I don't think it's possible to say that social pressure, or in other words, education, is definitely going to fail. Harassers are people. We need to teach boys that they are not, in fact, entitled to women's bodies, and hopefully then not just online harassment but also street harassment, sexual harassment, and sexual assault will decrease.
But what's wrong with blocking 4chan, or gamergaters.com or whatever else? These are sites that are demonstratably, reliably causing people gross personal distress and sometimes egging people on into massive acts of violence. Notably, the UC Santa Barbara shooter was a 4chan member, and almost certainly was radicalized there.
It's easy to say that "free speech" or "censorship-free internet" are good things; it's much harder to look at the actual statistics and realize that every post on 4chan is a little piece of an inevitable hate crime. The average is the total over the number; regardless of the small average contribution of each 4chan post to harassment and violence, the end result is GamerGate and mass murder.
Ironically, when it comes to Muslims doing the same thing as white men on 4chan, the media and hacker news is united in wanting to shut down "radical Islamist forums."
At the end of the day, you have to decide what's more important: an internet where no website is blocked, or the safety of women. If you decide the former, you are every bit as responsible for the deaths of women as the people who physically pull the trigger, because you said nothing and did nothing when you could have stopped the root cause.
As another point, there is massive value to the survivors in making it absolutely clear that what happened to them is not okay; that they did not deserve it; that they should be outraged and that the perpetrators, when caught, will be punished and ostracized. The only way to do this is by actually condemning, punishing, and ostracizing perpetrators. The benefits of solidarity are very real; women who experience victim-blaming after sexual assault have vastly higher rates of PTSD.
So societal pressure in favor of feminism and away from male entitlement seems like a fine way to address this problem, and if it leads to the death of websites that organize harassment campaigns so much the better.
Its not wrong to want to suppress hate speech; its not misguided to suppress radicalization of young people. Its also unlikely that 'shutting down websites' will succeed at either of those.
Just look at these mass murderers in training over at /ck/: https://boards.4chan.org/ck/
Absolutely horrific. Every post over there is a little piece of an inevitable hate crime. The safety of women is too important to let them get away.
Apologies for being blunt and sardonic, but seriously? Your preconceptions of 4chan are so horribly skewed and your saying that the UC Barbara shooter was a 4chan reader is an incredibly stupid justification. I'm sure Facebook radicalizes people every day. Ban Facebook?
It's a fact that 4chan is directly related to harassment and mass murder. I don't know why you'd dispute this unless you agreed with it.
That's what 4chan is. It's a memetic slaughterhouse.
The only way we can do anything is using education. It's not completely effective, but it's the only way that can actually do something. We teach people to respect other people (not only women, everyone), we teach people to react against bullying, together, as a group, and we provide support and ways to deal with to victims.
We can't stop every perpetrators but we can at least be strong together.
I honestly have no strong sense of the "opinion of HN" (insofar as there is such a thing) on this topic. I strongly suspect there is at least a minority that opposes that.
Growing up 20 years ago, I do not feel this way. Neither does anybody I associate with. So either "teachings" have wildly changed, or just as I said you are painting a broad generalization on innocent people using the actions of a few. This is a great way to turn people off to any validity your message did have.
> every post on 4chan is a little piece of an inevitable hate crime ... the end result is GamerGate and mass murder
Censorship is always advocated as being a necessary imperative to prevent greater harm.
> hacker news is united in wanting to shut down "radical Islamist forums."
Nope. Maybe you got this impression because the only people commenting on banal agitprop aren't hackers, but hipsters who view this site as a juicy target for political discussion.
> an internet [sic] where no website is blocked, or the safety of women.
And here's the heart of the problem - you think the Internet is made up of websites. How quaint (don't worry, so do VCs). Maybe I should applaud comments like yours - the sooner we get off of HTTP, the better.
It was my understanding that most harassment and abuse is about dominance of the mind rather than physical. It's not about exercising entitlement, it's about establishing ownership. Subtle, but different.
In that regard, I feel like blocking websites would just be transferring the power from one dominating force to another. Alone, I don't think this would solve much since it ends up punishing the platform instead of the participating individuals. Killing 4chan would be like dropping a brick on a piece of shit - you don't have any less shit, just scattered.
Well, yes, abuse is about power and control, certainly. But an abuser exerts power and control in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons. The root cause of street harassment is certainly for men to exercise power and control over not just a specific woman, but over the class of women as a whole; however, a factor that enables this is the narrative that men are entitled to women and women's bodies. This is why there are "nice guys" -- because men are taught that women are vending machines, fed tokens of chivalry and dispensing sex as a result. I wouldn't call the abusive pattern of "nice guys" about specifically women's minds vs. bodies, but rather that "nice guys" seek to exert dominance, power, and control over women by punishing women that do not behave according to the rules of the game that they set.
So, subtle, different, but not wholly distinct either. In a phrase, why do men feel entitled to own women's bodies?
>Killing 4chan would be like dropping a brick on a piece of shit - you don't have any less shit, just scattered.
But there's a lot of value in scattering the shit:
* You immediately damage the command-and-control system, fragmenting it into many subforums that are less individually efficacious for at least a period of time before a spiritual successor emerges
* You send a message to everyone involved that what they are doing is not, in fact, okay. This is very important. Most 4channers/GamerGaters/men feel that it is normal to want the things they want and to do the things they do. Feminism is a dirty word and feminists are an aberration. Everyone imagines themselves the hero of their own story, but it's hard to maintain that image if the world denounces you. Heroes are not often denounced by the world.
(Further, I personally care nothing for the implications to the platform. If you allow this filth on your platform you deserve what happens to you. You can't hide behind the actions of users when this is what you're actively profiting from -- the vast majority of 4chan ads are violently misogynist Japanese sex toys.)
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_...
Gendering sex crimes, making it seem as if it's a female problem, erases those experiences, and denies the suffering of the people who went through them.
Even if male rape was rare, it wouldn't matter. Rape is a problem regardless of how often it happens. I'm amazed I have to say this, but feminists apparently aren't saying it, so someone needs to.
Online harassment doesn't feature an authority figure who can cutoff the access of the harassers though.
What is the solution? I don't know. I think the death threats are a result of the self-hatred and sense of disposession our consumer society creates. We are motivated by the fear of not having enough and therefore our primal minds are constantly threatened. The people at the bottom have little to lose and act out.