> I am a 15-year-old girl.

[sheogorath@microblog.shivering-isles.com]

@neil It's a terrible argument for age restrictions. It's not good for adults either when this stuff flourishes. Get the law makers out there and regulate this shit. Make companies responsible if they don't find effective mitigations.

It's difficult to get the hands on these abusers. But the company can certainly work on this, block content with certain slurs.

If they can figure out how to differentiate a male from a female nipple, they can figure out verbal abuse especially in times of LLMs.

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@PjpB @jima

> If you want to be part of communitie, join a group in real life

To each, their own, and if someone prefers away-from-keyboard people-meeting, that's absolutely fine, but online communities and friendships are definitely part of "real life" for me!

[hedders@mas.to]

@osma @neil The difficulty one runs into is how you define social media. It seems obvious, but it really isn't once you dig into it. What actually counts as social media? Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc are all pretty obvious. Reddit, I guess. YouTube, presumably. Snapchat? WhatsApp? Yeah, maybe. Signal? Online forums? Usenet? Email lists? Anything where users can interact with other users? It gets tricky quite quickly.

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@hedders @osma Quite.

Plus, a ban on human express / community seems draconian to me!

[hedders@mas.to]

@neil @osma Yes indeed. Although I see the two points as linked - the more broadly you define "social media", the more draconian the ban.

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@hedders @osma Tricky - if social media was defined as "email" (for the sake of argument), it is narrower, but still draconian!

[hedders@mas.to]

@neil Fair - although I'd argue it's less draconian than if you defined it as "email and instant messaging and forums and usenet and matrix and smoke signals and carrier pigeons", inasmuch as it leaves more alternative options open.

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@hedders

I think we agree in substance - all the measures may be draconian, but some more than others.

[mrs_malice@mastodon.world]

@neil Love how The Guardian could’ve run this exact article about online misogyny any time in the past ten years to make an argument against monetizing sexism and destroying the social fabric between genders. But now that the billionaires want a surveillance bubble, it’s truly their rag’s time to shine!

Ban abusers from public spaces, not their victims. It’s really not that complicated if we put our minds to it, but power loves to pretend.

Thank you for sharing this!

[robo105@mastodon.social]

@neil Feminism will win but it is a long road ahead

[aapis@mastodon.world]

@neil @blogdiva I hate that this is so common. I hate that girls and women are forced to see this shit day in, day out. I hate it as much today as I did ~20 years ago when I was a boy.

[darwinwoodka@mastodon.social]

@neil

There are many good reasons I use a male pseudonym

[cy@fedicy.us.to]

I'm not sure why especially by men. Some people out there are shitty, some just lashing out because they're lonely, or got dumped. Or cheated on. Lecturing people on language use feels wrong, when you're taking the literal meaning of their words, and not examining the motivations behind their writers. You want misogyny, look for the well suited gentleman with a wife and three kids, talking calmly about family values, traditional families, and protecting the children. You know she's hiding a black eye, the way some of those slimeballs talk.

A social media ban for under-16s might prevent young boys seeing endless content that treats women with contempt and hate.

Language like that, for instance! Are you entirely sure that is a 15 year old girl?

[darwinwoodka@mastodon.social]

@osma @neil

How about we ban the abusers not the kids

[badambassador@social.vivaldi.net]

@neil @hedders I think this hints that the solution to this problem might not be of a legal nature.

OK, that reads like I'm suggesting something illegal would be the answer. Perhaps a better phrasing would be that there isn't a legislative answer to this question?

[cy@fedicy.us.to]

So women can't fix it? Not even with a shotgun? Just stand sadly by, while the white knights sweep in and save her?

I can't stop people from bitching that women are total hoes, nor would I. I'd stop people from feeling like that, by getting them into genuinely sweet relationships, if I could. Or at least getting their anger directed at oppressive rich fucks, and not sex workers. I don't have even that luxury though. So whatever.

[hedders@mas.to]

@badambassador @neil I think I agree with that. Or at least, not in the way Australia has done it and it looks like the UK will do it.

[passwordsarehard4@mastodon.social]

@PjpB @jima @neil that’s quite ableist of an outlook you have there. Not that you’ll care, you’ll forget about me as soon as you put your phone down it seems.

[renata@cosocial.ca]

@neil I have an easy fix no one wants to talk about:

Punish people who don’t treat women as humans

No buts. Just punish them.

[passwordsarehard4@mastodon.social]

@darwinwoodka @osma @neil that still means you need to identify everyone, though. A ban won’t work if they can just pick a different username and continue on.