This is self-published research by a think-tank, not a peer reviewed scholarly publication; also, the actual paper for this finding doesn't yet seem to be available, just summaries by news organizations. This article does link to some older papers by them, which go into very little detail on methodology.

As such, it's really hard to say what kind of abuse they are talking about; slut shaming and rape threats, while both awful, can be quite different. Also, I am curious about how they accurately determine gender of Twitter users; there are many fake accounts on Twitter, and I don't believe Twitter even reports gender identity of users.

> When an article makes a politically correct claim:

"Yeah I totally feel this is true, this one time [insert anecdote here]"

> When an article makes a not-so politically correct claim:

"Well it's not peer reviewed / look at the paper that's publishing it / this is the wrong definition / headline is misleading / [insert criticism not related to the claim]"

Headline seems a bit misleading. "Half of online abuse" seems to suggest that this study is representative of the internet as a whole instead of just twitter. While the findings are still worthwhile, I think we'd see different results if the study could have included sites like 4chan, reddit, tumblr or even facebook. Of course, there are practical challenges to getting accurate demographic information on those platforms, but I suspect that fact also factors into the nature of abuse that persists on those sites.

Just like in real life, all kinds of people can be equally reprehensible to each other. It just varys in the ways. Men are typically assaultive, with in-your-face accusations and threats. Women often use exclusivity and shame as a weapon in equal parts. Because men are typically louder and more violent in their abuse, we tend to register it more often.

The title should probably reflect the fact that the study focuses specifically on Tweets containing the words "slut" and "whore"

A more accurate title:

Half of misogynistic abuse aimed at female twitter users in the UK found to be from other women.

The reality is that, in other countries, things may be very different. Also, this study in no way attempted to quantify all forms of online abuse. Heck, if women are this bad to each other, they may actually commit well more than half of all abuse if you include abuse aimed at males. Boys can be pretty nasty to each other too, but I suspect more of it is "offline".

And most likely if you parsed specifically tweets containing the n word, you'd find most of said tweets are authored by black people.

Not sure what the point of this article is.

Anecdotal hand-waving BS: Something I've noticed over the last several years are people who feel so victimized in some way that they actually begin acting like their victimizer. Gay people who anonymously act violently homophobic. Black people who paint KKK images on campus property. Weird.

I'd guess it's just a very small minority of people who are like that, but online, in aggregate form, it could turn into a significant number. It'd be interesting to see some stats about this.

Honestly though, equating "online abuse" to some name calling on Twitter is totally disingenuous. What about harassment and rape threats and doxing and swatting?

This actually mirrors what I've seen in the workplace over the last 35 years - women can be very brutal to each other (just like men). The main difference I've observed is that men tend to forgive each other and move on. Women seem more likely to hold a grudge. I'm obviously not interested in making sweeping generalizations - and this is not a scientific study.

undefined

I do kind of wonder whether sock-puppet accounts were a significant factor. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to follow the same gender distribution as the folks abusing.

I'd like to know what percentage of online abuse was directed at women. My hunch would have been 50/50 for dealing it out, but I am not so sure the split is even for taking it.

I thought this was consistent with prevaling theories on how sexism works, and how abuse works more broadly?

There's a kindergarten-esque explanation of the phenomenon: humans tend to imitate each other, and we imitate more the people we're around more, and the targets of abuse tend to be around their abusers (or women in an abusive society) so they become like them.

It's not entirely accurate, but similar phenomena are known, most infamously the correlation between being abused as a child and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_violence#Intergenerati...

Why wouldn't they frame the title as "Men and women are equally responsible for misogynistic tweets" instead of singling out women?

trying to see the good in things, perhaps this bodes well for gender equality, suggesting (psychological underpinnings of the aggressors aside) that there is less bias in the feeling of personal empowerment on the internet.

this is super important research the institute for social media has conducted. the biggest threats humanity has ever faced are 140 charachters.

I have an adequate supply of bile for the social justice advocates but this isn't a news story that plays against their beliefs.

If you exclude the mob then the majority of them would say that many women have internalized misogyny.

This isn't a fantastic claim as it may at first sound. Many people thinks ill of themselves, many people also hate themselves on a group level. The stereotype of the self hating Jew has some basis in fact. Each nation has people who dislike the people within it despite being members of it.

It is possible to hate your own class, race or culture. It is reasonable to extend that to sex.

I think like with many things there is often a reasonable kernel of truth to why you'd choose to go against your own tribe, but taken too far it can slip over into irrationality.

I am working class but I see a lot of toxic behaviors in it. It is true for example that they are more violent. On the flip side I would also say they are less dishonest than the middle class and much more reliable when the going gets tough. Many middle class people have noticed their neighours flake out easily over little things.

Of course I don't hate my class but at one point as a teen I struggled with it until I realized the other classes have their own suite of flaws as well, they're just less obvious to outsiders.

The most important thing.

Remember that in proximity like competes with like. If you understand this you'll see why the SJWs eat their young, why siblings fight and why in civil wars you're more likely to get attacked by some group that is more similar than different.

If you compete for the same resource you develop enemies. The modern focus on xenophobia ignores the internal competition. The No.1 enemy to Bernie Sanders supporters is Hilary until the nomination, and then Trump. Something like ISIS is at the end of a long list. This truth also explains the existence of fellow travelers.

When you get attacked by a foreign faction everybody joins together. The SJWs unite against non-SJWs. The siblings band together against bullies. The Sunnis and Shias band together as Muslims when faced with western forces. That's why many strategists think an alien invasion would generate world peace!

I'm sure you remember if you're old enough that shortly after 9/11 everybody bought flags. That day was when they realized they were in Team America. People who betray their tribe for whatever reason get torn to pieces because an enemy can use divide and conquer tactics to destroy all of you.

Evidence for my claim would probably be found in the study above. Those women are attacking other women, not other men.

A woman calling another a whore is misogyny? Being against promiscuity is misogyny?

Make sense. Women are very prone to backstabbing and degrading others as a way to boost their own power and self-image. Look at any middle or high school female clique.

It makes sense.

A 'whore/slut' women in a society has the most destructive effect on other women's sexual prospect. So I am surprised that there is a taboo against that - the only thing that surprised me is when men think its a bad thing - since it doesn't hurt them having many sexually adventurous women around.

A month from now there will be a debate/argument in HN comments about women being harassed online, someone will claim something along the lines of most online insults toward women are posted by men and someone will link this article. Tune in to next month's broadcast to see who gets down voted into oblivion, the person making the unsubstantiated claim or the person rebutting it.

In my almost 40 years of living, I've learned one thing about women, they love attention, and you better learn when is necessary to give it to them and when is better for both if you ignore them.