In a Pew Research Center survey of 2,849 Internet users, one out of every four women between 18 years old and 24 years old reports having been stalked or sexually harassed online.

But if one actually follows the link, one reads that "Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats." [emphasis added]

That blows are rather large hole in the thesis which the poster and many others seem to be implying, that internet harassment is primarily rooted in misogyny.

This is not to in any way justify the harassment of women. But if you want to know why there's a backlash, part of the cause (not a justification, a cause) may be the ongoing distortion of the facts about violence and harassment.

Because what the world truly needs is you telling women how they are and are not allowed to dress.

GP poster did not say anything about restricting how women are allowed to dress. He spoke about looking at women.

How about this: women (and men) get to wear whatever they like. And men (and women) are allowed to look at each other (in public, not talking about peeping toms here) as much as they like. It's your body, you get to put what you want on it. They're my eyeballs, I get to point them whatever direction I want. Autonomy and agency for all, hurrah.

If you think that the way a random woman is dressing in public means she wants to have sex with you, you're an idiot. If you think the way a random man is pointing his eyeballs in public means he wants to rape you, you're an idiot.

You gain no privacy or right-mindedness by not letting mail "stay" on their servers.

The law disagrees. Stored e-mail is different than e-mail that passes through a server.

The legacy of Bell Labs kind of runs contrary to this idea, because they were not only paid to come up with ideas, but also told to come up with ideas that would be profitable.

And yet C and Unix came about because someone wanted to play games.

How much mail do you really send that you are still buying stamps?

Outside of a dozen or two holiday cards, maybe three or four pieces a year.

I realize lots of businesses still send things out usps, but they are probably printing their own postage at this point anyway and not using actual stamps.

I've yet to see a solution suitable for home users.

It is a waste of precious resources to turn a woman into a computer programmer when she's a lot more valuable as a mother.

Ha ha! What a great satire of a shitheaded sexist troll you've done here. I especially like the bit about how any distraction, disruption or stress could cause a miscarriage. My doctor, a black belt in karate who trained up until her 8th month, would get a real belly laugh out of that. And my sensei, the EE, would surely get a chuckle out of the implication that she wasted her life by not being a baby machine. Keep polishing the satire and you could have a real career here.

(Assuming, of course, you're not serious. Because no one that stupid could survive.)

The government has no right to a monopoly on any weapon.

However, my neighbor storing atomic weapons in his garage is a reasonable threat to my safety and so should be heavily regulated. If he can meet the same safety standards as the government (maybe some billionaire collector could do this), the state has no legitimate authority to have nukes of its own while denying him one. Or, ya know, maybe nukes are an inherent threat to people and no one, state or otherwise, U.S. or Iran, can have them. But "we can have them, you can't" is not a logically defensible argument.

My neighbor storing machine guns or a typical shooter's supply of ammo in his garage (again, subject to safe storage requirements, no storing a loaded machine gun pointed at my house) is no more a threat to my safety than him having the usual home hardware and chemicals in there. (

Even a tank is not threat -- and indeed, for just $1175 you can spend a day driving one around.)

Where does the freedom to "say what I don't like" end and harassment begin?

In terms of content, you can say whatever the fuck you like about me. In terms of place and time and manner, you can't say whatever the fuck you like on my front lawn, because that's trespassing. You can't say whatever the fuck you like about me in my living room, because if you break into my house I will engage in legitimate self-defense and you will be quickly be unconscious or dead.

You can say whatever the fuck you like about me when we're in public, but if you continually follow me around at some point you are expressing a threat and committing assault. That has nothing to do with what you're saying, though, it applies even if you're silent -- it's the physical presence that's a threat.

You can say whatever the fuck you like about me on the internet or on TV or in a letter or on the phone or whatever. Unless you make a specific threat, and can be reasonably believed to have the means to carry it out, it's not assault. "I'm going to drop a nuclear bomb on Tom's house!" is not a threat, unless you command a nuclear arsenal. "Somebody ought to shoot Tom!" is offensive, but I don't have a right to not be offended, and unless someone is pointing a gun at me at that moment it's not assault or encouraging assault.

A nation with an interest in freedom could handle these cases without any new laws against trolling, using the same legal principles that have existed since the first idiot was prosecuted for mailing a threatening letter. But a moral panic about the 'net is fertile ground for authoritarians.

In spite of the grumblings of many, Karjaluoto doesn't recall many such changes that we didn't later look upon as the right choice.

Or rather, the famous reality distortion field later convinced Apple customer's that Apple must have been right all along. Because otherwise they'd have to admit that they'd been had, and no one wants to do that.

People who have paid a high price to enter a group tend to value that group, and people who are part of a group tend to conform to that group's judgments. It's terrible tech and terrible design, but it's great marketing.

Or what other case of widespread corruption are you thinking of that was almost exclusively referred to as a -gate?

List of scandals with "-gate" suffix

What we should be against is any subsidization, special treatment, or monopolistic practices, always rooted in government.

Subsidies such as allowing Comcast access to public rights-of-way to string their wires? Monopolistic practices such as allowing Comcast to buy up rights-of-way and exclude others from using them?

Comcast is not making widgets out of parts distilled from thin air. It is stringing wires over land, and then using them to send data over which it claims to have a "copyright".

Land is turned into property only via government action. All "intellectual property" is created entirely by state fiat. "Get government out of managing property!" is a cry that can only arise from fundamental confusion about the nature of property.

In the US, capital is not a barrier to entry...

Perhaps some day you will join us in the reality based community.

If we made every "terrible company" stop doing business . . .

...then we would be returning to the original idea behind a corporate charter, where a corporation was permitted the privilege to exist only so long as it served the public interest.

Sounds like an excellent idea. Indeed, take it further: put a time limit -- say, ten years -- on every corporate charter by default. Only renew (for another limited time) those corporations who demonstrate that their continued existence will be of benefit.

Comcast, of course, would be among the first against the wall.

That's a question you would need to ask each individual woman. And respect each answer either way.

SydShamino wins the internet this week. That's it exactly.

If a woman (or man) decides she (or he) wants to have a kid or two and be "productive" in the sense of being a full-time mom (or dad)? Great.

If a woman (or man) decides she (or he) wants to not have kids and be "productive" in the sense of having a full-time career? Great.

If a woman (or man) decides she (or he) wants to have kids and be "productive" in the sense of being a mom (or dad) and productive in the sense of having a career? Great. (And good luck figuring out that balance.)

The original summary that suggested that only the full-time career option is "productive" is such massive BS that the editor should be ashamed.

The problem with this article is in this sentence:

Users don't need password memorization schemes, they need to be incentivized to use a good password manager.

There is no such thing. A password manager either runs on my PC, which means when I'm away from my PC (laptop at the coffee house) I can't get my passwords; or on a device I have to always have with me, meaning all the inconveniences of a login token -- I can't login when my phone has a dead battery or is lost in the couch cushions or forgotten at home on my desk; or it runs in the "cloud", which would be a security joke.

There is no such thing as a good, or even adequate, password manager for general day-to-day use.

It is far more widespread and vicious towards women.

The stories that have gotten media attention have been towards women, yes. However given the way media works (reporting bias plus confirmation bias plus dramatic stories grab more eyeballs) it is reasonable to not take that at face value without looking deeper. Are there any peer-reviewed sociological or criminological studies that look at on-line harassment and gender of victims? (Genuine question, not a rhetorical device.)