Invite to Submit Questions for November AMA Stream

10 out of 10 video. Natalie I am grateful you exist and I'm sorry it isn't easy to say the least. Thank you.

I think the main thing is to use good judgment as an online participant. So for instance, if there are already a bunch of comments criticizing someone for something, avoid piling on and save your criticism for a moment when it's likely to be received better. Starting an appreciation post can also help. If you notice someone you know and is likely to listen to you is propagating misinformation, especially about another person, consider gently correcting the misinformation (this is the "Come for Your People" rule); if your friend or loved one is ego-invested in the conversation, consider correcting them privately instead of publicly. Correcting people you don't know might help fight the disinformation, but is unlikely to have much impact--try not to give the conversation more engagement than it already has, and report people to the platform if they are behaving in an abusive manner.

Tara Leederman

Hi Natalie. You are singlehandedly responsible for making me interested in politics and philosophy. The significance of your work cannot be overstated. Enough gushing. Everybody with a heart understands that the harassment you endured was inexcusable. However, while everyone can recognise the worst harassment, there's disagreement over exactly where the line is between online criticism and online abuse. For example, 100s of people commenting on your Twitter thread with the same criticism is probably unnecessary but is it dehumanising and cruel? Does it only feel particularly hurtful when its based on misinformation? The obsessive stalkers, the death threats and the doxxing are terrible but is that really the worst of it or is the more subtle and pervasive dehumanisation more hurtful? My main question is, while most people know not to be terrible online, are there guidelines people could follow that would lead to less distress?