Ulloa 1

Student Ulloa
Irene Peterson
English 1010
May 18 2016
Social Media Companies Should Protect Consumers.
While many people believe social media sites can help to stay
connected and can create a higher number of healthy and friendly
relationships across the entire world, others fear that it damages
relationships and they may fear being harassed. Many people value their
privacy and security, however, in many cases there are consumers worried
about how safe they really are online. What consumers want is a non
discriminatory environment where they can share their thoughts without
fear. There are disagreements about who remains responsible for protecting
users and who will carry out consequences for those who do not follow the
guidelines. But as many users of popular social media sites believe, online
harassment, threats, and verbal abuse should be taken seriously, so that
these major companies will realize that it is in their best interest to fix the
issues of online harassment and honor clients safety. This raises the
question: Should social sites like FB and Twitter put a greater emphasis on
prosecuting or banning online harassment? Danielle Keats Citrons article
(Companies Should Reject Specific Online Threats. Paragraph 3) she claims,
Social media providers should clearly define what they mean by the term

Ulloa 2
threat. Only threats that single out and name specific individuals should
be banned that way, users will have a better understanding of precisely
what is and what is not prohibited. Whether the consequences be a filed
lawsuit or even just suspension from the site, peoples online safety should
be put first so that these sites can be used as tools and not easy ways to
target users. Social media sites should scan and approve all statements in
order to avoid harassment and threats. Whether these companies do it for
their own profit or for their clients, they should be motivated to put an end
to online harassment.
Cyberbullying and cyber harassment affect more women than men and
can involve threats of violence, rape, and other attacks on women (Sheridan
& Grant, 2007). Targets are subjected to demeaning and threatening
behavior that can make women vulnerable when they are online. Women
have adopted coping mechanisms such as changing their names and
refusing to use the Internet or reduce their participation based on fear of
future harassment. This can negatively affect career advancement and
reduce their ability to socialize and connect using technology. This
phenomenon also results in men assuming a superior position both
personally and professionally and can reduce gender equality in our
technology-driven world.
Some research was done to showcase the discrimination that occurs
with online harassment. The Pew Research Center informs us that women
were more likely than men to find their most recent experience with online

Ulloa 3
harassment extremely upsetting. While 38% of women claimed their most
recent experience had been upsetting, only 17% of men claimed the same
thing. ("Online Harassment." Pew Research Center's Internet American Life
Project). Not only is this a major issue for women, but the statistics show that
this may reduce future use of these social media sites, for reasons that the
users have no control over. It is not fair to have to discontinue use of a site
because of an uncomfortable situation and gender should not play a role in
this issue. Not only does this create a fearful environment, threats and
harassment can lead to a decrease in ego.
When it comes to long-term impacts that harassment can cause, the
consequences are more real than ever. More than 80% of those who have
ever been victims of name-calling and online embarrassment did not feel
their reputation had been hurt by their overall experience. But those who
experienced physical threats and repetitive harassment felt differently. About
a third felt their reputation had been damaged by their overall experience
with online harassment. Overall, 15% of those who have experienced online
harassment said it impacted their reputation outside of the online world. This
can cause breakage in relationships and with ourselves in fear of how others
perceive us. Discrimination online can be as harmful as it happening in the
real world because it bumps down our ego and makes us uncomfortable with
ourselves and others leading to future troubles when socializing in reality.
But we wonder, is there any way to prevent this from happening and what

Ulloa 4
can we as the users do to prevent such consequential acts from harming
anyone, and mostly our children, from this online scandal?
In order to keep consumers, social media companies like Facebook and
Twitter should invest more money into safety policies and exhaust every
effort to control harassment in order to maintain a comfortable environment
for all users. When you sign up for any social media site you are presented
with a contract, and although they have their policies, our protection should
be included. Social media companies should scan and approve all flagged or
statements reported for abuse in order to avoid harassment and threats.
Companies shouldnt be waiting for a lawsuit to be filed, but rather avoid
that entire situation by noticing the complaints on a post. Whether these
companies do it for their own profit or for their clients, they should be
motivated to put an end to online harassment because it ruins reputations.
In order for something to be done about this, companies can add
clauses to contracts contracts that include consequences and advise a user
how harassing others can result in suspension from the site or prosecution
and promote this every time a user want to open an account. It shouldnt be
written in fine print but rather advertised that this is a safe place so that
users feel protected. In fact, big social media companies should release
surveys regularly to check up on the satisfaction of their users so that they
can improve at any chance they get. These companies shouldnt wait around
for a small problem to evolve into something much more serious. In an
article by Sarah Perez (Twitter Releases New Suite Of Anti-Harassment Tools,

Ulloa 5
Promises Faster Response Times For Dealing With Abuse. Paragraph 2 and 3)
She shows us a example how social media sites are improving their way to
protect consumers of harassment which is a big deal because it shows that
the communities are finally getting a say. Twitter this morning has released
a new set of anti-harassment tools that make it easier for users to flag abuse
on the network, as well as describe more specifically why theyre blocking or
reporting a Twitter account.
Twitter had made it fairly simple to report spam, but the new tools allow
users to report a variety of troubles, including impersonations, harassment,
and even self-harm or suicide. In addition, users can report the harassment
on behalf of other users, even if theyre not the target themselves, which is a
big change. Perez mentions that she believes the problem comes from
Twitters policy to support anonymous accounts which seems to be the case
here. Many of the abusive behavior on Twitter comes from many accounts
that refuse to share any personal information, but rather are just there to
anonymously bring people down- because they know very well that there are
no serious consequences. This is a very harmful kind of harassment online
because there is no one to blame when you dont know a name. But Twitter
should not be allowing accounts like these since they can cause harm to
others. If Twitter is a way to connect with whats happening now then they
should only allow you to open an account as a named account and Twitter
should scan its site for accounts that are just there to troll around. It is
important to understand that many social media sites have improved a lot in

Ulloa 6
regards to safety, but they still have so much more ground to cover. While
blocking users and reporting abuse can help user feel like they have a say, it
wont make people feel secure if consequences arent carried out. Serious
consequences for breaking site policies should be carried out effectively and
not brushed under the rug. Without consequences, these issues will be
ignored. Letting the trouble makers, verbal abusers and harassers get away
with what theyve done, no matter how big or small the offense, shows them
that they can do it again without trouble. What users want and need is
enough confidence that a company will carry out their policies and even be
more strict about them, because while it may not seem like a big deal now,
these offenses will soon get out of hand. Companies should be able to make
a fine line between what is defined as a threat and what is free speechalthough its difficult to categorize, ignoring many of these confused
statement can lead to lawsuits.
As seen In Rafael O. Gomezs article, (Social Media Can Monitor Itself,
and Protect Free Speech. Paragraph 4) Gomez argues, Allowing social media
to restrict anything beyond the extreme could result in legitimate expression
being suppressed to the detriment of society. What Gomez is saying is that
it is a risky choice to say that popular social media sites should scan through
things being posted in order to contain all harmful content, but its not
completely realistic. Although harmful content should be strained through, it
seems impossible to do without adding fuel to the situation. When we read
something we all vision it differently so there has to be boundaries for what

Ulloa 7
can be accepted as a legitimate expression and what is harmful. It should be
left up to the site to form clear policies because otherwise the content could
be misread and made a big deal, when it really is a small statement meant
with no harm. In saying this, Gomez continues to back up his realization,
that not everything can be read as a harmful statement, by saying, Social
media sites already regulate content, and as private businesses, have the
ability to choose what is published. Although I believe it is the sites
responsibility to maintain a safe, respectful environment for all users, this is
to an extent. And there should be boundaries between what is harmful
content and what is a bland statement and referred to as freedom of speech.
But lets remember that promoting free speech can be interpreted as a
freedom to offend or make threats with no consequences. In some cases,
threats have been posted as jokes but the consequences arent as funny.
See, the thing people dont realize is that it gets to a point where it has to be
taken seriously. Putting someone down is one thing, but putting them down
to the point where they are fearful for their lives is another. In this case,
Facebook should have put an end to it before the situation was taken to an
extreme- a filed lawsuit and jail time.
Some people think that social media companies should not restrict
what users say on their sites because it could infringe on their freedom of
speech. In Danielle Keats Citrons article (Companies Should Reject Specific
Online Threats. Paragraph 3) she claims, Social media providers should
clearly define what they mean by the term threat. Only threats that single

Ulloa 8
out and name specific individuals should be banned that way, users will
have a better understanding of precisely what is and what is not prohibited.
There is no such thing of good threats and not necessarily has to single out
specifically someone in particular to be banned. I think free speech has a
limit and the limit goes beyond the line when becomes a threat or something
that could make a user fear their safety.
Danielle Citron says in her article Companies Should Reject Specific
Online Threats says, Of course, bans on threats are not easy to scale. Its
challenging for companies to enforce their policies when they have millions
of users. But the effort is worth it to protect individuals from the fear of
violence and the disruptions threats can cause. This should be taken care of
as soon as possible to guarantee the respect and the security of people
navigating through the social sites. Even people who do not think freedom of
speech is at stake may believe that users, rather than companies, should be
responsible for protecting their own well being. But Citron argues that while
it may be a challenging situation, it is one that shouldnt be avoided in order
for users to remain safe. In another part of her article she states When
companies take a stand against online threats, their message is clear The
liberty of threatened individuals matters too. Online threats that silence,
terrify and coerce individuals do not deserve our solicitude. I think the
author is asking social media companies to take action on threats otherwise
these companies do not deserve our solicitudes. Everyone that presents a
possible threat to others, or commits threats online, should be prosecuted.

Ulloa 9
Technology gives people the ability to put out any immediate thoughts they
have. Most of these thoughts people has not completely thought through,
but once they press send they are there for all to see. In some cases, such as
the ones shown in the article, (Do Online Death Threats Count as Free
Speech?) By Emily Bazelon, these immediate thoughts come out as serious
intentional threats ones which may lead to court trials and charges. As
shown by Bazelon in the article is how Anthony Elonis facebook post
threatens the life of his previous wife, Tara. Most people, like Elonis in this
case, believe that it is their right to speak what is on their minds. Bazelon
makes the statement, Lets be clear, though, that such an approach to free
speech doesnt come free. The choice in this case between points of view
Anthonys or Taras mirrors another choice, between types of personal
liberty. His or hers. (Bazelon, Do Online Death Threats Count as Free
Speech?) I agree that Bazelons statement should be recognized for its
accuracy people do have freedom of speech people do not have the
freedom to threaten another to the point where they are fearful of their lives.
As part of this case, In October 2010, Elonis made violent threats
towards his wife Tara about killing her. However it was not this violent
statement that got him into trouble. It was not until the following month that
Elonis was charged under a federal law for posting a picture of a co worker
with a caption that had a violent intention, whether it was meant as a joke or
not. Like previously stated, social media posts things immediately, but most
harmful content is not likely to be recognized as harmful until much later

Ulloa 10
and that just adds to the list of why it can be difficult to define what harmful
content is online and what affects someone and what doesnt. Theres really
no way to know if someone is having a violently humorous conversation or if
it truly is threatening until there is a complaint filed. And in some rare cases
like that of Elonis, a threatening situation was not taken lightly. Whether the
composer claims it was a true statement or not, they should not get away
with it if someone files a complaint and is fearful or uncomfortable. According
to Bazelons reasonings, The court will have to decide what matters more:
one persons freedom to express violent rage, or another persons freedom
to live without the burden of fear? (Bazelon, Do Online Death Threats Count
as True Threats? ) Elonis claims it is just therapeutic for him to express his
thoughts this way; but while you are putting someone else in danger, it is not
healthy.
The court should not have a hard time deciding what is more important
in this situation since it is obvious that another persons safety should always
be prioritized.
Besides, there is an enormous difference between freedom of speech and
death threats. While many claim that there is a reason we have the First
Amendment about freedom of speech, this should not keep people like Elonis
out of trouble because people like this have put others in danger. Social
media policies are expected to change as time goes on to fit customer
needs. Twitters policy has gone from single users being able to report abuse,
to the audience being able to report any ill minded abuse. According to Sarah

Ulloa 11
Perez of TechCrunch, So far, nothing has effectively culled Twitters often
darker side where anonymous accounts have been allowed to threaten users
with violence, including rape and murder, and tweet hate speech to anyone
listening. (North, paragraph 8.) Perez is surely correct about problems on
twitter because although policies are being changed, matters such as threats
and hate speech have not been fully resolved. Social media sites should
always keep evolving in order to keep its consumers. Besides, they have the
money to and so they should stop at nothing to create a secure site.
Since these social media sites are so largely known and heard, they are
really the only ones who can get the point across that threats, harassment,
and any abuse should not be tolerated. This is the place where teens and
adults spend a lot of their free time and they are heavily influenced by what
they see and hear, and what they are shown is tolerable. The problem comes
from not making a big fuss about the issue. In order for it to seem like the
issue really matters, it needs to be given attention. And there is no better
way to create a healthy sharing site that truly allows people to connect than
by blocking out the threats, and abuse. By spending money to advertise the
safety that comes along with the companies and their sites as well as
following through to showcase that, they will not only be making users
happy, but will also gain business because of more frequent use.
Most people rely on social sites more than anything else, social sites
can control and stop harassment if they want to, however they are not
engaging 100% on protecting consumers, it seems that security is still not a

Ulloa 12
top priority for them. As consumer, users need to demand and report every
harassment in a daily basis, if they want these companies to put more effort
in protecting their rights as consumers. The following is a real example how
social media sites can improve monitoring harassment using technology:
There is a tool used in our company to measure the quality of service we
give to customers as we talk to them. Once you engage in a conversation
with a customer the computers screen in the corner is flashing a green light
measuring the tone of voice and the quality of service the customer is
getting. Once the representative start using aggressive or abusive tone of
voice the light start changing color to amber or red indicating a supervisor
should handle the call, to the point to take the call out from the
representative and drop it to a supervisor. This example is something that
social sites should implement to monitor harassment. Every time a person
abuses verbal or harasses anyone, that person automatically should be
banned or reported. All these changes required money and effort, however
these companies have the money to be invested to make these sites more
secure for people, if they want to retain customers.
Citation Page.
Bazelon, Emily. "Do Online Death Threats Count as Free Speech?" The New
York Times. The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 May 2016.
Citron, Danielle. "Companies Should Reject Specific Online Threats." N.p.,
n.d. Web.

Ulloa 13
Duggan, Maeve. "Online Harassment." Pew Research Center Internet Science
Tech RSS. N.p., 22 Oct. 2014. Web. 17 May 2016.

Gomez, Rafael. "Social Media Can Monitor Itself, and Protect Free Speech."
N.p., n.d. Web.

North, Nora. "What Do We Know About Online Harassment?" OpTalk What Do

We Know About Online Harassment Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2016.

Perez, Sarah. "Twitter Releases New Suite Of Anti-Harassment Tools, Promises

Faster Response Times For Dealing With Abuse." N.p., n.d. Web.