Misogyny (and Hate): Does the internet make it worse or just highlight what's already there?

I can say I have definitely experienced misogyny on-line. And read more hate than I care to remember. ATS has had to address the later on several occasions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From reddit to you tube it's rampant. Here is just a sample:

www.reddit.com.../

My question is, does the anonymity afforded on the internet make it worse or only highlight what is already there? Is this how people really are or does the internet let them vent and role play things they would otherwise never say out in civil society? Is it just a result of the fact that the internet seems to be ruled by (young) men and their pension for porn and lulz?

Where does free speech cross the line? Why do sites allow degrading or hateful comments without moderation?

My own experience is that, where my gender is known, my opinions weigh less than where my user name is more gender neutral. I specifically have multiple user names for reddit because of this. Also, on sites where my gender is known, I receive more comments and PMs with sexual innuendo or insults. I also get called more patronizing names like "sweetheart" and "honey" or insults like "bitch".

Don't get me wrong, I love all of the forums I belong to but I do find the phenomenon fascinating and I was just wondering if ATS had any thoughts on it...

ETA: Ah well, the filter is killing one of the links...you can hit quote to get the url.

makes it easier

Both.

Second. Sorry, can't comment more. It's plain and simple.

reply to post by KillerQueen

My question is, does the anonymity afforded on the internet make it worse or only highlight what is already there? Is this how people really are or does the internet let them vent and role play things they would otherwise never say out in civil society?

It absolutely only highlights what is there (inside, at least, not necessarily what is acted out). We did a small research project during one of my years in school regarding what people could do if they were guaranteed anonymity and no repercussions, and the results were generally soul-crushing.

This is one of the reasons for my cynicism, despite the goodness inherent in all of us, when anonymity allows a chance for us to act on impulse and desire, people tend to be petty, cruel, and very unpleasant.

As far as free speech goes, I am all for it as it allows me to find out clearly who I do and DO NOT want to interact with. As long as you're wearing your thick skin and the line is not pressed so far as to do direct harm (certain types of misinformation, 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre', etc...) and merely reflects valid opinion or interior expression...however vile...I can handle not having censorship of such. However, I've got no problem with those who prefer a cleaner environment keeping unpleasant types out of their various establishments as long as they aren't merely trying to control the narrative.

reply to post by Praetorius

It absolutely only highlights what is there (inside, at least, not necessarily what is acted out). We did a small research project during one of my years in school regarding what people could do if they were guaranteed anonymity and no repercussions, and the results were generally soul-crushing.

It must have been a hard thing to learn while still at school.

But are you sure the internet doesn't make it worse? Most people who hold extreme views are well aware that others disapprove of them, so they can't express them as freely in real life as they might like. But when they go online with them, safe in their digital anonymity cloaks, other bigots read what they write and realise they're not alone in their prejudices. Surely that must encourage these people in their views.

It also seems possible to me that knowing others hold similar views is enough to tilt a relatively 'moderate' bigot into the position of full-blown hatemonger.