Gendered online violence is silencing women journalists in Fiji, says Pacific media scholar Dr Shailendra Singh.

The harmful trend involves unwanted private messages, hateful language and threats to reputation, often from anonymous sources.

The visibility of women journalists has made them frequent targets, while perpetrators can harness popular online platforms to shame or embarrass them in the public eye.

Dr Singh has dedicated extensive research to this dangerous phenomenon, including a 2022 study with Geraldine Panapasa and other colleagues from The University of South Pacific and Fiji Women’s Rights Movement.

The research found 83 percent of female Fijian journalists who completed their survey had experienced online harassment.

Significantly, the women journalists reported changes to their journalistic practice because of abuse, such as self-censoring their content or avoiding certain sources or stories.

“The aim is to embarrass female journalists into silence, or punish them for writing a report that someone did not like,” Dr Singh says.

The researchers said the valuable role of the Fourth Estate in protecting the public interest makes harassment of journalists a critical concern.

Eliminating the problem will need further action, as 40 per cent of the women journalists who responded said their employers had no systems in place for dealing with online violence.

Islands Business magazine manager Samantha Magick says her staff can come to her for support, but even so, harassment adds another barrier to attracting and keeping journalists in the industry.

“We’re competing with marketing, or competing with UN agencies that will snap up a great young communications officer after they’ve done a year in a newsroom, and pay them a lot more,” she says.

“The people who stick with the profession are either super passionate about it and willing to sacrifice certain things or are in a position where it can be viable for them.”

Fiji adopted its Online Safety Act in 2018, which bans harmful online communications and appoints the Online Safety Commission to investigate offences.

Fiji TV news editor Felix Chaudhary says journalists often do not report online abuse because of a lack of faith or awareness around reporting procedures.

“You can have the best laws, but if you aren’t able to enforce the law or have reporting mechanisms in place, then the laws are useless because they’re not going to serve their purpose,” he says.

Until these mechanisms are developed, media employers should build a zero-tolerance workplace culture and establish their own protocols to deal with online violence, Chaudhary says.

“You get very clear from the beginning that you will not tolerate any form of harassment – abuse, verbal, written online,” he says. “So it’s very clear from the get-go that kind of behaviour is not accepted.”

There is a growing body of data to suggest women’s online safety is a critical concern across Fiji, with research from the Online Safety Commission revealing that 61.44 per cent of women in Fiji experienced cyberbullying in 2023.

Chaudhary says the online harassment of women journalists reflects ongoing issues for women that stem from the explosion of internet use in Fiji.

“Facebook, Twitter and Instagram gave people open territory to abuse anyone and everyone at will, whenever they wanted to.

“I think there should have been a lot of education on social media etiquette, what’s acceptable and what’s not,” he says.

• Fijians can directly report online violence on social media platforms or lodge a complaint with the Fiji Online Safety Commission: https://osc.com.fj/

Brooklyn Self is a student journalist from the Queensland University of Technology who travelled to Fiji with the support of the Australian Government’s New Colombo Plan Mobility Programme. This article is republished by Asia Pacific Report in collaboration with the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), QUT and The University of the South Pacific.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Women and Children’s Minister Lynda Tabuya says Pacific island countries need to “strengthen our laws” on online harassment.

Tabuya spoke to RNZ Pacific on the sidelines of the Pacific Women in Power forum taking place in Auckland this week.

She said the issue that she was dealing with — which is allegations of a sex and drug scandal between her and former cabinet minister Aseri Radrodro — was currently with the police.

“[Police] are investigating it,” she said.

“And it just so happens that a person who was causing this harassment online lives in Sydney,” she said.

She said she was able to get the assistance of Australia’s online safety watchdog to issue the notice to the person to take down the content — images — because it is a crime in Australia.

“If you put up content that is or appears to be the person, so then the person [who published it] needs to take the content down otherwise they can face prosecution,” she said.

‘Grateful for swift action’
“That was the process I followed and I’m grateful to the Safety Commissioner of Australia for the swift action.”

However, she said the situation she found herself in was not exclusive to her.

“It’s me today, it could be someone else tomorrow. It doesn’t have to be a minister or public figure.

“But if you have women in Fiji or across the Pacific who are facing this, and they’re being attacked — especially for populations where there are more people outside of the country than in [the] country.

Tabuya said therefore there was a need for strong policies, not just in Fiji, but across the region.

“You get more attacks from people who live overseas. Women MPs need to reach out to those countries where those people are attacking them live because the laws are much stronger.

“But it’s also a lesson for us within to strengthen our laws so that we can stand up against online bullying.

“The world is unfair and being a woman in politics, we face a lot of unfairness and injustices. But I think it also makes us so much more determined to stand up and be heard,” she added.

Meanwhile, Tabuya is currently the subject of an inquiry by her political party following the sex and drug allegation, the outcome of which has yet to be released.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The high-stress nature of working in politics is increasingly taking a toll on staff and politicians. But an additional threat to the personal wellbeing and safety of politicians resides outside Parliament, and the threat is ubiquitous: online violence against women MPs.

Since her election in 2017, Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman has been subject to persistent online violence.

Ghahraman’s resignation following allegations of shoplifting exposes the toll sustained online violence can have on a person’s mental health.

In an interview with Vice in 2018, Ghahraman expressed how the online abuse was overwhelming and questioned how long she would continue in Parliament.

Resigning in 2024, Ghahraman said in a statement:

it is clear to me that my mental health is being badly affected by the stresses relating to my work

and

the best thing for my mental health is to resign as a Member of Parliament.

Ghahraman is not alone in receiving torrents of online abuse. Many other New Zealand women MPs have also been targeted, including former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson, National MP Nicola Willis and Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Words can not only hurt, but they can seriously endanger a person’s wellbeing.

Online violence against women MPs, particularly against women of colour, is a concerning global trend. In an Australian study, women MPs were found to be disproportionately targeted by public threats, particularly facing higher rates of online threats involving sexual violence and racist remarks.

Similar online threats face women MPs in the United Kingdom. Studies show that women of colour receive more intense abuse.

Male politicians are also subject to online violence. But when directed at women the violence frequently exhibits a misogynistic character, encompassing derogatory gender-specific language and menacing sexualised threats, constituting gender-based violence.

Golriz Ghahraman’s exit from politics shows the toll of online bullying on female MPs

Many say it’s become overwhelming, writes @LegallyFeminist (@ucnz).https://t.co/PSsG9OBCii

— The Conversation – Australia + New Zealand (@ConversationEDU) January 19, 2024

Our legal framework is not enough
New Zealand’s current legal framework is not well equipped to respond to the kind of online violence experienced by women MPs like Ghahraman.

The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 is designed to address online harassment by a single known perpetrator. But the most distressing kind of abuse comes from the sheer number of violent commentators, most of whom are unknown to the victim or intentionally anonymous.

This includes “mob style” attacks, where large numbers of perpetrators coordinate efforts to harass, threaten, or intimidate their target.

Without legal recourse, women MPs have two options — tolerate the torrent of abuse, or resign. Both of these options endanger representative democracy.

Putting up with abuse may mean serious impacts on mental health and personal safety. It may also have a chilling effect on what topics women MPs choose to speak about publicly. Resigning means losing important representation of diverse perspectives, especially from minorities.

Having to tolerate the abuse is a breach of the right to be free from gender-based violence. Being forced to resign because of it also breaches women’s rights to participate in politics. Therefore, the government has duties under international human rights law to prevent, respond and redress online violence against women.

“More than 70 national elections are scheduled for 2024. But one group is likely to be significantly under-represented: women. A major reason is the disproportionate amount of abuse female politicians and candidates receive online.”https://t.co/SuPn36zLb4

— Indo-Pacific Defense FORUM (@IPDefenseForum) January 12, 2024

Steps the government can take
United Nations human rights bodies provide some guidance for measures the government could implement to fulfil their obligations and safeguard women’s human rights online.

As one of the drivers of online violence against women MPs is prevailing patriarchal attitudes, the government’s first step should be to correctly label the behaviour: gender-based violence.

Calling online harassment “trolling” or “cyberbullying” downplays the harm and risks normalising the behaviour. “Gender-based violence” reflects the systemic nature of the abuse.

Secondly, the government should urgently review the Harmful Digital Communication Act. The legislation is now nine years old and should be updated to reflect the harmful online behaviour of the 2020s, such as targeted mob-style attacks.

New Zealand is also now out of step with other countries. Australia, the UK and the European Union have all recently strengthened their laws to tackle harmful online content.

These new laws focus on holding big tech companies accountable and encourage cooperation between the government, online platforms and civil society. Greater collaboration, alongside enforcement mechanisms, is essential to address systemic issues like gender-based violence.

Thirdly, given the increasing scale of online violence, the government should ensure adequate resourcing for police to investigate serious incidents. Resources should also be made available for social media moderation among all MPs and training in online safety.

More than ever, words have the power to break people and democracies. It is now the urgent task of the government to fulfil its legal obligations toward women MPs.

Dr Cassandra Mudgway is senior lecturer in law, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As covid-19 spreads around the world, it can be daunting keeping up with the information. For RNZ, the news organisation’s responsibility is to give you verified, up to the minute, trustworthy information to help you make decisions about your lives and your health. Questions will also be asked of officials and decision makers about how they are responding to the virus. The aim is to keep you informed.

New Zealand’s Chief Censor says the country has an opportunity to be leading the world in fighting against covid-19 disinformation online.

Nasty rumours, inaccurate advice and bullying has circulated through social media following the second wave of infections.

Health Minister Chris Hipkins gave those responsible a serve at the 1pm briefing yesterday after a racist and misogynist rumour about a woman breaking into an isolation facility had done the rounds.

He said it had reached a “new and concerning level”, and was “not only was it harmful and dangerous, it was totally and utterly wrong”.

But other than a good telling off, the government was limited in what action it could take to starve the online world of fake news.

Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are just some of the places where information is shared, but the big platforms seem to do little to moderate.

Chief Censor David Shanks said Sweden had been teaching kids for nearly a decade how to both spot and verify misinformation.

World-leading response
He said New Zealand was world-leading with its response to the extremists using the internet as a weapon following the mosque shootings.

“The Christchurch Call was one of the first moves led out which really brought an integrated, transnational, governmental and industry accord in thinking about how we could deal with the weaponisation of the internet in terms of the spread of violent extremist material.”

And similar leadership from New Zealand could also help stop the spread of covid-19 misinformation, Shanks said.

“In a way some of the extreme disinformation and conspiracy theories could be seen as the next layer out from that and is, in a way, connected with violent extremism when you trace through to the origins of some of this material.

“I think New Zealand can and should have a role in leading some thinking about how we can deal with this sort of issue,” Shanks said.

Social media commentator Anna Rawhiti-Connell said the second wave of the coronavirus had split the online community, increasing both the attacks and the severity of them.

“Part of that is around just fatigue, people are weary and they are tired.

‘A lot of uncertainty’
“There’s a lot of uncertainty and that will naturally create a splintering kind of effect.”

Patriotism was a very big part of the last conquering of covid, she said.

“I think we have splinted far more than we did around that initial lockdown.

“We kind of got through a lot of that on the sort of spirit and smell of a patriotic oily rag, and this time around, I don’t know if that’s quite as strong, and so that does breed a much more fractious kind of environment.”

Rawhiti-Connell said throughout the second outbreak there was lots of racial overtones and people looking for something to blame.

Indigenous Rights advocate Tina Ngata said Māori were particularly vulnerable to the disinformation because of a deep-rooted distrust of the government and its failure to uphold treaty obligations.

“Some of the concerns are very valid and they don’t come from nowhere, they generally find fertile soil where there is disenfranchisement,” she said.

“That’s why we see it over in the United States, the working class are really engaged in some of these conspiracy theories and that’s because they do feel let down by the system.

“And there are whole communities that feel let down by the system here and Aotearoa as well.”

Honouring the Treaty in a pandemic
Ngata said the Māori pandemic response group Te Rōpū Whakakaupapa Urutā wanted to be more involved in the decision making and felt the decisions that were made were not as representative as they could have been.

“This is an opportunity for the government to reflect on why it’s picked up so well here in Aotearoa and what has been the government’s role in that disenfranchisement and the lack of trust because, you know, similar to any relationship, if the trust is in place, it doesn’t really matter what other people say.”

She said the government needed to acknowledge the role of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi within the pandemic.

“There are some issues that feed into our trust relationships in the past and a lot of that, for Māori in particular, comes back to Treaty violations.

“Making sure that Te Tiriti is centred and upheld and honoured and not looked at as a ‘nice to have’ but looked at as a constitutional underpinning for all of our decisions as a nation moving ahead,” Ngata said.

Tech commentator Paul Brislen was alarmed at how many people relied solely on social media for their news when these platforms were not policed in the same way the mainstream media was.

“Social media outlets, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, all the rest of them, they simply refuse to accept that they are publishers of the content that is shared as widely as it is.

“They claim to be a platform totally neutral, they have no control over it.

“Because the government buys into that that really gives them nowhere to go in terms of enforcement of decency or any of the things that aren’t in law but are in common practice that we get with professional media.”

Brislen said without someone to hold them accountable, the government did not have a leg to stand on.

Instagram, however, has taken some action. It has teams actively removing posts that breached the covid-19 policy.

“We remove content that could lead to imminent harm, and we’ve applied warning labels to millions of pieces of misinformation.

“Conspiracies around the virus continue to be fact-checked by our partners around the world, and we block vaccine-related hashtags which contain known misinformation to reduce its visibility on Instagram.”

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It seems like internet trolling happens everywhere online these days – and it’s showing no signs of slowing down.

The British press and Kensington Palace officials have called for an end to the merciless online trolling of Duchesses Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle, which reportedly includes racist and sexist content, and even threats.

But what exactly is internet trolling? How do trolls “behave”? Do they intend to harm, or amuse?

READ MORE: How ermpathy can make or break a troll

To find out how people define trolling, we conducted a survey with 379 participants. The results suggest there is a difference in the way the media, the research community and the general public understand trolling.

If we want to reduce abusive online behaviour, let’s start by getting the definition right.

Which of these cases is trolling?
Consider the comments that appear in the image below:

Without providing any definitions, we asked if this was an example of internet trolling. Of participants, 44 percent said yes, 41 percent said no and 15 percent were unsure.

Now consider this next image:

Of participants, 69 percent said this was an example of internet trolling, 16 percent said no, and 15 percent were unsure.

These two images depict very different online behaviour. The first image depicts mischievous and comical behaviour, where the author perhaps intended to amuse the audience. The second image depicts malicious and antisocial behaviour, where the author may have intended to cause harm.

There was more consensus among participants that the second image depicted trolling. That aligns with a more common definition of internet trolling as destructive and disruptive online behaviour that causes harm to others.

But this definition has only really evolved in more recent years. Previously, internet trolling was defined very differently.

A shifting definition
In 2002, one of the earliest definitions of internet “trolling” described the behaviour as:

luring others online (commonly on discussion forums) into pointless and time-consuming activities.

Trolling often started with a message that was intentionally incorrect, but not overly controversial. By contrast, internet “flaming” described online behaviour with hostile intentions, characterised by profanity, obscenity, and insults that inflict harm to a person or an organisation.

So, modern day definitions of internet trolling seem more consistent with the definition of flaming, rather than the initial definition of trolling.

To highlight this intention to amuse compared to the intention to harm, communication researcher Jonathan Bishop suggested we differentiate between “kudos trolling” to describe trolling for mutual enjoyment and entertainment, and “flame trolling” to describe trolling that is abusive and not intended to be humorous.

How people in our study defined trolling
In our study, which has been accepted to be published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, we recruited 379 participants (60 percent women) to answer an online, anonymous questionnaire where they provided short answer responses to the following questions:

• how do you define internet trolling?
• what kind of behaviours constitute internet trolling?

Here are some examples of how participants responded:

• Where an individual online verbally attacks another individual with intention of offending the other (female, 27)
• People saying intentionally provocative things on social media with the intent of attacking / causing discomfort or offence (female, 26)
• Teasing, bullying, joking or making fun of something, someone or a group (male, 29)
• Deliberately commenting on a post to elicit a desired response, or to purely gratify oneself by emotionally manipulating another (male, 35)

Based on participant responses, we suggest that internet trolling is now more commonly seen as an intentional, malicious online behaviour, rather than a harmless activity for mutual enjoyment.

A word cloud representing how survey participants described trolling behaviours. Image: The Conversation

Researchers use ‘trolling’ as a catch-all
Clearly there are discrepancies in the definition of internet trolling, and this is a problem.

Research does not differentiate between kudos trolling and flame trolling. Some members of the public might still view trolling as a kudos behaviour. For example, one participant in our study said:

Depends which definition you mean. The common definition now, especially as used by the media and within academia, is essentially just a synonym to “asshole”. The better, and classic, definition is someone who speaks from outside the shared paradigm of a community in order to disrupt presuppositions and try to trigger critical thought and awareness (male, 41)

Not only does the definition of trolling differ from researcher to researcher, but there can also be discrepancy between the researcher and the public.

As a term, internet trolling has significantly deviated from its early, 2002 definition and become a catch-all for all antisocial online behaviours. The lack of a uniform definition of internet trolling leaves all research on trolling open to validity concerns, which could leave the behaviour remaining largely unchecked.

We need to agree on the terminology
We propose replacing the catch-all term of trolling with “cyberabuse”.

Cyberbullying, cyberhate and cyberaggression are all different online behaviours with different definitions, but they are often referred to uniformly as “trolling”.

It is time to move away from the term trolling to describe these serious instances of cyberabuse. While it may have been empowering for the public to picture these internet “trolls” as ugly creatures living under the bridge, this imagery may have begun to downplay the seriousness of their online behaviour.

Continuing to use the term trolling, a term that initially described a behaviour that was not intended to harm, could have serious consequences for managing and preventing the behaviour.

Dr Evita March is a senior lecturer in psychology at the Federation University in Australia. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz