plenty of comments from people who didn’t read what they’re replying to.
I’d love to see the full results of this study. If nothing else, to see if the tendency of men to get more abuse in Fashion extends to other topics where female reporters are the norm. Knowing one’s place and all that.
Anonymous
Same idea pays for original posts. See “The Internet Ruined My Life!” on Cable TV.
Billy Reuben
Although this article doesn’t delve into more detail, it’s possible this analysis has some potentially serious flaws which could skew the results. For example, what were the topics of the articles? Was there sufficient diversity to come to an accurate conclusion, e.g. articles both pro and con on abortion, supportive of both Clinton and Trump, encouraging and discouraging illegal immigration, etc.? The content of the articles would definitely have a bearing on the reaction, and the groups doing the reacting.
Mike
You won’t find pro-Trump on the Guardian. They’re quite open about their politics.
That said, just to reach for a low-hanging fruit, a quick google reveals several articles criticising feminism, all by female writers. It would be interesting to see what happens to their category if you take out this gender-skewed sample.
Larry
Comments left on just about any site are often left, I believe, to be just something to set others off. To be cruel for whatever sick mindset they have. I don’t care if you are talking Trump or the construction plan for main street in Smalltown USA. People say the craziest things and without thinking. Now with the ability to do it with anonymity it runs wild.
Terry
Alison Booth: ‘ …the paper … doesn’t plan to close comments altogether on its site – just cut down the number of stories open to comments.’
More democraphobic closure of democracy by liberals – no reader comment, no democracy. The Guardian is now following the example of the Telegraph, which has closed down democratic comment completely. The consequences are clear, with the Telegraph website’s visitor numbers falling off a cliff – according to Alexa – since its closure of democratic comment. The liberal media, Right, Left and Centre, wants to talk only to itself. No wonder hundreds of thousands of readers are voting to leave it day by day. They have a vote. They’re voting to leave.
Democratism rocks. Democraphobia, Right, Left and Centre, sucks. The message is clear; democratise or die. Western liberal media is choosing to die. Bye, bye.
Mark Stockley
As (until recently) a regular visitor to both the Guardian and Telegraph sites I can tell you that the reason I stopped reading the Telegraph had nothing to do with the lack of comments and everything to do with the way my old iPad would freeze for long periods as half the page was render-blocked by their ads loading.
Cindy Downs
The only way to minimize abuse and bullying by those that dish it out anonymously is for Admins to delete it and block the members that do it as soon as it is reported or seen. The very first time, no three strikes, etc. Of course some will re-register with a different anonymous moniker and e-mail/IP, but continue to delete/ban until they give up.
RichardD
Alternatively, let the trolls continue to post, but only show their comments to them. That way, nobody else sees the content, but the trolls think they’re being ignored. They’ll eventually get bored and stop posting.
Tattooed Mummy (@tattooed_mummy)
Oh I love that idea RichardD . Perfect
eckythump
That means you have to be logged in to view comments. Major policy decision there.
Luna
Best Idea yet Dude. Something I’ve seen done in online gaming. Once you make yourself a known troll you end up in the category where all you play with are people like yourself. They usually figure it out later on.
sebastien pelletier
this does not really answer anything who determines what was abusive or not, some one with a thicker skin would not bother caring if language was abusive and some one with the bias that women get more abuse than men would notice abuse against women writers more. anyone putting an opinion out there will get abusive language thrown at them.
Hearth
Haters gonna hate. The internet just gives them the ability to make public the things they say to their tv screens, and would probably never have the courage to say in front of other people.
I used to use my ad-blocker to completely hide the comments section on youtube, due to the sheer quantity of trash that got posted in there.
I think people need to have their own filter for ignorant comments in general – there is no point in arguing as ignorance is not self-aware.
How many comments are “blocked (ie abusive or disruptive)” on Naked Security, I wonder?
Mark Stockley
Very few are removed for being abusive or disruptive. We filter out an awful lot of comment spam automatically. What’s left is moderated by humans and a minority of those comments are trashed for being nonsense or wildly off-topic but very few stray in to insults or abuse.
I think, as the Guardian themselves found, the subject matter has a significant impact. Within computer security you’ll find that different topics attract different kinds of commentary.
Certain topics attract tribes of people who have already arrived at a point of view and want to tell you in no uncertain terms what it is. It used to be Apple fans telling you that Macs couldn’t get viruses. At all. Ever. Ditto Linux fans. These days it’s Tor fans who’ll tell you that all the bad stuff people find on the Dark Web isn’t there and any reporting of it is just shilling for The Man. Or something.
TonyG
Here’s an idea for an experiment – use some sort of automated analysis to parse the comments and rate on a 1 to 5 scale from 1 (negative) 3 (neutral) and 5 (positive) and give users the option to filter comments. It would then be interesting to see how many users choose to see only positive comments.
David Pottage
Slashdot has had that for years. Comments start out with a rating of zero for anonymous users, 1 for logged in users, or 2 for users with lots of Kama. Other users could vote up or down comments to a maxium rating of 5. When reading a comment thread, you could set a threshold, and the system would hide comments bellow that threshold. Users could set a default threshold.
The problem was that it lead to groupthink. Only comments that supported the views of the majority got upvotes and so where visible. Comments that where against the group, however polite, well worded and insightful, rarely got upvotes so where hidden from most users, so you ended up with an echo chamber where only views supported by the group where visible.
I guess if the Guardian where to setup such a system, then on popular threads it would turn into a left wing socialists gathering, and any comment critical of Corbin or Sanders, or praising anyone on the right would be unlikely to get any upvotes, and so would not be seen by most visitors.
A Person
“Sticks and stones will break my bones…” springs to mind. The comments put in the article (as offensive) just seem to be suggestions as to ways the reporter could balance their article. It does seem to be a trend with ‘journalists’ to put only their point of view across (including some on Naked Security) – journalism used to pride it’s self on balanced articles. ….and to those who down vote or respond negatively to my comment, aren’t you guilty of abusing me and my views? We have free speech and a right to comment how we wish and articles like this propagate and encourage a mob mentality against those who aren’t necessarily being racist/sexist/etc.
Oh, and I’ll leave to you to decide what colour/gender/religion I am. For myself the only category I fall into is ‘person’.
RichardD
We have the right to comment how we wish; we *don’t* have the right to force anyone to listen, or to display our comments on their site.
Mark Stockley
Absolutely. But I’d go further than that.
I think that a lot of people work under the assumption that they have a right to comment however they wish, when in fact they do not, and hide behind the fact that they’re “exercising their rights” and that any sort of curtailment of those assumed rights is, as Terry asserts above, somehow anti-democratic.
In the UK your right to say what you like has all sorts of limits based on the harm you inflict on others (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom). As I understand it, “freedom of speech” in the USA refers to your freedom to speak without fear of retaliation or censorship *by the government*.
teejuu
“I think that a lot of people work under the assumption that they have a right to comment however they wish, when in fact they do not…” so you are saying that if I disagree with this article, I am not allowed to comment on it!
There is a growing culture where if you do not agree with the consensus then you are vilified, which is further exacerbated by social media morons and ‘viral’ trends (viral has it’s root in virus – a quick spreading malicious phenomenon [para-phrased]) who are outraged about populist reporting without gathering the whole story – this article for instance is not complete or balanced, it just shows the authors interpretation it.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the comments at the top of this article…just the unbalanced sensationalist nature of it.
Danny Agro
Of course you have the right to reply, but the relevant words here are ” however they wish”. If you were to make a sensible, reasoned argument as to why the OP is wrong, no one could complain, but if you start abusing them and saying they are wrong using threats and insults, you are no better than a pure troll.
Sarah
The only reason to read the guardian is for the comments but I fear they probably have gone the ghost root leaving people to comment leading them to believe they are commenting whilst hiding comments unannounced. The guardian is too small probably to find extensive number of people who have worked it out since they would use it only on the really important stuff but you can find quite a lot of “ghost comments” info about a certain video site and discuss as well I think I read about.