In the early days of social media, people were mostly excited about the possibilities it offered to stimulate public participation: no longer monopolized by the elite, everyone had a voice, and everyone could participate. Many scholars believed that this wider public engagement would lead to a higher quality, more democratic way of life. In non-democratic countries, the theory went, the appearance of platforms for public participation meant democratization would be inevitable. With hindsight, this kind of thinking was pretty naïve. In recent years, people all over the world have increasingly realized that while social media does broaden public participation, participation doesn't always have a positive impact. There is a very dark side to social media, which includes the censoring of dissenting voices, hate speech and divisiveness, and even the possibility that one could become the tool of an authoritarian government. It’s what German academic Thorsten Quandt calls “dark participation.” What is often referred to as "online abuse" is an important subset of this dark participation. It has sparked crises and challenges for democratic countries, and has also been used by authoritarian governments as another way of cracking down on people’s freedoms. Forms and Causes of Online Abuse The term “online abuse” lacks a commonly accepted definition, but it has some accepted uses. A paper by several American scholars in the academic journal "Violence and Gender" summarizes the common tactics and forms of online violence as: Libel and defamation; Belittlement and abuse; Posting online personal, private information such as addresses and phone numbers (that is the so-called “human flesh search” or “gua ren (挂人, doxing)” on the Chinese internet; Hacking of personal computers or data storage devices; Recordings of attacks; Impersonating someone for the purpose of harassment or intimidation; Sending sexually explicit messages or pictures; Monitoring and tracking, such as with GPS devices. Why does it happen? To answer this question, we can look at it from the point of view of both the individual and wider society. At the individual level, online violence is associated with personality traits like weak impulse-control, strong desire to exert control, ruthlessness, a willingness to practice deception and a lack of empathy. Online abusers tend to have Machiavellian traits, which means that they won’t stop at anything in the pursuit of their goals, or of power. Such personalities are often also associated with offline, physical violence. The difference between online abuse and offline abuse is that online perpetrators are often invisible and anonymous. So it’s not just the physically aggressive type that is attracted to online abuse; people who wouldn’t dare use violence offline do it online instead. And it’s not just about the personalities of the perpetrators; there are also various societal factors that give rise to online abuse. These could include the level of anonymity available online, the degree to which opinion is polarized on social media, and a range of social attitudes. A society that lacks pluralism and inclusivity will be far more fertile soil for online abuse than a more open and inclusive one. At the end of the day, all violence is about power, a way for powerful people to flex their muscles, and online abuse is no exception. When a group is in a weak position in a power dynamic, they are also more likely to be targeted with online abuse. The most obvious axis is gender: there has been a great deal of research data showing that women are more likely to be the targets of online abuse than men. Racial, ethnic, and religious minorities are also very vulnerable to online violence. Online abuse, a Serious Threat to Freedom of the Press and Speech Online abuse has distinct qualities: a lack of tolerance for multiple values, a reliance on the power of hatred over love, and the use of fists instead of reasoning to resolve problems. That’s why people who speak out, especially those who freely express different opinions, are often targeted. In many countries, journalists are among the first to be targeted. In the United States and Western European countries, populist forces instigated by far-right politicians and opinion leaders continue to attack media outlets and journalists on social media, calling the content they publish “fake news”, and even sending death threats to journalists through private messages on Twitter and emails. Online abuse against the media and journalists is also common in Asian countries. For example, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) frequently intimidate and suppress journalists and dissidents, stigmatizing them as "anti-state" and "supporting terrorism". Right-wing nationalists supporting Modi have carried out cyberbullying against news media and journalists on social media. They have publicly called for condemnation and made death threats against journalists who criticize the government, with women even more likely to be attacked. In Myanmar, hate speech against the Rohingya is rampant on social media platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp, and has sparked offline violence and bloodshed. Cherian George, a journalism professor at Hong Kong Baptist University, remembered an Indonesian reporter telling a meeting in Jakarta in 2010 that the biggest threat local journalists faced didn’t come from the government, but from hardline Muslim organizations and their ardent supporters. In other words, Indonesian journalists regard attacks on journalists by extremist groups as a more serious blow to press freedom than the political controls imposed by the government through censorship and arrest. In South Korea, online attacks against journalists are also prevalent. A paper published by several Korean scholars at the end of last year found that starting a few years ago, large numbers of social media users had been attacking reporters with the word 기레기 (gilegi). It is a combination of the words for "journalist" and "garbage," meaning "trash reporter." On Twitter, many Koreans deny the value of reporters, claiming that they shouldn’t bother carrying out interviews, and weren’t qualified to be on any news site. Once, someone posted a photo of a press conference with the comment: "Neither dogs nor cows should be allowed to ask questions! Hahaha, trash reporters get out!" They also ridicule and dismiss reporters with jeering humor. For example, someone made up this dialogue: Son: Mama. Mother: What? Son: I don’t have a dream. Mother: That’s OK. Well, I suggest you become a reporter. Such attacks are indiscriminate, as in the case of one person who tweeted at a KBS reporter: "No matter what you do, you can't rid yourself of the trash reporter label! You can’t carve dead wood! Leave now!” Online trolls use words like "slave," "dog," "traitor," and "prostitute" to attack journalists. These social media accounts seem to want Korean media to become a tool of the government, and only say something when the government orders them to. Failure to comply means being the target of attacks—and it’s an increasingly common phenomenon in other countries too, including China. Korean social media users have even created a website called “reportrash” to encourage everyone to join in exposing and humiliating media and journalists they don't like. One online troll wrote, “The parents of journalists may once have boasted about their children’s careers, but now the pictures of those ‘trash reporters' are exposed publicly, the parents are barely able to hold their heads up.” According to Cherian George, the media like to give the impression that they stand with ordinary people, have the people’s interests at heart, and stand up to power. But when people themselves opt for intolerance and non-democratic values, the media becomes the target of public attacks, putting media organizations and journalists in a very difficult situation. And when journalists live in a country where they can’t rely on the rule of law, they are more likely to self-censor and avoid more sensitive or hard-hitting stories for fear that they won’t be protected from attack. In other words, online abuse from the public can have a similar effect to government censorship. When online abuse and authoritarian politics meet While online abuse in democracies often operates outside of the political establishment and can target both ordinary people and those in power, under authoritarian rule, it is frequently aimed at political targets and not those in power. In authoritarian countries like China, online abuse tends to be more selective, with grassroots forces and the government’s top-down controls converging to a large extent, jointly suppressing any progressive forces. While a government may not directly organize and launch online attacks, it sometimes chooses to acquiesce to some kinds of online violence, especially against those who criticize said government. Even if the perpetrators use extreme language and attacks, there are few channels available to victims to stop these behaviors, let alone get apologies or compensation. In stark contrast to China’s strict internet controls in other areas, the perpetrators of online abuse are rarely punished. Online abusers take their cue from these signals released by the government, and tend to choose "safe" targets for their attacks, avoiding anyone connected with or supportive of the government. If they didn’t, they could have their social media accounts shut down or be at risk of detention by police. So these bullies are actually more like trained attack dogs. Against this background, the forces of progressivism are often surrounded and suppressed, caught in a pincer movement between these two forces. One of the most obvious examples is feminism. Officials regard feminists as a threat to social stability, while feminists are labeled traitors by online trolls. Back when the Feminist Five were arrested [on International Women’s Day 2015], the government cared more about domestic and international public opinion, so it only moved against a small number of individuals. Now, however, the government doesn’t need to go after individuals in person; it can hide behind a mob of online trolls, relying on them to wipe out large numbers of feminist voices from the Chinese internet through a combination of online abuse and smear campaigns. That way, they can point to mass public anger and “whistleblowing,” making their suppression of dissidents easier and more legitimate in appearance. Studies have found that extreme online speech in China and extreme online speech in Western have huge differences. In China, people who deploy extreme, offensive speech against specific groups (often progressive groups) often hope to gain attention from the authorities, weaponizing the power of the regime against people they don’t like. This isn’t something that online abusers in Western countries do — the option simply doesn’t exist in those countries. In authoritarian countries, by contrast, the dark shadow cast by online abuse is far more likely to be amplified by the apparatus of the state. After all, many of the core attributes of online violence, such as the rejection of pluralistic thinking and free expression, and the advocacy of violent suppression of expression, have similarities with authoritarian governments. (These comments and analysis are the author’s personal point of view and do not represent any position of this website.)