If you’re anything like my parents, you probably wouldn’t even understand most of the content that floods my social media, no matter how hard I try to avoid it.
Here’s a recent example from Instagram: “Do y’all females ever tell ur homegirls ‘Sis chill you letting too many dudes hit?’” Essentially, that means: “Women – do you ever tell your girlfriends that they’re whores and need to stop letting so many guys fuck them?” The reel, posted by a 19-year-old man, appeared on my Instagram feed without me wanting to see it, or ever interacting with any other similar content. The comments that followed were pure misogyny. “Women see body count as a leaderboard and they try to outdo each other,” was one of them. Translation: all women are competitively promiscuous.
Consider the use of the word “female” in these posts. It is not a neutral term here, it is a term of abuse. It’s used by teenage boys to degrade us and equate us to animals. Boys are never described as “males”, but girls are always “females” – the equivalent of sows or calves, creatures that are less than human. We’re also “thots” (whores), “community pussy” and “bops”. “Bop” stands for “been over passed” and is a derogatory term used by boys to refer to a girl they’ve decided has been “passed around” or had too much sex. Sexual equality has ceased to exist online. It’s absolutely fine for boys to have sex, but when girls do, they are called worthless and referred to as objects. “When community pussy tries to insult me, I just want to beat that bitch up.” That’s a message I saw on TikTok.
I’m a 15-year-old schoolgirl and like most teenagers I spend a fair portion of my spare time on social media, often scrolling through short-form videos on apps such as Instagram or TikTok. All of my friends use those apps, and many spend multiple hours a day on them. I actively try to avoid online misogyny, but I am met with it incessantly whenever I open my mainstream social media apps. It only takes a few minutes before there’s subtle or overt misogyny, such as comment sections on a girl’s post filled with remarks about her body, videos made by men or boys captioned with a degrading joke, and even topics such as domestic violence or rape, trivialised and laughed about.
Let me guess the solution before reading the article - some form of weakening to digital privacy.
Yep: “A social media ban for under-16s might prevent young boys seeing endless content that treats women with contempt and hate. Boys at this age are very susceptible to the cool and funny framing of what is, in reality, relentless misogyny. A ban might not fix the problem, but it would help. If society can’t stop it, it can show it disapproves.”
Essentially, this article is an argument to introduce online ID, and I disagree with that on a fundamental level.
The soil misogyny has dug it’s roots into is the iniquity we created while seeking equity. It was done for the best of reasons, but now we see the price. That’s not a problem we can solve easily, and certainly not via creating state spying infrastructure.
We have mostly 50-80 year old Republicans pushing to strip women of rights and somehow misogyny is all the internets fault? This is a deep societal problem that can’t be fixed by internet law.
The internet just lets the terrible people be terrible with some anonymity in doing so. It allows the rancid to hang their butts out for all to see without facing societal consequences. In short, it’s a megaphone for the problems we have.
Word it like that, the guardian has some pretty authoritarian leaning shit.
The main pieces of the article don’t read like fabricated and are possibly genuine; however, the last part about the ban might be an deliberate attempt to manipulate the reader using emotional baggage after reading the main section. It may aswell be injected there by the Guardian, and its probable the author didn’t even think about the bans.
This yet again is ageism in a nutshell. The Guardian has completely invalidated the authors claims, just because they are a minor. This is where humanity is going: misogyny, ageism, and deliberate injection of stories with malicious intent.
We used Fox News to enrage parents who raised kids to be misogynists and racists. We must ban the internet!
Let me guess the solution before reading the article - some form of weakening to digital privacy
What would be your solution to this problem?
Funding education, funding social services, funding mental healthcare. Enforcing existing laws against harassment on big tech.
One of the biggest social media platforms is spamming child porn, they’ve all been proven to be addictive on purpose, and we’re blaming teenage users.
Funding education, funding social services, funding mental healthcare. Enforcing existing laws against harassment on big tech.
That’s a solution that maybe, possibly, will solve the issue 30 years from now (because we need to educate not only the kids, but - most importantly - their parents).
It also doesn’t solve the issue of state (or state-adjacent) actors purposefully spreading content designed to cause disruption and chaos.
One of the biggest social media platforms is spamming child porn, they’ve all been proven to be addictive on purpose, and we’re blaming teenage users.
At least in the context of the article in the OP, and the comment I’m replying to - nobody is blaming anything on anyone. At least I don’t see it.
Delete TikTok and Instagram for starters.
This is simple advice for an adult who isn’t mired in the drama of high school. For most teens, these apps are how they socialise, how they share information and learn what is cool or uncool. Deleting the apps means you have cut yourself off from the social system and have made yourself a social pariah.
An equivalent for the millennials and gen Xers would be not having Facebook as a teen. It meant not being invited to parties because Facebook was the only platform people used to plan events. No one was going to seek you out individually because it was assumed you were on Facebook and would see the updates.
I agree that social media is harming all of us, but telling teens to just not use it ignores what it was like to be a teenager.
I route my ig through matrix via https://beeper.com/ so I don’t have to open the app, so people can also still dm me.
I was a teen with social media. Not using it is totally valid advice. But simply saying “don’t use it” is like telling a smoker “don’t smoke”
Facebook didn’t exist when Gen X was in highschool, likely all of them had been through college.
Not sure why you were downvoted, but you’re correct - I’m a late Gen Xer, and Facebook launched several years after I finished grad school - and didn’t become mainstream for another few years.
MySpace was started only one year earlier than Facebook. So, basically, the social media online that I knew before then were forums (like car forums that still exist).
I was gonna say unpopular opinion, but maybe not…
disengage from social media. It is not reality. not only that, but it perpetuates itself, and the oligarchy that created it. Go out and meet people in the real world. This is comming from an autistic person with minimal patients for other people. Seriously, ditch social media; it’s poison, and when it dies (which it will if people like you leave) these toxic peope you encounter will have to face the real world.
Social media like everything else takes personal responsibility. I have an IG and it’s full of yummy desserts, puppy videos, my bands and pics of my kids so my parents can see.
It’s up to everyone what they do on social media and what they consume, just like television, don’t just watch porn, Fox News and trash tv, and say it’s TVs fault. It’s a medium like everything else, stay away from the crazies and if you can’t handle it don’t use it
But the social media affect all those people in reality sadly, they normalize this crap and embolden it
Yep, some is a shitplace, that only shows you very sterotypical things about the world around you, through very disective algorythms. It learns you about how small the world is, how we all are the same. When we are not! Humans are complex individuals the world is huge. That is social medias first lie. But you are in fact all just numbers to them. Social media, reduces us to numbers.
I can confirm this. Kill your television rings true.
Using social media has ruined my self-esteem and my relation to being a girl in this world, and nearly every day I feel hatred towards my gender, my appearance, or even teenage boys as a category. The misogyny I see from boys my age online, which is echoed in real life too, has made me grow resentful and bitter towards them, as much as I try to avoid it. As wrong as it is, I persistently find myself considering if there are truly any boys out there who are not misogynistic to some extent, and have even questioned whether I can find love in the future because of this. I understand that boys are victims of harmful content, as well as perpetrators of online misogyny – they’re growing up learning how to do this from the adults who post misogynistic videos first. But even so, I feel such a strong divide now between girls and boys in my generation, especially when the way they talk about us in real life mirrors the way they do on the internet.
That’s fucked up.
That level of misogyny is definitely learned, but it’s not just her age group. I’m floored by (for example) some comments my Dad makes, a “quiet, respectful, classy” type guy who’s never had a Facebook or Insta, who’d you’d never expect to hear insults from. And it’s definitely worse after he watches Fox News… that shit is like a drug.
My school “friends” dropped my jaw, sometimes. They got a lot from their parents, but social media (Faceboook back then) absolutely made it worse.
Even here on Lemmy, the disrespect or casual sexism from commenters sometimes makes me want to throw up. Not that I’m a particularly standup guy or anything, but the longer I live, the more I wonder “the fuck happened to my sex?” I certainly can’t critique this girl for wondering the same thing.
holy shit these comments
lemmy users stop being individualist-brained, victim-blaming misogynists challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
you don’t stop misogyny by just ignoring it you twats, and hot take, mainstream social media being filled with nothing but privileged assholes being bigots (because all the good people were told to just go somewhere else 😇) is not good, actually!
I mean this is why I stopped using social media 10 years ago. Bunch of nonsense drivel, everyday.
I’m not victim blaming, this shit shouldn’t happen, but if you are on a platform and that platform has shit moderation and you keep seeing content you don’t like, well, maybe you should leave that platform? I mean this is why we all left reddit, right?
If I walk into a wall once, then it’s an accident. If I keep walking into it, then I’m just stupid.
Genuine question: What do you categorise this comment as, other than you using social media?
I keep falling into the same trap as well, when telling people I quit using “social media” but am very much active on social media platforms - just not the ones controlled by big tech.
Maybe we need a shorthand for “profit-driven algorithm-controlled influencer cesspools” so we can separate it from “non-profit decentralized social media platforms” like Lemmy and Mastodon?
It’s called the Social Graph. Platforms that implement a social graph are social media.
The fact that people don’t know this basic, fundamental mechanism is the problem. Even the technologically inclined haven’t been able to make this simple distinction.
People think “social media” means a place for people to be social. That’s not it. Social media is specifically platforms that implement the social graph and/or similar types of algorithms that are designed to manipulate sociological relationships.
Traditional message boards are not social media because there is no algorithm. In the past reddit wasn’t social media because it technically did not have a social graph. It was a simple aggregrator with comment sections. That alone does not make social media. reddit does have a social graph now. That’s when it became social media.
Lemmy doesn’t have social graph algorithms.
The social graph is quite possibly one of the most dangerous inventions the 21st century and nobody talks about it. Yet it rules your entire life. It’s what makes the world turn. It’s what is dictating cultures and societies. It’s what is determining what goes viral. It determines the daily headlines.
While I completely agree with you on all arguments about the dangers of algorithm-based platforms where eyeball count and time spent in apps (ad revenue) are the primary reasons behind their very existence, I disagree on your definition for the term social media.
I tried to find some sources for your definition, but for example the Wikipedia article on social graphs define Facebook as an online social network (although it also calls it a social media platform).
Judging by the list of social networking services, the definition (at least on Wikipedia) seems to lean towards “any site where you can add people as friends” (thus building the social graph you refer to).
Personally, I think that term fits better with your description (platforms based entirely on a social graph), while online social media is a broader term describing any online medium on which we socialize with other people - graph-based or not. Old-school forums and chat rooms included, even if we didn’t call them that back then.
This definition of social media is new to me as well, thanks for sharing it. This sort of clarifies a term I really dislike, and which you’ve used: “the algorithm”. It’s always seemed a little murky to me which algorithms it refers to. It’s like saying “don’t eat food with chemicals in it”.
Lemmy does have “an algorithm”, it’s just a relatively simple one based on communities one is subscribed to plus some vote/comment data for the various sort orderings.
Lemmy also absolutely implements a social graph – the data about who has interacted with whom is all stored by the system. It’s not explicitly stored as a graph structure, but then we’re arguing database schemas.
As I understand it, however, you’re saying “social media” arises when the “social graph” data structure is used as an input to “the algorithm”. That seems like a pretty robust definition to me.
One bit of pedantry: user blocks on Lemmy are, by a general definition, a form of social graph, and they do affect what content people see. So Lemmy could technically qualify as social media by the definition I’ve written here. I’m not sure what a more precise definition could be that avoids this technicality.
A stronger distinction could be made for the use of graphs on a widespread scale. That’s what I meant when I said lemmy doesn’t have a graph. The data structure itself is benign. When it becomes dangerous is when you’re playing god mode by dictating what individuals see. When that is applied that across the entire platform then you’re controlling entire societies. This is “the algorithm” that people speak of in common parlance even though they don’t know the underpinnings of it. It’s such a simple concept but extremely dangerous to humanity.
You can block on individual if they annoy you. This is a basic feature that existed on old forums and chat software. A single edge on a graph millions or even billions is insignificant. It’s a silly retort anyways that trolls use, thinking it makes them sound smart. Ignoring one or even a few idiots isn’t going to alter your algorithm. Not relative to the system as a whole which is orders of magnitude greater.
If anything the block feature is an antidote to algorithms that decide what we see. For some reason people don’t see anything wrong with having to be forced to confront your polar social/political opposites all the time. I can’t remember where I heard or read about this but studies shown that this does not work. It’s not productive.
The thing that people have to get over is that “the algorithm” isn’t correct by default. You’re not losing anything by blocking users or breaking from it entirely. There’s been more than enough evidence over the years that they do much harm. I have yet to see much strong evidence that they are beneficial. What has society gained from it? There’s nothing but sales pitches for adtech firms telling us that they have mastered how give us the best social experiences. Where’s the proof of that.
Hey thank you for the term drop! I haven’t heard of “social graph” and it falls into my “feelings” of what social media has been for me(or what I hate about it(algorithms)). I am definitely a “one in ten thousand” today for this.
Maybe, but I’ve definitely seen people disagree about what constitutes social media - e.g. some thing youtube is or isn’t, other people lemmy/reddit are or aren’t, it seems pretty inconsistent. Maybe it’s a generational thing?
In this sense, yes to Reddit and YouTube. YouTube may not be very social but it clearly has an algorithm that pushes toxic content/stereotypes.
And im going to say no on Lemmy. Lemmy may be social but there’s no algorithm pushing toxic content. Maybe I’m missing it but there’s seems to be very little toxic content.
You’re saying the criteria for being called “social media” include, “must be toxic” and “must be algorithmically-driven”?
Maybe this is an age thing and language has changed (I’m old in Internet years) but to me, “social” implies the opposite of those things - friendly interaction and organic connection.
I’m saying the term is somewhat nebulous, with lots of gray area but also an objective definition would not answer the question.
People do disagree on what constitutes social media, and even apply it inconsistently to themselves. So let’s not pretend there is a clear definition. Language isn’t always cleanly defined so we can understand what “social media” is based on context
I don’t consider Lemmy or other message style boards as social media.
We aren’t posting pictures of ourselves or posting updates of our lives on here. We don’t use our real names(or I hope we don’t).
Please define social media for me, because it seems like everyone’s take on it is “a website where you interact with others”, which is way too broad and I would say that applies to the entire internet then, which is a slippery slope.
*Edit, another post linked the “Social Graph” which I think encapsulates what social media is vs. what it is not.
Please define social media for me
I guess my take is anywhere people interact with others in a conversational way, yes. You can see a timeline of posts, you can comment and reply, etc. You can’t do that on 99% of websites or apps. You can’t do it on your banking app or your weather app or your insurance website, etc. The lines blur around things like Wikis where you can chat with people on talk pages.
Limiting “social media” to places you post pictures of yourself rules out most earlier forms of social media before that became a thing, but looking back you wouldn’t say twitter wasn’t. The Wiki link you gave also links to “list of social media websites”, which includes Reddit, as a directly opposing point.
I don’t think it’s clear-cut, and I know different people have different opinions.
Personally I didn’t consider Reddit as social media 10+ years ago, but in the last few years it has definitely become social media, and I would attribute that to the Social Graph concept.
Right now, I don’t consider Lemmy or other link aggregators(Piefed) as social media, same for PeerTube as that is more of an entertainment/video sharing platform that isn’t focused on a social aspect. And I guess Matrix wouldn’t be social media for me either because I see it as a chat platform where you can be social, but the focus isn’t on sharing personal details of yourself. But I would consider Mastodon and PixelFed as social media and their focus is on pure social interactions. Which I guess I don’t know if I consider YouTube to be social media either at that point.
Maybe I’m hyper-fixating on the “media” part of “social media”. But again, I think clear and concise definitions of these types of sites need to be created BEFORE laws are in-place, because it seems that everyone is focusing on whether or not a website or service has “social” functions, which again, is a slippery slope.
Please define social media for me, because it seems like everyone’s take on it is “a website where you interact with others”, which is way too broad and I would say that applies to the entire internet then, which is a slippery slope.
That is effectively the definition from my understanding. Lemmy, Reddit, and similar boards are social media because the content is primarily user-generated.
It probably feels like the entire internet because it’s where many of us are spending most of our time.
Yeah and I don’t accept that definition. Is GitHub social media then? Is the LTT forums social media? Is Wikipedia? Nexus mods? All of these sites contain “user generated content”.
Because I would say none of those sites are social media sites. But all of these loose definitions are being thrown around and next thing you know you’ll need to verify your ID to look at any Wikipedia article.
No. All walls should be padded because we assume everyone is going to walk into them…
So suicide, then? That’s your suggestion?
That’s not what they said at all.
Keep walking into that wall bud.
holy shit these comments
Lemmy is no better than reddit and other large platforms broadly when it comes to being an insular community of tech-focused young guys with horrific sexual insecurity.
Despite the wallpaper that it’s supposed to be further left than other sites, just about every online community is going to have a large share of “incel adjacent” shut-ins, as they are the segment most likely to keep a forum or website active. I’ve seen all the same rotten sentiments across Lemmy about women as I’ve seen deep in the trenches of the gender-wars during gamergate, it’s just usually softened with some disclaimer.
a large share of “incel adjacent” shut-ins, as they are the segment most likely to keep a forum or website active
“But not me, I’m different even though I’m here too!”
This user:
Lol proves my point.
Way I see it there are two productive paths to take here:
- Start trying to convince women that privacy does in fact matter. Use examples like the menstruation tracking apps potentially being used to identify abortions to illustrate this point.
- Try to relate to the men here on Lemmy and find a way to cooperate. You’ve got a largely fresh population of men here who don’t actually hate women, but have spent years in education being told they are dangerous rapists waiting to happen, or were treated as defective women by their teachers. They need good male role models and women who will treat them with respect, so that they can climb out of the pit without leaving the better parts of themselves behind.
An utterly unproductive use of your time would be trying to fight misogyny on oligarch-owned platforms. You will never win because they find this content useful, as it divides workers and wastes their time and social energy. Just get out, and help others do it too.
I’ve been a social media moderator and it’s an awful, thankless, volunteer job. And I think objectively we kept our community very tightly focused on our narrow topic and civil. But we’d have never gotten to that point without a ton of help from the community itself. We outlined our vision and had clear, reasonable guidelines, so it was very easy to determine if something was against the rules to report.
But this was a special interest subreddit, and it was a constant battle. I made sure that every ruling and interaction I made had thoughtful intent. I had to step down because it was making me legitimately depressed.
I could never fault a moderator for being overwhelmed, especially for a community as chaotic as instagram. For these large, general purpose communities, it’s impossible to police directly. It truly takes the whole community to enforce and report bad behavior.
So no, you shouldn’t blame the victims, but you have to understand it’s a massive systemic problem with no easy solution. The best advice you can give really is “Take care of yourself, and avoid problematic communities.”
Yeah, “just stop using social media” is an insanely stupid take that misses the point so hard it makes you wonder how someone distorted their perception so hard that they can even react that way.
“Stop using social media” is literally the only real solution because oligarchs will never again risk letting us actually connect with each other. You stay on “social” media and you will just be getting run in circles by engagement algorithms and bots.
You cannot save Facebook, Instagram, X, or Reddit because their owners will not allow you to.
No, it’s not. It might seem impossible for society to improve, but that is the solution, and talking about it without telling people to just avoid certain avenues is the only way to that end.
“Social media” is not society; it’s a series of platforms built by billionaires for the purpose of control.
Filled with people expressing opinions. I don’t understand how this could possibly be controversial or difficult to grasp.
You’re literally pretending social media isn’t real or doesn’t matter as long as you just do the right thing and ignore it instead of addressing the horrible ideas spread on it.
I don’t understand what you’re failing to grasp. You see what you’re allowed to see. They are signal boosting shit heads while suppressing everyone else. If your message begins to spread, they will just pull the platform out from under your feet.
How do you propose to win on billionaire-owned social media when they can just kick your legs out at will the moment you stand too tall for their good? Look at all the Reddit protests that amounted to nothing besides getting moderators booted from their subs, they’re a perfect example of this.
deleted by creator
Top three read article btw. Shilled by the same people who will soon have a track of you everywhere you do or go. You won’t even have a permission to fart without paying the fine.
15- y old girl. Most likely written by a 40 y old who can’t understand how parenting works. If you are a failure it doesn’t mean the rest of population now needs to be enforced in id links and checks and give away their right to privacy. Fucking dumbasses
Imagine if TikTok automatically tagged all content with #misogyny, #racism, #sexism and so on. And then published monthly reports on society trends. Like “In Feb 2026 racism went down 12%, misogyny went up 5%”. I think it would be incredibly insightful and helpful.
While article tries to promote social media ban for under 16s, I strongly believe its just a way to sweep the problem under the rug. I think much more reasonable approach is to recognize those trends and deal with them through education and better parenting.
This isn’t social media, it’s social acid, dissolving and corroding everything.
Sexual equality has ceased to exist online. It’s absolutely fine for boys to have sex, but when girls do, they are called worthless and referred to as objects.
This isn’t new. I’m a man in my mid 40s and the disparity between how promiscuous men are viewed as compared to promiscuous women has existed for as long as I’ve been sexually aware, and well before.
Obviously that doesn’t make it okay. I also have no idea what the solution might be. There have been a few cultural efforts to normalize the idea of women enjoying and seeking out sex but none of them seem to really reach the people that need to hear it.
I do find it oddly paradoxical that men who make it very clear that they are actively seeking sexual partners would disparage women for being sexually active.
I do find it oddly paradoxical that men who make it very clear that they are actively seeking sexual partners would disparage women for being sexually active.
They don’t want experienced, knowledgable, self-confident partners. They want naive young women they can gaslight and abuse.
They don’t want experienced, knowledgable, self-confident partners. They want naive young women
You’ve obviously never lived with the aftermath of dating worn out, bitter and combative women who have been traumatized by their numerous “experiences.” Men like inexperienced women precisely because they want to mold her and give her her first experiences. Also, “experienced” women are more likely to be single moms.
Boy, this thread is just loaded with reprehensible takes and dudes telling on themselves.
Let’s take a moment. I want you to understand that the opinion you offered is precisely what the OP article references. More than that, the opinion you offered is factually wrong.
I would like you to hear from me - an anonymous poster - the most likely outcome (of that opinion you offered) is a lonely, sad, and bitter existence for you.
Your preferences for certain kinds of women are yours, and yours alone. I wish you luck in finding a woman that fits your preference. However if you truly believe in that opinion, i strongly recommend seeking professional help.
🤮🤮🤮
Imagine posting this and thinking it sounded okay.
Ew
Experienced men are more likely to be dead beat dads. See how this works?
Shit is infuriating.
i suppose it shouldn’t be surprising but these comments sure are proving the articles point. i guess blaming the people being oppressed is a lot easier than blaming or even actually acknowledging the systemic oppression when you’re a brickheaded fascist, especially when you’re unaffected by/benefiting from it
I fell the problem is also how social media platforms promote ragebait content. If you are enraged by a post, you will tend to react more, thus spending more time on the platform. I am not saying misoginy and racisme does not exist, but i experience it way more often on social media than IRL. Leaving social media won’t cure these shitty behaviours, but it will help her feel less endangered
i agree with some of what you’re saying but not the experiencing more harassment on social media than you do IRL part. i don’t mean to invalidate your anecdotal evidence in any way but marginalized people have always used the internet as a way to connect with eachother and have a safe space away from the harassment they face IRL. and i also don’t face nearly as much harassment IRL than i do online but that’s because i don’t feel safe being me IRL unless around an extremely select few people. but if i was going around proudly exclaiming who i am the way i am online then i would definitely face MORE harassment in person than i ever have IRL.
If anyone uses the word “female” to refer to women/girls, they instantly disqualify themselves from any right to be taken serious. Those people need a psychotherapist.
I think it depends a bit on how multicultural an environment is. In a lot of places (including here), for plenty of people English isn’t their first language. I have seen ‘Female’ used on bathroom signs several times. The focus should be on intention, not language.
Might want to cancel Strong Bad then…
I just don’t believe all of this is real anymore. It’s a fucking psyop! Men and women have different kinds of comments under posts. If a woman looks at the comments of Reel where a woman promotes the most depraved, objectifying a degrading things to do to guys with the sole purpose of making them suffer, they will only see comments of other women (rightfully) blasting OP in the comments. But when a guy opens the same comment section he will 99% see only comments of women encouraging other women to be the most evil things humanly possible.
It is not a conspiracy, it’s a really effective way to farm engagement for basically free. We are letting them take control over society with the most obvious divide-et-impera tactics ever applied in human history
a fucking psyop … It is not a conspiracy, it’s a really effective way to farm engagement for basically free.
Right, I think there is very few people actively trying to rage bait others. Sure there are some trolls but the problem at scale is rather blind metrics. There are instead very number smart people, PhDs in machine learning, economics, etc who are brilliant at tweaking mechanisms in order to make a number, e.g. engagement, keep on going up. They might take a benign example, e.g a cooking recipe, and split the audience between more critical vs more positive. They noticed that indeed when they do so, when they artificially create affinity groups, people do reply/like/etc more. They then generalize that technique to other features (e.g. gender, age, etc), run it again at scale, show their project manager that indeed engagement increases and they get a promotion. They have literally no idea of the damage they make, they might in fact actively do their best to ignore the negative side effect.
Number goes up, users get depressed, profit is what matters in this inhumane medium.
It’s not only misogyny.
Social media absolutely removes the inhibitions of just about all kinds of assholes, builds pat-each-other-on-the-back support groups for them by putting them together with like minded assholes and then algorithmically shovels all that shit on everybody else because anything that elicits strong emotions means more clicks and anger from being offended is one such emotion.
By the way, this also applies to unhealthy gender expectations on males (including misandry), though this being The Guardian I expect this is about the UK, which IMHO (having lived there and also elsewhere in Europe) is a country with serious problems when it comes to gender expectations around women and insidious “benevolent” sexism (“benevolent” not because it’s good but because it follows the whole “women are fragile creatures” and subsequent subtle disemplowering of women “to protect them” or because “they’re emotional creatures”) which far too often taints the articles in The Guardian because they’re very much from the British upper-middle class Acceptable Feminism, which tends to underestimate the strength of women and favor “protection” “solutions” over empowerment and agency.
So whilst I absolutely believe in all of this and in misogyny online being very bad, especially in certain countries, the choice of focusing on misogyny rather than as a whole in the problem of social media’s Profit Driven amplification of societal dysfunctions in general, is very much a typical privileged British Upper Middle Class “Third Wave Feminist” perspective and choice.
Social media absolutely removes the inhibitions of just about all kinds of assholes, builds pat-each-other-on-the-back support groups for them by putting them together with like minded assholes and then algorithmically shovels all that shit on everybody else because anything that elicits strong emotions means more clicks and anger from being offended is one such emotion.
feeling disheartened and unhappy about being a girl. When nearly every comments section on a video of a girl my age is filled with disgusting and objectifying comments about her body from boys, it causes me to feel deeply uncomfortable in my own body, and compare myself to her
this hits home for me. I have a near 14 year old daughter and this is the struggle I see with her constantly.
It’s not that she’s particularly non-binary/trans/androgynous, it’s that she’s ashamed/embarrassed to be a girl or be perceived as one. She still likes many traditional feminine things, (ie hair/nails/makeup, romance novels, cutesy characters, etc), and she has no real desire for any kind of masculine interests…
It’s as though being a woman is inferior. It’s “girly”. And that’s what is being internalized. And part of that, I think, is also the culture’s post-ironic loathing for authenticity. Ala, being passionate or earnestly enjoying something is seen as being “cringe”. So, being a girl, who likes girly things, is cringe.
I think both of these things ratchet the internalized misogyny. With the former being what turns the ratchet.
As a father of two girls this makes me sad. However, I am a little bid sad to see so many, treading social media as this is the real life view to a lot of young people. Of cause there is plenty of people that gets sucked in, and their view of the world becomes whatever algorithm they follow online. But to most people this is just “shock effect content” not something they would ever follow. I certainly hope, that in your school, most people actually have a since of human left, and are still nice to eachother. As nice as teenagers can be ofc. That the people who actually has this kind of view of other people (especially girls) are the ones who get left out. What I am trying to say is, that I hope young people today leaves all the shit online, ONLINE, and gathers around the good friends IRL. Those are what matters most. Turn off social media ffs. It is meant to fucking poisen your brains. I did. And it feels phenominal. What real value does the swiping really give you, if all it does, is showing how bad you should feel, by being born a Woman? What do you and your friends use social media for today?
When I was teenager, we used social media to socialize online back in the day. Stayed in contact after school hours. Thats all it did for us. Today, I feel like it’s sole purpose has become intertainment/pure distraction rather than connectivity to real human beings. It’s all about scrolling and leaving bred crums to the big tech, that can be used to fill your “feed” with even more crap to keep your distracted every waking hour. It is the dog chasing it’s tail, and what you see won’t stop there.please tell me if I am wrong. But this is how I’ve seen social media develope over the past 2 decades of my life. It went from being the cool place, like a social place to interact with the people you like/love to a swipehell with no valuable interactions what so ever.
