Policy Memorandum

To: Edith Ramirez, Chairman of the F.T.C; Dick Costolo, C.E.O of Twitter; Larry Page, C.E.O of Google; Susan D. Wojcicki, C.E.O of YouTube; William Bratton, NYC Police Commissioner From: Kathryn O’Grady Re: Harassment of Women by Anonymous Online Commentators Date: April 13, 2014

Executive Summary

Cyber harassment and stalking is an increasingly prevalent issue in our Internet dependant society. This issue affects women more prominently than men, and is a reflection of latent discrimination and sexism against women. Cyber-harassment and bullying has detrimental effects for women, especially young women, including suicide, anxiety and an inability to participate equally in society. To appropriately address this issue and reduce cyber-harassment and stalking both Internet content providers and non- profits need to be pro-active in enacting policy changes. As research shows that civil discussion decreases when commentators can participate anonymously (not linking their comments to a name, e-mail address or phone number), it is crucial that Internet content providers require this kind of information for participation. In addition, non-profits should work to increase their partnership with Internet content providers, and begin to offer behavior modification classes for individuals who do not interact appropriately online.

Cyber harassment blocks women from exercising First Amendment rights

Although making personal threats to another individual online is a criminal act, several studies and journalistic reports have shown that women are particularly vulnerable to receiving personal threats and sexually harassing comment online. In a 2005 Pew Research report, the proportion of Internet users who have participated in online chats and discussion groups dropped 11% between the year 2000 and 2005, entirely because women stopped participating in these activities. The report states that this drop off coincides with women reporting an increased awareness and sensitivity to “worrisome behavior” in chat rooms. In the most recent report from Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA), women reported 72% of the online harassment and cyber-stalking cases they received. After email, the harassment usually began either on message boards, or via sites such as Twitter, YouTube, blogs and other mailing lists. Other statistics about online abuse can be found in the endnotes, and at Haltabuse.org In another study, by the University of Maryland's A. James Clark School of Engineering, chat room participants with female usernames “received 25 times more threatening and/or sexually explicit private messages” than their neutral or male username. Online harassment is targeted towards women, and is causing them to back out of the virtual world.

Journalist Amanda Hess’ article,“ Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet” is frequently referenced in other articles about this issue. Hess gives an overview of the severity of female-targeted online harassment, as well as its causes and effects. Hess also recounts her personal experiences with online sexual harassment and cyber-stalking. The examples of female journalists, who receive harassing comments, and threats for writing even the most inoffensive online articles, seem endless and Hess’ article effortlessly references several high profile instances. The lack of response from heads of Twitter and the Scotland Yard after British journalist Caroline Criado-Perez received countless rape and death threats exemplifies the need for reform around online sexual harassment. Criado-Perez received threats after publishing an article suggesting that Britain keep at least one female head, excluding the Queen of England, on their banknotes, however, she did not receive much support from Twitter or the Scotland Yard. Each of these organizations dodged responsibility and attempted to hold the other accountable. It was only after the number of Criado-Perezs’ Twitter followers skyrocketed and public opinion of the handlings of the case declined that either organization begin to react. A link to Amanda Hess’ article can be found in the endnotes. Being able to act and enforce codes and laws regarding online sexual harassment is difficult for any law enforcement agency.

The Internet is a global network, and not all, or even most, local police forces have the capability or skills to wade through the immense amount of threats to decipher where they are coming from, and how serious they are. The anonymous nature of most of these threats, including the ability to hide the IP address of the person making the threat does not make persecuting the harassers any easier for law officials. The tech savvy individuals making threats online are very aware of the difficulties facing those trying to press legal action. On August 1, 2012, The New York Times reporter Amy O’Leary recounted the story of Miranda Pakozdi, who forfeited a game during the 2012 Cross Assault video game tournament due to the intense and personal sexual harassment she experienced, especially from her coach, Aris Bakhtanians. Bakhtanians, defended his behavior by stating that “trash talking” was part of the gaming culture. This episode, and its backlash on Twitter and YouTube caused executives from Xbox Live, Microsoft and other online gaming directors to begin discussioning how to better address the sexual harassment of its consumers. But more discussion and progress is needed. In order to forfeit herself from the Cross Assault game, Miranda Pakozdi had her avatar walk into oncoming crossfire, in a form of virtual suicide. This act is emblematic of the thoughts and feelings that women who are victims of online threats and sexual harassment often feel. According to DoSomething.org, young people who are victims of cyber-bullying, are between 2 and 9 times more likely to consider suicide. In addition, girls are about twice as likely to be cyber-bullied than boys. The overwhelming number of online articles reporting on teenagers who have committed suicide after intense cyber-bullying, quickly illuminates that this problem has real life effects.

There are several ways to address the issue of online cyber-bullying and stalking.

The most effective solution will involve engaging organizations with different ways of addressing and preventing online harassment. Each individual will respond or relate to a different outlet for preventing or reporting cyber harassment, so it is important that several avenues are available.

Removing anonymous comments increases user responsibility whilst protecting the vulnerable

One of the most obvious places to start in hopes of decreasing the level and severity of commentators is with the institutions where the comments are being made. To host a platform for comments and not put forth the best efforts at regulating the interactions on the site is to neglect the staff, willing participants and productive conversation. Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post has already led the way in this responsibility, by banning all anonymous posts as of August 2013. That many other respected newspapers such as The New York Times, and The Post have also moved towards requiring that their commentators register with their websites, and verify their identity, proves that this movement is a small change that would nevertheless improve the status quo. William Grueskin, dean of academic affairs at Columbia’s Journalism School reported in an April 2010 New York Times article, that most journalistic papers generally were not opposed to requiring identification from commentators, as this would not effect ad space. Advertisers are hesitant to buy space next to comments, and are even less inclined to do so when the opinions could be menacing. Requiring users to register with Google will help to track online threats. Google is required to provide I.P. addresses if subpoenaed or warranted from law officials. Google is also responsible for providing email content if provided with a search warrant. These changes would reduce the ease with which individuals are able to make harassing or threatening comments without repercussions, however these changes do create an additional step one has to complete before being able to participate in conversation. These individuals would also be responsible for remembering their passwords and usernames. These extra requirements may decrease the amount of participation, as registering is a step that many may not want to take. In addition, removing the option of anonymity would limit international users who are unable to comment and participate without fear of repercussions from their government. It is possible to address this issue by requiring that users register their names before commenting, but providing the option for these users to comment under an anonymous name. This option would allow users to comment without fear of backlash from their government, employers or others, whilst allowing traceability in the case that harassment or threats were being made.

Involving users in peer feedback is empowering but could cause factions

Another branch of this line of offensive comment curbing, is to engage other commentators in the policing and reporting of comments. Wikipedia and Amazon are good example of this process, as they both rewards members who behave appropriately on their websites. Wikipedia users who other Wikipedia users trust, are given further editorial rights. Amazon users are rated by each other, which is effective as Amazon users are more likely to buy and sell with other reliable users. Xbox has recently began implementing a reputation feedback system, whereby users rate other users based on their ability to interact appropriately in the gaming atmosphere. Users with poor reputations are restricted with whom they can interact with, and how frequently they can game. This system not only allows other users to give immediate feedback for poor behavior, but also rewards positive interactions with greater freedoms. One issue with this method is that the risk remains that users would form a sort of faction to sway the validity of certain opinions. In addition not all systems are e-commerce, publishing or gaming, and these changes would not affect blogs or chat –rooms.

Although requiring commentators link to an email address or other profile information will not completely eliminate harassing comments online, it does have an effect. A writer at Poynter.org, Andrew Beaujon, reported on one of the first studies of the effects of anonymous commentators. Arthur D. Santana, a University of Houston professor and previous reporter, compiled the data and found that “at papers that allowed anonymous comments, 53 percent were uncivil, compared with nearly 29 percent at newspapers that insisted on real names.” There are both pros and cons to removing the ability to comment anonymously online. However, it seems that with a few slight changes, such as requiring that users register their identities while maintaining the option of commentating anonymously, improvements can be made to the accountability users maintain while participating in online conversations.

Using police officials to enforce cyber laws is expensive yet important

Another alternative avenue for curbing online harassment is to involve more closely police and other legal officials. Laws are still developing for this new forum, and often bills such as the Internet Protection Act are controversial for their risk of prohibiting First Amendment Rights. Involving legal officials needs to be done in such a way as to not infringe upon First Amendment rights, yet provide a level of protection for the, especially female, participants. If every precinct had at least one officer dedicated to the claims of cyber stalking and harassment, that would, at minimum, provide an informed and trained official to handle the most severe cases of cyber-harassment. According to Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHO@) there are currently 45 cyber stalking laws across the United States. The severities of these laws vary from state to state, and range from misdemeanors to felonies. Many states do not offer any protection for its citizens over the age of 18. Having one officer in each precinct trained in the varying laws by state and federal regulations, would place further importance on the protection of those being harassed online. Creating the position of an officer dedicated to receiving and pursuing online harassment and stalking claims would cost each city time and money. The officer would have to be trained constantly in new developing technology and the laws that grow with regulating this sphere. As Internet crimes often take place between jurisdictions, there would also be the costs of communications between jurisdictions. However these costs would not only help to persecute harassers, they would also help to build the statistics and reports that are so severely lacking in this new and developing issue. Although creating a position for a dedicated officer may incur a prohibitive cost, encouraging law officials to gain a deeper understanding of the issue is important. It is also important that service providers and platforms realize how serious the issue of cyber harassment is, and do their best to cooperate with law enforcement officials to the best of their ability.

Most statistics on this issue have been provided by not-for-profit organizations that have large gaps in their ability to accurately portray the numbers and the effects of cyber- harassment. Having a legal official provide statistics from their jurisdiction reduces stigmatization and allows others to come out against the instances of cyber-harassment they experience. According to DoSomething.org, 90% of teens who have seen social- media bullying report ignoring it, and only 1 in 10 victims will inform a parent or trusted adult. Perhaps if this issue was acknowledged by state and legal officials, by creating a dedicated position, more youths would feel comfortable reporting this abuse, and the power of such harassers would be squashed. An alternative option to creating a dedicated cyber-harassment officer, would be to have a general training and awareness campaign by police officers. However, this movement, without a focused and consistent position, would not provide the serious attention and follow through that a problem which has teens affected thinking of suicide two to nine times more frequently than their peers.

Partnership between non-profits and Internet content providers is crucial

Lastly, legal and corporate changes would be given much more strength if partnered with the passionate movement of dedicated non-profit organizations. There are several non profits, such as WHO@, The Media Law Project, and the Association for Progressive Communication that are dedicated to reducing, recording and raising awareness of cyber- bullying, stalking and harassing. EndCyberBullying.org and DoSomething.org are directed towards reducing cyber-bullying and harassment in young people. Although the youth do need extra protection and support, the lack of adult based organizations is worrying. In addition to the need for more support by and creation of not-for-profit organizations dedicated to this mission, there are many initiatives and methods through which these existing organizations could better tackle online harassment. Communication between the organizations as well as with technology developers, such as Google, and law officials would improve the cohesive effort of all these organizations. Although the existing non-profits are passionate about their efforts to report and prevent online harassment, they would benefit from communicating more closely and developing with the main social-media platforms. Non-profits must be up to date on the latest technology, and the ways in which online bullies and harassers are concealing their identities in order to continue abusing others online. An initiative that non-profits could begin in order to effectively combat online harassment is to offer gender sensitivity and effective communication trainings for repeat offenders of online harassment. Prevention and punishment through legal repercussions needs to be coupled with addressing and treating the behavior of repeat online harassers. These courses would connect non-profits to legal officials and provide a support system to the repeat offenders to create a path to proper use of online discussions. Although these trainings would cost money, and require qualified staff, they could prevent the costs of incarceration and legal prosecution.

Options to be implemented should be cost effective and affect significant change in online culture

Of the three policy options available some are more easily and cost effectively implemented than others. However of the three options available it is possible to implement two of the three without causing a major disruption or financial strain on any of the parties involved. Firstly, creating a dedicated officer in each precinct would incur prohibitive costs. The continual training and communications between precincts would create such a cost to each precinct that it is unreasonable to advocate for this level of enforcement. Although it is important that law officials, especially the police handling the cyber harassment and stalking cases realize the seriousness and the challenges that come form this issue.

Requiring identifying information before users can comment protects individuals and reduces cyber harassment and stalking

A policy change that would be easy and cost effective to implement is that concerning removing the ability to comment anonymously. As research has shown, when users have the ability to comment anonymously online, there is a higher level of vitriol and lack of civility. These harassing comments not only cause detriment to the individuals at whom they are aimed, majorly women, but they also derail potentially intellectual conversations by engaged parties. Requiring that users register an email and home address, phone number and real name allows comments to be traceable back to the individual, and eases the path for harassers and cyber stalkers to be persecuted. Furthermore, removing the ability to comment anonymously does not affect advertisement sales, or possible revenue for the platform provider. A study conducted by William Grueskin, dean of academic affairs at Columbia’s Journalism School, reported in The New York Times in April 2010, states that most journalistic papers generally were not opposed to requiring identification from commentators, as advertisers are hesitant to buy space next to the comments sections, and are even less inclined to do so when the opinions could be menacing (Pérez- Peña, 2010). So, decreasing the opportunity for negative comments may in fact open a new space for advertising. Concern over removing anonymous commenting includes reduction of privacy and creation of an obstacle for participation

There are some valid concerns about removing the ability to comment anonymously online. There are many individuals who are interested in remaining anonymous despite their intention in online chat rooms or discussions being neutral or even positive. A working individual may want to comment about sports or fashion online without the chance that their coworkers or employers find their comments. Perhaps they want to maintain a separation between their private and work interests; perhaps they are worried their interest in fashion or sports may seem unprofessional or immature. There are also many bloggers and online conversation participations that are protected by their anonymity from persecution by their government. Their ability to share information without having to reveal their name, address or other identifying information allows them to participate in a global network and share their stories. However requiring that each participant provide identifying information to participate in online conversations does not necessitate that this information be provided online or be made available to other participants. A solution to this issue is that after completing registration users could choose to comment under a pseudo-name, or a ‘handle.’ They can also choose to tag their posts as “public” or “private.” If a user tagged a post “public” their identifying information would be made available, such as their name and their online history; if a user tagged a comment “private,” however this information would be withheld, yet remain available to the appropriate sources in the case of harassment or stalking. Placing the choice of a public or private comment allows the users to choose what they share as well as remain engaged in the conversation.

Registering as a user before being able to comment does create another step for participants before they are able to participate in the conversation. This extra step, though small, may deter some individuals for participating in the conversation at all. However, rather than decreasing the level or depth of conversation that exists in chat rooms or on websites, because commentators must register, the conversation will deepen. Requiring that commentators commit to registering and take the extra step to log their information online will increase the thought and weight they assign to their comments. Because users will have to sign up or “buy into” the right to participate, with their comments being traed back to a verifiable identity, their comments will be more thought out than those which one could leave without any prerequisite. In addition, this obstacle is often made even smaller because many platforms allow individuals to register using profiles they have already created on popular websites such as Facebook or Google. The small financial obligations that requiring users to register information would entail, the effectiveness this option has in reducing online abuse, and the ability for users to maintain privacy, makes this policy option one which should be immediately implemented, without fear of backlash. Not for profits working in collaboration with Internet content providers will prevent and reduce cyber harassment and stalking

In order to stop or reduce online harassment and bullying, Internet content providers and non-profits need to enact preventative measures and strengthen their joint efforts. For the best possible efforts to be made, non-profits needs to be kept abreast of developments in the technological field and content providers need to respect the research and efforts of non-profits. There are a few changes that not for profits could make that would have a big impact on cyber-harassment and stalking. Firstly, more preventative measures should be taken in order stop cyber harassment before it starts. Non-profit organizations focused on this effort, such as DoSomething.org, WHOA and End to Cyber Bullying could buy available ad space next to the comment sections of websites. As most companies are not interested in this space, they would be able to get it for a good price, or even for free from websites who are interested in making measures to prevent this issue. As comment sections are where a great deal of the vitriol happens, this is the perfect place to remind individuals that there are consequences, and help for this issue. However, when prevention fails, non profit organizations should be partnering also with law officials. Working closely with law officials would help to produce the most accurate statistics about cyber-harassment, and how it escalates. Currently, there are no programs that rehabilitate inappropriate cyber behavior, and no options for reform for individuals who what issues interacting online. Non-profits would make a large difference if they were able to provide reforming options for the perpetrators, rather than continue to isolate and demonize the individuals behind the behavior. Enacting new programs always comes at a cost. The not for profits that are currently raising awareness, and providing support on this issue would have to find funding sources for new behavior modification programs. Trained staff would have to be brought in to lead the meetings. The costs to integrating these programs into the organizational budget would not, however, be prohibitive. Lastly, if a new focus is placed on the importance of reducing cyber harassment and bullying, companies like Google may see more of a reason to dedicate their resources to controlling and reducing this issue. There are now content scanning robots that could be trained to absorb the great mass of information and communication online, and flag or remove harassing comments. Often, non-profits step up to disseminate information, protect the vulnerable and provide options when the system fails, and cyber harassment and stalking are no different. Internet content providers and non-profits will only benefit from a closer relationship, and these involved individuals working together is the most effective way address online cyber harassment.

1. Working to Halt Online Abuse http://www.haltabuse.org 2. Fallows, Deborah. How Women and Men Use the Internet. http://www.pewinternet.org/2005/12/28/how-women-and-men-use-the-internet/ 3. Hess, Amanda. Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome- internet-72170/ 4. O’Leary, Amy. In Virtual Play, Sexual Harassment is All Too Real. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming- stirs-anger.html?_r=0 5. Dosomething.org https://www.dosomething.org