Misogyny on Twitter: Who are the trolls really?

More misogynistic tweets originate from women than from men, according to a new study by British think tank Demos.

|
Kacper Pempel/Reuters
People holding mobile phones are silhouetted against a backdrop projected with the Twitter logo. Many aggressive and degrading messages directed at women on Twitter also originate with women, according to analysis conducted by the British think tank Demos.

Half of all misogynistic tweets are posted by women, suggests a new study by British think tank Demos, challenging preconceptions about the kinds of people who engage in such behavior.

The study, published Friday, coincides with the launch of the Reclaim the Internet campaign, headed by several British members of Parliament, which seeks to engage the public in an online forum, brainstorming ideas as to how to reduce the amount of sexism, racism, anti-homosexual rhetoric, and other forms of harassment.

While some have cast doubt on the results, and the researchers themselves admit it presents far from a full picture, the implications are startling – providing yet another window into the pioneering online world, where social norms appear so far removed from what existed before the advent of the Internet.

"While this analysis is unable to highlight individual women’s experiences of online trolling, or definitively say how serious each case is, it does hint at the scale of aggressive misogyny online and shows why we need campaigns like Reclaim the Internet," writes Jack Dale of Demos.

This latest research by Demos follows a similar 2014 study, but a major difference this time round was the deployment of a Natural Language Processing Algorithm, which sought to drill deeper into the different uses of two derogatory words for women chosen to represent misogyny, seeking to provide a more nuanced picture.

While Twitter is the vehicle chosen for both studies, Mr. Dale is keen to point out that such behavior is no more prevalent on this platform than any other, but "Twitter simply facilitates research like this by providing an easy-to-access, substantial data set in a relatively short space of time."

Just under 1.5 million tweets, using the two defining terms, were collected from around the globe over a 23-day period. A little more than half were advertising pornography. Of the remainder, 213,000 were classified as aggressive.

Fully 50 percent of these aggressive tweets were sent by women, compared with 40 percent by men and 10 percent by organizations or users whose gender was unclear.

"This study provides a birds-eye snapshot of what is ultimately a very personal and often traumatic experience for women," Alex Krasodomski-Jones, a Demos researcher involved in the study, told The Telegraph. "This is less about policing the Internet than it is a stark reminder that we are frequently not as good citizens online as we are offline."

Moreover, it contradicts the stereotype that would portray all misogynistic, abusive Internet users as part of a "cabal of angry white men hidden behind a computer," writes Barbara Speed of New Statesman.

"As with rapists, it's unhelpful to see all 'trolls' as a specific, evil group who are very different from 'ordinary' people," writes Ms. Speed. "As the study shows, far more ordinary people than we realise, of all genders, are willing to abuse others online with little provocation. If we figure out a way to combat this effect, then perhaps we’d be able to reduce all types of misogyny online."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Misogyny on Twitter: Who are the trolls really?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0526/Misogyny-on-Twitter-Who-are-the-trolls-really
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe