If you’re a dude, it’s easy to assume that the issue only affects people who are “internet celebrities”. But that’s not the case.
According to the article.. the [implied numerous] people they classify as the enemy are there because of her "ground breaking work".
The average person doesn't get a huge wave of trolls by just being there. Being the focus of an NPR puff piece interview, I would say she is a minor celebrity.
Does she deserve the hate? The person no, the celebrity image: hesitant yes. (I have a hard time saying no to the second part due to the influence and analogues .. i.e. public figures/politicians)
I believe that people are probably fighting with the celebrity image/influence. I mean why would you care about some individual that had some opinions as is with the person in the article.
----
On to what you mentioned:
Yes, there are unhinged people. The levels of "abuse" (their definition, which I disagree with what's classified as) between someone that agressively tries to influence others and an individual. There are probably many reasons for their behavior, but I would agree that they aren't acceptable to society. Are group block lists a good reason for these individual 1 on 1 interactions? No, The Travis scenario is not healthy. (Scala reference right there.. it's a guy who maintains blocklists based on you who follow)
Or again, just ask women or other marginalized people in your life what their experience is like online. Tons of ordinary non-famous people I know have stories just like these.
[1] https://www.kapwing.com/blog/why-i-dont-use-my-real-photo/
Here's some research on the distribution of online harassment with respect to gender that's a bit more rigorous than "just ask women": https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08944393198655...
Anyway, the problem with posting links to studies in online discussions is that it’s very easy to cherry-pick data that fit whatever conclusion you want to draw (here’s some research that comes to the opposite conclusion as yours [1]). Everyone ends up soapboxing and the discussion is fruitless.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/07/11/online-haras...
> Men and women experience and respond to online harassment in different ways. Overall, men are somewhat more likely to experience any form of harassing behavior online: 44% of men and 37% of women have experienced at least one of the six behaviors this study uses to define online harassment.
> Similarly, women are about twice as likely as men to say they have been targeted as a result of their gender (11% vs. 5%). Men, however, are around twice as likely as women to say they have experienced harassment online as a result of their political views (19% vs. 10%).
> By contrast, women – and especially young women – encounter sexualized forms of abuse at much higher rates than men. Some 21% of women ages 18 to 29 report being sexually harassed online, a figure that is more than double the share among men in the same age group (9%). In addition, roughly half (53%) of young women ages 18 to 29 say that someone has sent them explicit images they did not ask for. For many women, online harassment leaves a strong impression: 35% of women who have experienced any type of online harassment describe their most recent incident as either extremely or very upsetting, about twice the share among men (16%).