#Social media abuse

[alwaysbewoke]

[t-jfh]

Actor and disability advocate, Chloe Hayden, has stepped back from Instagram. (Compass)

Chloe Hayden wants young people to know that autism is not a "label that sticks itself onto you". (Photo: Norman Hermant / ABC)

Heartbreak High actor and disability rights activist Chloé Hayden is done with the abuse and leaving Instagram

Actor and advocate Chloé Hayden is leaving Instagram, citing 'inescapable abuse'.

ABC Arts / By Jared Richards

ABC News - 13 November 2023

•

[neosciencehub]

CYBER DEFAMATION

CYBER DEFAMATION - All you need to know @neosciencehub @AnilRachumalla #neosciencehub #science #cyberdefamation #socialmedia #internet #cybersecurity #threat #FreeSpeech #defamation #security #NSH

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW Online defamation, also known as cyber defamation, refers to the act of making a untruthful statement about an individual or organisation on the internet, with the intention of damaging their reputation or causing harm to their personal or professional life. This can include posting defamatory comments, reviews, images, or videos on social media, blogs, forums, or other…

[spyroz]

if anyone needs help identifying things that can become moral scrupulosity OCD obsessions/compulsions, heres a list of some i've experienced:

rereading your posts/texts over and over

checking your notes and/or followers list frequently to "make sure" bad actors aren't interacting with you

checking OP's blog before interacting with posts

compulsively opening a social media tab to look at your notifs and then closing it, over and over

fearing ways that things you say/do (or don't do) could be taken in bad faith. being anxious that your words/actions will be misconstrued as morally wrong, bigoted, rude, or aggressive

feeling guilty or obsessing over whether you should or shouldn't have reblogged a post

feeling like you aren't "allowed" to disengage from online discourse or unfollow people who post it

fearing you're being stalked, talked about, or called out behind your back. fearing you'll never be forgiven and that people might even celebrate your disappearance or death, even though you havent done anything wrong

searching your own name/username to see if anyone is actually talking about you

imagining defenses you would make against nonexistent heinous accusations or arguments against you, to prove that you didnt do it

feeling like you have to roll over and become a doormat when others are cruel to you, because it could cause strife if you do anything other than grovel or apologize

having trouble enforcing your own boundaries out of fear that they are somehow "wrong" or unethical

ending up surrounded by people who have all the "right opinions" but are super mean and unpleasant, and make you feel like you have to walk on eggshells

fearing that just HAVING moral ocd makes you a bad person somehow (for example, i often fear that having moral ocd is somehow pushing a 'stranger danger' or misanthropist agenda, even though i actually have a lot of faith in my fellow humans)

some of these bullet points are not inherently bad on their own, but if you find yourself having this kind of anxiety very often, that's not normal, and it's time to get offline or even seek professional help if it's impacting your life

this list is catered to how online culture influences moral scrupulosity, it is not indicative of how everybody's moral scrupulosity functions, and it is not exhaustive

[graceatthemargins]

Social Media Hatred

The gif spread slowly across my screen Opinionated, detonated, created, calculated. Cold and cruel, treating me to someone’s  unhappy heart turned on me in spite, a biteOf hate. ——/Her photo stolen from her life, haunting her as they passed it along its invisible trip wire. Seeking fame by defaming, hoping for shares, and done despairs, violated, cries to be heard. In vain. —/He knew the…

[sparklecryptid]

Look, I think we can all agree with the fact that abuse thrives in darkness. So explain to me why a 21 year old used the word pdfile and pronounce it exactly like that when we were talking about child abuse. Censoring the word does nothing. It literally took me several seconds to understand what she was saying. Clear communication is vital when someone comes or tries to come forward. It can be the difference between them feeling seen and heard and refusing to divulge anything. When you censor words like that in real life there can be consequences because you are obscuring information and hurting communication. Use the proper words. And if they make you so uncomfortable you can’t use them then maybe you shouldn’t be having a conversation that requires use of those words.

[seventeendeer]

this isn't at all meant to be condescending or finger-waggy because 100% we all have blind spots like this, but I'm really, really hoping that the people who never found Gaiman's approach to his own fandom concerning in any way will take this all as a learning moment.

he was an older, hyper-famous author engaging directly and frequently with an online audience of largely vulnerable young marginalized people. he presented himself as cultured and worldly, and made himself approachable as someone to go to for advice, encouragement and "wisdom." his manner of speech was extremely pathos-heavy and clearly intended to be comforting and encouraging in exactly the way his target demographic needed it to be to swallow every word. the way he spoke about stories and creativity was designed to make young creative hopefuls feel special and important, while sweeping real analytical techniques under the rug - in hindsight, likely so no one would think too critically about the disturbing amount of patriarchal abuse played for cheap shock value and voyerism in his own body of works.

Gaiman saw a target demographic that was desperate for an older creative role model to tell them they were worth something, and he exploited that pain to twist a narrative around himself where he was king and any critique leveled at him or his works were the enemy.

to be clear, he could have been innocent. he could totally have been just an out-of-touch old man saying nice things to people because he wanted to be kind and he thought he was a lot smarter than he really was. red flags are warning signs, not a surefire way to tell if someone is actually "secretly shitty."

but if you used to look up to him, PLEASE take this moment to revisit the ideas you absorbed from him. did you take his words to heart because they seemed to have objective merit? or did you take them to heart because it felt good to believe what he said? do you still hold these values? does knowing he was intentionally manipulating his online audience make you less certain? do you need more information from a different source before deciding one way or another?

again, I'm just really, really hoping people on here will take a moment to reevaluate the ideas and opinions he's injected into tumblr fandom culture, because his reach is immense and he has absolutely been manipulating popular perception of relevant topics to gain further influence and control the narrative around both his own and Pratchett's legacy. please, please take this moment to notice what he's been doing - and next time someone tries to pull the same shit, hopefully we'll be able to apply what we've learned from experience.

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[royalarchivist]

Fit: I would never hit my own children. My own biological children. I would never hit my own children, but these little bastards– [he kills a "Snot" a child-like mob] Fair game, fair game. [Fit looks at Ramon] Well, ok, biological or adopted, it doesn't matter. My children– I would never hit my children.

Fit: See, now I just opened up a can of worms– now someone's like "Ramon's your biological child???" So what if he is? So what if he is, huh? [Reading chat] No I'm not a bird, I didn't lay Ramon. That sounds painful. That sounds extremely painful.

[QSMP kicks him off the server]

Fit: You know, and– literally because we're having this conversation right now, the QSMP admins were like "Uhh, no, we gotta restart the server. Fit's talking about pushing eggs out of his ass."

[twopoppies]

Speaking out against the bullying was difficult and I tried. If I said something I immediately got accused of supporting an abuser. The poor guy was found guilty by everyone under the sun and there was no stopping the hate train. But even before the Maya stuff the bullying over his dancing at Nialls show was so bad too. It genuinely surprised me how hateful people were. And actually really stupid if I'm honest because they just blindly followed what everyone was saying. I'm still so upset over how he was treated by everyone and I only saw a couple of people express regret by what they said about him. Most just deleted their videos or tweets and pretended it didn't happen.

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[mysharona1987]

[aropride]

seeing these proposed and even passed laws banning minors from social media without parental consent is so terrifying. like aside from the "government collecting data abt what their citizens are doing online" and the implications for online anonymity, i remember being a young mentally ill queer kid in a homophobic abusive household and idk how i wouldve gotten thru it without my online friends and the escape of the internet. and if a law like this had passed and my parents had been made aware of all my social media accounts i would have been in so much trouble for being queer & nonchristian & interested in secular media & swearing & complaining abt my parents & mentally ill & having friends they didn't like & etc etc. idk i think it's super fucking dangerous and sets a dangerous precedent

[destielmemenews]

"Russian-born Durov was detained Saturday at Paris’s Bourget Airport on a warrant related to Telegram’s lack of moderation.

Those charges include allegations that his platform was complicit in aiding fraudsters, money launders, drug traffickers and people spreading child sexual exploitation content, French prosecutor Laure Beccuau said in a statement Monday. Beccuau added that Durov is accused of refusing to communicate “information or documents” related to the investigation."

source 1

source 2

source 3

[distorted-digitality]

If governments actually cared about keeping minors safe online they'd put age restrictions and locks on porn and NSFW sites instead of social medias. The lack of thought they put into these bills alone is evidence they don't care or know as much as they should to make these decisions to begin with. It makes much more sense to allow the individual and/or their guardians to regulate internet access.

[xoxoemynn]

what happened tonight with the wjw?

I'm too lazy to go back to watch the recording and annoy myself all over again lmao but essentially Kristian noticed someone in the chat say they had a question but they dare not ask, and said that normally he doesn't take questions from the chat but he was desperate to know what that question was. So people started tagging the person to get their attention and they came back with this SUPER appropriate and not at all embarrassing question.

Thankfully Kristian either didn't see the actual question, or ignored it, but yeah. Obnoxious as hell.

[userautumn]

"not all men" but not in a men's rights way, in a "it's important to remember that men aren't the only perpetrators of cruelty, abuse, and evil and that subconsciously or consciously training yourself to view men as inherently evil and everyone else as inherently safe inadvertently puts you in a position where you're both vulnerable to attack or harm from people you otherwise wouldn't suspect, AND causes you to limit the number of allies you might have in a time of need" kind of way.