The WhatsApp suicide
bbc.com
bbc.com
It seems like the BBC is just bringing up the name of the popular chat app as a way of generating more clicks. If their goal is raise awareness for the woman who died and people like her, that's noble but a bit misguided. If their goal is simply to generate more viewership and revenue for their website (which it seems like it is), it's deplorable.
If that's the claim they make, they better feel responsible when there are unintended consequences like rural men using the platform as a distribution system for illegal porn.
If every time there are unintended consequences in software and bugs don't get filled, guess what the system does not fix itself. This has to be treated the same way.
I don't think this analogy really holds. It's not a "bug", the system works as intended.
The big difference between a system like Facebook or WhatsApp and a telco is not that it's the responsibility of the platform -- WhatsApp is not encouraging abuse -- but the fact that abuse can be monitored for.
This raises the interesting question of moral culpability. If the crime can be prevented with certain tools (in this case monitoring tools), is it the responsibility of the platform to do so? It seems that we are shifting more and more to the "yes" end of that spectrum.
This is a question the platform needs to answer for itself, and is fundamentally just a 'safety vs. freedom' decision. Some platforms will select for freedom and others will select for safety.
Decentralized systems will, by their nature, err on the side on freedom. By the time decentralized networks are viable/usable, I think the general populace will be more interested in such things. The curated, safe experiences will be the dominion of corporations.
This seems related to a question I've had in wake of mass shootings, when others claim that concealed carry (or more guns in general) would have changed the outcome: should those carrying guns in the vicinity be blamed for not entering the fray?
So you could say if the company would want to address this issue, which is largely occurring on and through its technology, it could do so. You wouldn't be able to stop initial spreas, but if people get the chance to report the spread might be stopped quite early exactly because it's such a conservative society.
Not saying that's the ultimate solution(or even a desirable one) and there are plenty of caveats - but if companies wanted to address the issue they could at least try, so whatsapp/fb is certainly not 100℅ off the hook. That they haven't made any attempt to provide mechanisms to stop this kind of thing was their choice.
Or is there something that just wasn't active here? Eg does whatsapp block child porn distribution or copyrighted materials? Fb is pretty strict on that kind of stuff so I'd be surprised if there's really no mechanism yet.
Laced with innuendo that no one who was raped ever committed suicide.
And ignoring the general theme in the region to prosecute the woman after a rape for sex out of wedlock.
instead, lets pick on the phone app that wont let the government read your messages. That is all there is to see here.
It's inaccurate to characterize this as a problem with "medieval culture" meeting new technology.
This is a problem of a misogynist ultra-patriarchal culture (subculture?) in which new technology enables abusers to spread evidence of their misdeeds as a kind of perverse propaganda. This is NOT to say India as a whole, or even in the main, is misogynist and ultra-patriarchal.
Another reason I'm calling this out as inaccurate is that it distances many first-worlders (for example, myself in the USA) from such behavior, but we know all too well that such behaviors are replicated at all levels of society from the lowest and most impoverished ghettos to the most advantaged, wealthy, and presumably cultured dynastic families.
Technology in the form of social media enables others to see it and, in this particular instance, the distribution of the video documenting the crime has the effect (intended or not) of further repressing women who would dare to better themselves and their society (e.g. as health workers).
What really saddens me (as well as reinforces the idea that the dissemination of the video reinforces misogyny) is the husband's reaction:
> But in her home village, anger over Geeta's death is still
> muted by questions about her honour. Even Geeta's own
> husband, who eventually found out about the video from his
> neighbours, shares the prevailing suspicion that she might
> have done something to encourage the attack. "If she had
> told me," he says, "we'd have asked her if it was done with
> her consent. Then we'd have gathered the village elders to
> decide what action should be taken." He shows no sign of
> outrage about the rape, and has made no demands for police
> action.
Like every few months there's a similar story involving some top 10 football team getting away with the same shit.
I won't go into how there used to be societies which in some regards were more open and safer than today's, or how the treatment by a part of some religious communities goes against those religions' core beliefs.
Empowering people to defend themselves and deal with abuse in a dignified way is very important, and we first need to stop blaming victims as "promiscuous" or "having asked for it". This isn't very different from how we treat people who went to prison.
EDIT: We also need to find a good way to investigate accusations without automatically assuming that, for instance, alleged male perpetrators are by default considered (not found, to be clear) guilty, or that wives do not abuse their husbands. The described societal defects are partly to blame, as are underequipped/unskilled law enforcement or judicial departments. If someone can lose their job and family because anybody merely publicly accuses them of a sex crime or adultery, then it's clear we have a problem on the other end of the spectrum. To me, both are caused by related societal flaws and will take a long time to correct. Another way this surfaces is that people tend to worry more about a government official's personal life than their positive/negative acts in office.
Let me try to rephrase: I'm not saying this was the case in this incident, but the fairly unique classification rules of the society in question may increase the chances of such an outcome and be another reason to rethink the rules.
Your sentiment is vile and dehumanizing. It's carefully veiled and couched so as to make it appear to be a cousin of a feninist appeal for sex workers rights, with the safety of these victims in mind. But even casual inspection of your intent reveals that you believe that unless sated by a sex industry, rape is inevitable and we shouldn't blame the monsters who commit it.
I am sure you will protest this and cite the weight of history. Men's rights advocates usually do. And I'll happily point out that progressivism and the slow progress of women's rights against all odds and a nearly endless series of arguments like yours is also a pressure of history. One that many of us are working to further.
Don't take it personally. It might help to disengage for a bit and let people say whatever dumb stuff they are going to say. You are not required to reply to every single comment. Sometimes it is more effective to be a bit selective about what you reply to.
Best.
Edit: You have the top comment. So some people are silently agreeing with you by upvoting you.
The ingenuity with which people continue to reframe every story about rape around "what drove men to do it" and to reinforce the message that such actions are a pressure from a society that is in fact biased against men's sexual needs is amazing.
Edit: Your comments are delicious irony given how often I get accused of being a feminist on this forum and accused of writing feminist blogposts merely for being openly female and giving my personal opinions here.
You do this sort of thing a lot and it is much more about enhancing your ego than about enhancing the status of women, which you seem to be not terribly knowledgeable about how to do effectively.
I do not care about your assessment of how well I'm enhancing the status of women. I'm not an "ally", just a commenter with opinions. You can score me an "F" on the rest of it --- I take no offense.
PS:
For whatever it's worth, I simplied replied to the last comment on the thread --- I didn't single you out. But the thought did go through my mind that I should be relieved I was responding to you and not Dave, because Dave would flip the fuck out if I stepped in. :)
If I simply have not noticed it, I would be thrilled to pieces to see evidence that it occurs and I simply missed it. Because I am entirely unaware of it, but painfully aware of the negative effect that the shunning of women by top ranked members has here.
Thank you for the comment though.
I'm married to (and business partners with) a woman in a competitive part of tech. I do not need to be convinced that this kind of stuff happens to women, or that I might be contributing to it myself by some stupid habit of expression. To whatever extent I've done that in the past: I'm sorry!
I actually do worry about point-scoring with comments about misogyny, by the way, so much so that right after I wrote my comment towards the top of the thread, I sanity checked it with Erin, who has taken me to task before for appropriating her anger at how women are treated in our industry and scoring RT's and likes with it. She said this particular case --- and that comment at the top of the thread --- were so bad that I was in the clear this time.
If you see me doing that somewhere else on HN, you'll be doing me a favor to point it out, and I'll do my best to listen and respond civilly.
I am about to log off, possibly for essentially the rest of the evening.
Have a good discussion, probably without me from here on out.
But your gender identity means little to me nor will it soften my tone if you want to defend that argument. It is at its core an argument that deserves to be censured. It is another plank in the structure that blames victims of sexual assault.
But the reality is that there are studies suggesting that porn has reduced the incidence of rape and that conservative eras where good girls cannot put out have a great deal more prostitution. So, the essence of his position is not incorrect. It in no way justifies this heinous crime, but raking him over the coals over the deficiencies in his writing also in no way will improve his ability to express the idea effectively and appropriately.
Thank you for the apology. Rest assured I have no desire to have you "soften your tone" over my gender.
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/01/oh-my-god-it...
I have a great deal of difficulty reading this position from your response above. But I will take you at your word. Thank you, I appreciate the time you spent further clarifying your point to me.
> It in no way justifies this heinous crime, but raking him over the coals over the deficiencies in his writing also in no way will improve his ability to express the idea effectively and appropriately.
I am not here to or improve anyone. I am here to coldly and meticulously point out misogyny and rape culture of Hacker News wherever I see it. I am not interested in correcting behavior beyond that. It's not my place or my desire to be anything other than to throw a bucket of cold water on every case of it I see.
If you feel a higher calling, I wish you good luck. I no longer care to attempt to carefully untangle if someone is an MRA or if they are just using arguments very much like an MRA uses.
You were quick to leap to conclusions about me and tar me. I see this as fundamentally problematic, regardless of your agenda, and quite counterproductive if you want to end rape culture.
Not that you are in any way required to take that point of view under advisement or act on it.
> I see this as fundamentally problematic, regardless of your agenda, and quite counterproductive if you want to end rape culture.
That is your opinion. I think shame has its place. We are on a curious website where we can actively call people names if we are discussing technology and it is considered par for the discourse. But once the space of "politics" (read as, "fundamental human rights") enters the equation then suddenly we must all suddenly respect everyone's right to any opinion no matter how oppressive or facile. I reject that notion.
I will not be able to respond to you anymore today. I am rate limited and I'm fairly sure this is my final post for the day.
Since I already allowed as how that was merely my point of view, it is redundant to tell me that is just my opinion.
It's weird that we only ever see people complaining about this form of it. Predictable, but weird.
I'd be grateful if you can quote what parts can be read in a way that I didn't intend them to be, and I'll either choose less ambiguous expressions or omit the thought entirely, seeing how hard it is to communicate precisely.
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/not-really-r...
* A repetition of the trope that sexual culture is to blame for the impact of rape. Rape isn't sex, and prudishness what forced this woman to kill herself. Misogyny was. The issue in the culture we're describing --- and in its echoes in our own culture --- is the power dynamic between men and women, in which women are seen as having an obligation to somehow temper the sexual impulses of men they come into contact with, or else avoid men altogether.
* A diversion from what is a Handmaid's Tale-grade story about the victimization of women to the entirely unrelated topic of whether men suffer unduly from accusations of rape. That's particularly galling given the specifics of this story.
Whether you intended to or not, your comment --- which as Michele notes is at the top of the thread --- had the clear effect of minimizing the tragedy and injustice depicted in this story. I think we should be ashamed of this whole HN thread, which is dominated more by whether the BBC's reporting was unfair to a 400 billion dollar social networking company than by any kind of reflection about what happened to the subject of the story.
I don't know you at all, and I make no claims about what your intent actually was. I'm happy to assume that this was all unintentional. I'm writing about your comment, not about you.
I admit that I'm less prepared to comment in a minefield topic like this than I had thought, as my comment has been easily, and rightfully so, misinterpreted. I'm sorry about that and grateful you do not assume too much. Knowing the etymology of 'victim', it would never cross my mind to do so.
I agree with your explanation how rape and subsequent shaming and general mistreatment is being facilitated, and I think the root cause is our conflicted and unhealthy approach to sexuality. I don't think it would reach the same effect if sexuality was a mundane topic, so that abuse can be treated as a crime rather than, as you say, presented as disobedience by those in positions of power and widespread misogyny in general. If it wasn't a taboo topic, victims would probably be more inclined to come forward and falsely accused but acquitted wouldn't be shunned as easily. That's the gist of my theory, if I look at it like a programmer, a logician. How true that is in the real world I don't know, and I'm sorry for not phrasing it as an open question to begin with.
Basically I tried and failed to paint a complete picture how society prefers to mark abuse victims as well as falsely accused perpetrators as personae non grata rather than find solutions to the problem. Tragically, society fails so much that it causes and is responsible for suicides. I blame society only, and theorize that our inexcusably wrong approach to sexuality facilitates it.
Neither was I trying to say that her death is an inevitable outcome or that men are somehow led to commit those heinous crimes. Thinking men have no choice and have to be protected is why some wives have to wear veils. It's wrong, at least 2300 years late in human society, and nothing I stand behind. Seeing how my comment has been interpreted that way convinced me that I'm unprepared to debate this topic in an international plaintext forum among people who don't know each other personally. Sorry.
Any insensitivity I may have expressed in the comment is because I'm a technically minded person first, thinking in terms of logic, and looking for the root cause of a segfault (societal flaw). I guess I'll stay with technical topics where there's a closed world with rules I can look up.
This thread, and your comment in particular, provided me with a more complete picture than I had this morning. Thanks for pointing out the flaws and incomplete parts of my thoughts. I believe in constructive criticism and open debate, so asking someone "did you really mean .... or what is it you're trying to say?" is my preferred approach rather than making assumptions, so thanks. Also, yes, if we knew each other personally, you'd have been more likely to correct me, knowing what kind of person I am. Thank you for not reducing me to a utf-8 blob on HN.
> if by any chance they do lay their hands on a phone or use ear phones to listen to music, then they are branded 'characterless'"
@#$%!
Yet would like to lay a different perspective:
I am an Indian, an average tech professional, doing well in a good job, in a good city. Yes, the majority of my country is conservative. Yes, we have views that are biased against women. Do we have laws to protect them? Yes, we do. Do we have agencies to enforce them? Yes, we do. Do we have resources to support such agencies? Yes, we do.
Yet we see these incidents happening in tens of villages, towns, cities happening every day. Sadly "MOST of them unreported", let alone, being investigated, and the perpetrators getting tried and punished. Trust me on this one, most walk away free, and that encourages them to do it yet again.
The BIG question is then why is a basic safety not in place? You would say, isn't it the job of the law agencies to deal with this. Ugh, yeah... But blooper, a very good chunk of them are "corrupt".
We are not backward in tech arena anymore, though we have WhatsApp in villages where we still have 2 hours of electricity per day.
The technology is already in place, govt. orgs are all on Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. Do respond to requests and complaints (yeah you can tweet to our railway minister Mr.. Suresh Prabhu and he responds with immediate action, ex: https://twitter.com/baloomahapatra/status/792361492796637184)
It's just that the majority of masses are not "technically" educated enough to put it in use. They have access to weapons already (WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook), but just choose to use them against the good use they should be put to. You don't need guns when you have a pen (now internet).
To me there are two possible ways to bring in some change to my sick country:
1) We tell the people of my country to take matters in their hand: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/16/india.gender
Yes, bring in the knives/guns, castrate the f@#$%ing bastards.
2) Educate, everyone when giving them access to the technology, the apps, the whole internet what they should be doing with it.
The later is a more important step too. Google started an initiative to provide free high-speed internet access at major railway stations, and here is what Patna (capital of Bihar state) did with their free wifi card: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/10/17/patna-is-the-no-1-us...
Yes, Porn.
~~~
The whole point that I want to lay on the table, is we DESPERATELY need to bridge the gap between the cultural conservative "backwardness" and the rapid pace at which we are being given these tech gizmos to play with.
I beg with my folded hands to the govt. To please use my tax money (increase it if need be), to educate the agencies, the village elders, the women who go out to those "doomed" towns of mine, and most IMPORTANTLY the god damned f%$#$# bastard perpetrators that the tech is there to make this country a much better place than it is.
I am doing what I am able to, but if you are reading this please wish my country gets well soon.
I am a proud Indian, in just 70 years we are beating the world to Mars, yet we have burning infernos in the towns, villages, and there are no fire trucks nearby.
Thank you very much for commenting.
May I respectfully suggest that this is the wrong way to try to solve the problem.
Governments do not fix societies--they break them by the ruling class's manipulating society to remain in power. We see this even in the "first-world" nations like the U.S.
In contrast, societies fix governments when the governments are comprised of the societies they govern. Of course, this is only effective up to the level of virtue of the society in question.
Expecting government to fix society is putting the cart before the horse. Thinking that the government is (or should be) the horse that drags along the society cart is part of the problem. It's like expecting the tail to wag the dog. On the contrary, society is like the horse which drags the burden of a cart behind it.
Fixing a society requires the good members of it to get their hands dirty, not to outsource the job to their government. Easier said than done, but no less true.
But when the society is way too huge, it's a different game altogether. Compare 1.25 billion people to 310 million in the U.S
In a complex society as India, the challenge to actually execute a "good" change is closer towards the impossible side.
We have 18 official languages spoken in 27 different states, where the dialects change every 12 km (7.5 miles). We have at least 5 major religions, not to mention countless castes and ethnicities. There are just literally thousands and thousands of groups.
While the common vested interest of staying in power remains the same, the number of good members who can make a significant (practical) impact with honest intent is simply insignificant. And on top of that, these few members are split amongst these many many groups, creating an utter chaos.
This may not be the case for other societies for instance in U.S where most players in the society are literate and educated sufficiently to the leverage tech to get a clear picture of what actually the govt. is up to.
Sadly in India, most well-educated masses including myself lead lives that feed their families, which leaves very few brave members to clean up the mess that we have created.
And of course, the bad members use this opportunity to bend the govt. and the society to their best interests.
So while a perfect solution would be to practically difficult.
But, as an honest citizen, I think that education can do wonders. If people are empowered to challenge the govt. when it fails its job, then I think new good members will be born.
Don't you agree? Sorry about the long post, I agree that asking govt. to educate society is not the solution, but "educating society to use technology correctly" on an emergency basis is. Given the state of the affairs, govt. (at least the current one) is perhaps the best vector to deliver it.
Education seems like a good start, but of course it raises the questions of who will teach and what they will teach. As history shows, teaching the wrong things can have very bad results. If the people making the decisions and doing the teaching are good, maybe it will turn out well. But if those people are not good, the end result could be tragic on a colossal scale.
> If people are empowered to challenge the govt. when it fails its job, then I think new good members will be born.
This is very important and insightful. I think it's also important that government be close to the people, i.e. power being distributed among many smaller bodies.
Facebook shouldn't just be holding developer conferences every year. This is way outside the scope of what Tech Companies skill sets can handle. There has to be open public acknowledgement of that at the highest levels and not just the usual PR.
Unintended consequences of tech have to be treated in the same way we treat high priority bugs.
The court also asked the IT Ministry to examine what measures
could be taken to block the online circulation of such videos.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-09/indian-mps-busted-for-...
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/225344/karnataka-ministe...
This has nothing to do with watching porn. Plenty of men watch porn and don't rape anyone.
It has everything to do with a culture that blames the victim of a rape for the actual rape.
And a fair number of ministers have been accused of rape.
Is our porn a reflection of our culture, or are we reflections of our porn?
Banning (or blaming) porn just shifts the focus from the real problem here.
> Is our porn a reflection of our culture, or are we reflections of our porn?
Neither.
That's actually part of the reason why western women get harassed frequently in India, which is not really a new thing (and buy to neglect that Indian women get harassed a lot) - the men have primarily access to western porn and that's often the only white women they've seen, so if they encounter a real westerner they think she'll behave like those in the magazine's/movies/...