Tag: Facebook

How to Use #Ottertime to Fight Online Hate and Disorient Trolls

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Esther Choo is a physician who does medical commentary on CNN, MSNBC and BBC. She has more than 192,000 followers. And because she’s a feminist, tweets about gender inequities, and is also Asian American, she gets trolled. 

But she’s smart and has a sense of humour, too. So here’s what she does when she gets sent online abuse: she responds by sharing an image of an otter. No explanation, just the image of the otter. 

I love the brilliance of this strategy. 

First of all, it’s confusing (see troller’s dumbfounded response, below).

Ester Choo MD MPH tweets One day I was being bullied by a condescending troll and just had it. So I posted a picture of a otter - just thinking, what's the exact opposite of this asshat? - and blocked the guy. Esther Choo tweets a picture of an otter. Troll responds Huh? I don't know what that means. Is that an otter?

Don’t you love the reply? He can’t reconcile the image with his intended effect. So he’s forced to ask for clarification, which disrupts the invective and undermines his stream of attack.

Secondly, it’s a way of Dr. Choo saying “your comments are so ignorant and uncool as to be unworthy of my intellectual or emotional capital; they do not deserve a response.”

Which, instead of silencing her, makes him both irrelevant and, in a way, invisible. 

Thirdly, the disconnect between his asshattedness and her sophistication is priceless.

Anyone who is regularly being targeted with online hate can attest to how exhausting it is to be on high alert as a result of vitriol and insults that find their way into the palm of your hand as you scroll Twitter or Facebook for news, or the threats that disrupt your workplace inbox. 

Dr. Choo continues…

Esther Choo MD MPH tweets So that became my standard response to bullies and misogynists. And I told my girlfriends to do the same. We use the otter to signal to each other, too, so everyone knows a sister is getting harassed and can jump in and help or block en masse. #ottertime Tweet reply reads Ladies, here's what I've been doing in response to this sh**. 1. Respond to harassment with a pic of an otter 2. Use #ottertime hashtag to signal a bully to other women 3. Block and report Original tweet by Kathie Dello reads men, if you're interacting with women, an your fingers take you toward these keys: sl blank, bi blank, wh blank

Finding, let alone maintaining, a sense of humour in the face of egregious hate speech and personal attacks is almost impossible. So having a default response that helps you avoid the downward spiral into someone else’s dark, ugly world – and also gives you something easy and constructive to do to subvert the negative energy – is a special kind of genius. 

And inviting others to adopt the strategy is a special kind of sisterhood. But it gets better…

Dr. Choo then goes on to write about how perfect otters are as an analogy for women fighting back against online harassment:

Although they look harmless — and, often, it must be said, adorable — they can be really ferocious, using their powerful jaws and claws to tear apart enemies. Their thick fur makes them resilient to extreme cold and they’re smart enough to use rocks as tools and carry them around in pockets of skin. Moreover…

Esther Choo MD MPH tweet reads As my friend @darakass almost immediately pointed out, female otters are called bitches. Crying emoji She also noted, importantly, that female otters join hands with other female otters in groups called rafts to keep from drifting out to sea while resting

It makes me feel giddy to imagine the solidarity of women banding together like otters, emulating a “raft of bitches” to protect one another against the waves of online hate. 

So let’s embrace and build on Dr. Choo’s brilliance with a five-step action:

  1. Search for images of “otter”; 
  2. Copy or download a couple onto your desktop or phone so you have them handy;
  3. Prepare to disrupt and disorient the next “asshat” who dares to mistake your social media feed for one that requires his ignorance, insult or hate speech; 
  4. Incorporate the hashtag #Ottertime to signal to other feminists and allies that someone is unclear on the concept of “social” media;
  5. Share and repeat as needed.

 

Shari Graydon is the Catalyst of Informed Opinions, a non-profit amplifying the voices of women and gender-diverse people and combatting the #ToxicHush of online hate that is silencing voices that are already discouragingly under-represented.

Dear Sheryl Sandberg: You can stop online abuse

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Dear Sheryl,

May I call you that? In your books and your TED talks, you come across as warm, accessible, and aligned with some of the values I hold dear. Your advocacy for women positioned you as a comrade-in-arms. Just like the legions of women who signed up for your lean-in circles, I feel I know you.

Many of us related to your professional experiences: super-competent woman motivated by burning desire to have an impact passed over for promotion while under-performing male colleagues advance.

And we keep seeing your sisters in struggle go down in flames for exposing the tech industry’s morally challenged behaviour: from Susan Fowler blowing open the systemic sexism at Uber to Timnit Gebru being forced out of Google for calling out the racist limitations of its AI and emptiness of its diversity initiatives.  

Meanwhile, many of the women you sought to inspire are hurting as a result of Facebook’s own algorithms. “Leaning in” on social media – especially if they’re Black, Latina, Muslim or Indigenous – just puts a bigger target on their back.

And where to start with the staggering news coverage of your company’s role in a series of devastating events that continue to have catastrophic consequences for the US? Disregarding Russian interference in the 2016 election? Fake news about vaccines? 

Then there were the revelations that not only did Facebook look the other way while Myanmar Rohingya were systematically massacred, the company’s programming algorithms are actually working as designed when they privilege hate speech and sensationalist content.

These blows to Facebook’s reputation have profoundly tarnished the credibility you’d built up as a champion for women. And you can’t compensate for your boss’ inability to accept responsibility for the company’s role by fuming in private, and then pivoting to “but look at the problems we’ve already fixed!” in public. 

No one really expects the man who proclaims “Company over country!” behind closed doors to do better. But you’ve written about human vulnerabilities, acknowledged moral dilemmas, and demonstrated a more emotionally-nuanced appreciation of complex issues. So the disappointment about Facebook’s repeated failure to retool its algorithms, shut down conspiracy theorists, and stop fuelling violence, is deeply troubling.

From the outside, it looks like either you don’t care, or you’re not able to exert the kind of power and influence your title suggests you should. So it’s no wonder you’re worried about your legacy. Katie Couric’s 2019 public grilling about bullying on your platforms must have been a brutal reminder of how those outside of Facebook view many of the justifications offered. And details about your inability to counter to Zuckerberg’s world-domination-at-all-costs mindset in The Ugly Truth, by Sheera Frankel and Cecilia Kang must have been humiliating.

Then came Frances Haugen’s well-documented and damning testimony before Congress. You can imagine how so many of us who once admired you from afar are now asking ourselves who IS Sheryl Sandberg, and why is she still there?

Your brilliant track record at both Google and Facebook make it clear how seriously, and with what success, you’ve pursued what you felt was your calling “to scale organizations.” But now that you’ve demonstrated your capacity to do that, wouldn’t it be fabulous if you refocused your unique abilities on helping to clean up the mess? To take responsibility for and learn from the unintended consequences unleashed? To devote yourself to projects that lie a little closer to your heart? 

Then again, maybe those of us who identified with a small part of you are reading too much sincerity into that heart – the one that seemed to underlie your books about equality of opportunity and resilience.

Because as much as you or your boss protest otherwise, the extent of the damage Facebook, Instagram and other social media giants are doing – to democracy and truth, social cohesion and mental health – is crystal clear.

We can’t fathom how you reconcile a pursuit of profits that depends on your willingness to reinforce disordered eating and social anxiety among teenagers. We’re asking how you connect with a sisterhood being slammed by misogynist messaging on your network, a network that is, itself, protecting the perpetrators of the abuse?

Continuing to defend practices that have inspired many of your former colleagues to quit underlines a stratospheric detachment from the realities faced by the rest of us. Come back to earth Sheryl, while you still can. 

Sincerely,

Signature

Shari Graydon

Shari Graydon is the Catalyst of Informed Opinions, a non-profit amplifying the voices of women and gender-diverse people and combatting the #ToxicHush of online hate that is silencing voices that are already discouragingly under-represented.

Why are some people such jerks online? And how do you respond to social media attacks?

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Is social media snark the gateway drug to full-on trolling?

I wondered this a lot last month, scrolling through the hate-tweets directed my way. Had I condemned a respected religious leader? Body-shamed a feminist icon? Described COVID as a viable form of population control? 

No, I’d had the temerity to confess in a Toronto Star commentary that I wasn’t in the mood to celebrate Canada Day. 

On LinkedIn, my piece generated thousands of views and many thoughtful and supportive responses. In contrast, on Twitter, dozens of vitriolic messages advised me to leave the country — although not nearly so politely. 

I was characterized as self-righteous, self-loathing and snobbish, “the worst a free democratic country can produce.” I was labeled “a non-entity”, accused of “grifting”, and ridiculed for having a degree in theatre. (Because it’s easier to attack someone personally, based on erroneously-drawn conclusions, than it is to mount a reasoned argument.)

One critic sneered that I was no doubt a fan of immigration (correct, although not mentioned), while another condemned me for having “defecated on the memory of the people who died at Verdun, Passchendaele, Ypres, Juno…Korea, Afghanistan.” (Nope, not even close.)

As disturbing as these attacks were, they pale in comparison to the kinds of hostile abuse directed at many other women, especially those who are Black, Indigenous, Asian, Muslim, lesbian, trans, women of colour… On a daily basis, they are targeted, threatened and silenced.

Over the past decade, in the process of teaching experts how to engage audiences through media, I’ve been enlightened by thousands of extremely knowledgeable and thoughtful scientists, health care professionals and advocates, across all sectors. Despite their deep insights on critically important issues, many of them have sometimes declined to share their experience-informed perspectives even when asked because they don’t have the time, patience or willingness to deal with poisonous online attacks that increase along with one’s profile. 

Who can blame them? 

That’s why Informed Opinions is now investing in a new project aimed at addressing online abuse. In the coming months we’ll be telling you more about our innovative new app and research initiative.

In the meantime, in trying to answer for myself the question, “Why are some people such jerks online?” I came across a New York Times article from 2007 which described the phenomenon of “online disinhibition”. 

Apparently, we’re more likely to be nasty because of the time lag between when we post a message and when we get a response… because the social media world is not governed by authority figures who might encourage us to behave better… because our empathy centres are hijacked by the absence of emotional signs and social cues typical of more personal interaction. 

And yet I and millions of others manage to regularly share thoughts and feelings on social media without personally insulting or attacking others. So I found this sentiment, penned on Quora by Alec Sorenson, more persuasive:

“People are jerks online because they’re jerks normally;
being online just allows them to be jerks without fear of consequence.”

Not insignificantly, social media companies have programmed their algorithms to reward ugliness. Academic research has determined that both Facebook and YouTube prioritize attacks. And posting something that triggers a pile-on of people who reinforce the attack with “likes” gives jerks the kind of dopamine surge experienced when gambling or using recreational drugs. By privileging online harassment and insults, these platforms are perpetuating an addiction to abuse. 

All of which feeds the inevitable conclusion: individual members of civil society, the organizations we support and the governments who serve us need to insist on accountability. 

We need to demand that social media companies live up to their own “community standards” and start genuinely managing not just fake news but the damaging content that their abusive users post. 

Even though the comments directed my way were tame in comparison to the insults and threats many other women and gender-diverse people experience, I did find them disturbing. I had to consciously remind myself that:

  1. Mounting personal attacks vs engaging with another’s ideas is cowardly and unworthy of response;
  2. Evidence-supported views trump the uninformed opinions of those who also deny that COVID exists or buy into disproven conspiracy theories; and, encouragingly,
  3. Most of my critics have few followers and little influence.

I also find valuable the insight articulated by George Bernard Shaw, who recommended:

Never wrestle with a pig;
you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

Coincidentally, the day after I drafted the post above, I came across this piece written by the brilliant Roxane Gay about her own evolution with social media. It’s worth the read.

Shari Graydon is the Catalyst of Informed Opinions, a non-profit working to amplify the voices of women and gender-diverse people and ensure they have as much influence in public conversations as men’s.

What Impact are We Having? What More Can We Do?

Posted on by Shari Graydon

We recently surveyed hundreds of women who’ve participated in our workshops and remained on our mailing list. Email overflow and work-life demands being what they are, we were happy to log 57 responses from women in 16 cities across the country. They gave us insight into what use they’ve made of the training we deliver, and how else we might be able to support them in continuing to amplify their voices.

Positioning yourself for impact

I recall hearing advice growing up that “it’s not what you know but who” that makes a difference to your career. But actually, it’s who knows you that’s more important. And visibility allows you to be seen, and your potential to contribute to be recognized. That dynamic is central to what we do and why.

That’s why we were very gratified by the responses women gave to the question:

What kind of engagement with media have you had in the past 7 years?

Eva Pomeroy published five op eds in 2015, three in print media and two online, and did two radio interviews. She says the idea of going to the media would never have occurred to her, but she now appreciates the impact she’s able to have addressing issues she knows and cares about.

We also asked what kind of feedback or sense of impact women had experienced as a result of their increased profile. Here’s what they said:

Not all the news was good. Predictably, 29% of women received negative feedback from trolls or haters online, and 13% were criticized by colleagues. Although neither of those experiences are pleasant, on balance, the positive results of increased exposure far outweighed the negatives.

Indeed, in a response to a more general question about what impact, if any, attending our programming or engaging with media had had,

“82% cited increased confidence and/or sense of agency;
56% cited increased recognition, visibility and credibility.”

If she can’t see you, she can’t be you

The enhanced professional opportunities that flow from increased visibility constitute individual benefits. But the global impact of more diverse and visible female role models is also profound.

When Adrienne Clarkson was Governor General, she was often approached by Asian Canadian girls who were wide-eyed with the suddenly expanded possible futures they could imagine for themselves as a result of seeing someone who looked like them in the prestigious and influential role of Vice Regal.

Your visibility – as a politician or CEO, chemical engineer or doula, mining executive or chiropractor – makes it easier for girls and young women to envision themselves in a similar role. And most of those your role modelling inspires won’t ever have the chance to tell you. But the absence of that communication in no way lessens your impact.

We also asked members of our network to weigh in on what kinds of support from Informed Opinions they continue to value, or would like to see us take on in the future.

Almost three-quarters (74%) expressed interest in the kind of media engagement tips and tools that we deliver in our workshops, and share through this blog and on social media. (If you’re not already receiving notice of new blog posts by email, you can join our Linkedin Group or sign up for our blog.) Another 72% requested additional training workshops to help build and refine skills.

Many said they appreciated the work my colleague Samantha oversees in promoting their expert profiles or media commentaries to journalists (63% and 58% respectively). And well over half (58%) encouraged us to convene events that would permit them to connect with other media-engaged expert women. Slightly under half (46%) expressed interest in free webinars that would permit them to get answers to specific questions related to their media engagement.

Where Do Our Experts Engage Online?

How We’re Going to Bridge the Gender Gap by 2025

Last fall we announced What Gets Measured Gets Done – a new initiative that tracks the data to measure the male and female voices being quoted and featured in Canada’s most influential news media. Our explicit goal is to achieve gender parity by 2025 by celebrating the leaders and encouraging the laggards to do better. Almost two-thirds of our grads (63%) expressed interest in supporting this endeavor, so we’ll be looking to them to share the data we collect with their networks.

Survival Guide for Women in the Workplace

Finally, 53% of our network expressed interest in a “Surviving & Thriving in the Workplace Guide for Expert Women”.  Although I relished the idea of writing this book, anticipating its enormous audience, it turns out Jessica Bennett has already written it.

She called it Feminist Fight Club – A Survival Manual (For a Sexist Workplace), and it’s a gem: funny, deeply resonant and chock-full of practical advice. She drew on both her own daily office experiences as well as those of a small group of smart, articulate and ambitious women. Together they offer an arsenal of strategies that include snappy comebacks, encouraging pep talks and strategically smart action steps.

Mandatory High Heels and Facebook Feedback

Posted on by Shari Graydon

EXPLOITING CELEBRITIES

How do you draw public attention to rampant discrimination against women restaurant workers? I played the celebrity card, and heightened the drama by contrasting the red carpet behaviour of Hollywood A-listers, Sandra Bullock (rooted to the spot by her heels) and Hugh Jackman (bounding down Yonge Street posing for selfies with fans).

My recent op ed in the Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette takes aim at the ubiquitous and indefensible imposition of high heels on female wait staff, which handicaps them — both figuratively  and literally.

HOLIDAY OPPORTUNITIES

Because columnists like to take time off at Christmas, there’s more space to fill in the newspaper. What this meant for my piece was that editor Kate Heartfield supplemented my words with a large format photograph and two pull-quotes, making it impossible to miss.

So I was disappointed to discover that it generated only two comments on the Citizen‘s website — and, even more disappointingly, both were from male readers who had a narrow and dismissive view of the issue.

FACEBOOK FEEDBACK

However, yesterday, a colleague mentioned he’d seen my piece on the Citizen‘s Facebook page, which it had never occurred to me to visit. There I discovered 43 comments (most of them thoughtful and supportive, and many of them from women), 426 “thumbs up”, and 89 shares.

Given that my goal in writing the op ed was to change an egregious policy, I was greatly encouraged by this response. And I’ll be printing off copies of the piece to share with the server I spoke with, as well as her manager.

LEVERAGING COMMENTARY TO CHANGE POLICY

If you’d like to help prevent women working in restaurants from being compelled to wear dangerous footwear and revealing clothes (also forbidden by human rights codes in Ontario, BC, Quebec and Alberta — the four provinces I checked), please share the commentary through your own social media media channels, and with exploited restaurant employees near you.

PUTTING TROLLS IN CONTEXT

In the meantime, don’t get disheartened if the news site where your analysis appears features comments only from people trashing your ideas (or attributing ideas to you that you didn’t actually express, or calling you names, or otherwise engaging in troll behaviour). Because they’re not representative. Here’s the image you want to call to mind in response:

I can typing