>As part of a series on the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian commissioned research into the 70m comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black.
>10 writers
>8 women
>2 black men
>Another way of looking at this, is that since around 2010 articles written by women consistently attracted a higher proportion of blocked comments than articles written by men.
Where were you when the Guardian proved their Affirmative Action hires are ruining the newspaper?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
It's like she thinks we're going to forget this happened
>>70807583
>Everywhere I Go I Smell Shit
Time to check the bottom of your shoe senpai.
>>70807583
This doesn't fit the narrative.
Quickly, delete this you cis scum!
Im surprised it wasnt all jews to be honest
>>70807583
It's not at all possible that
>those people are the most retarded, therefore producing worse content on average and open to more criticism
>those people are less socially apt, and are abused by cock puppet accounts from coworkers/rivals
No, no, everything is. Always. As it looks.
>>70808018
>cock puppet
should be
>sock puppet
But I guess it still works.
>>70807583
>The vast majority of blocked comments, therefore, were blocked because they were considered abusive to some degree, or were otherwise disruptive to the conversation (they were off-topic, for example). For the purposes of this research, therefore, we used blocked comments as an indicator of abuse and disruptive behaviour.
So it's literally fucking nothing. Their definition of LITERALLY ABUSE can be "off-topic" or "this article sucks". They got the exact headline they wanted, which was the point of the article.
>>70808018
I like how they were seemingly blaming white men because they simply weren't getting "as much abuse".
>>70808075
Furthermore, look at their examples
>a black correspondent is called “a racist who hates white people” when he reports the news that another black American has been shot by the police. We wouldn’t tolerate such insults offline, and at the Guardian we don’t tolerate it online either.
>The Guardian also blocked ad hominem attacks (on both readers and journalists): comments such as “You are so unintelligent”, “Call yourself a journalist?” or “Do you get paid for writing this?” are facile and add nothing of value to the debate.
This is a complete sham for THEY'RE GONNA SHITPOST THAT POOOR WOMAN click bait.
>>70807583
>'''abused'''
>>70807737
>>70808061
I'd make Jessica valenti my cockpuppet
>>70807583
Does the Guardian even have straight white male writers?
>>70807583
I like partially stuffing raw meat in my ass, then letting dogs eat it out.
I also like shitting myself so I can let it dry, ferment, and later hydrate my shit locks in the shower. It feels amazing picking it out of your ass.
>>70808181
2bh i wish i had graphics privilege goddamn nvidia... straight white males ruin everything
>>70808181
so have they never published articles in which they accuse people of being racist? I highly doubt it
