I read through the comments for that tweet (via Nitter obviously) and I can only see two types of reply. The sycophant who want her to notice them and believes that anything they disagree with is abuse. Or the critic who was asking for evidence and examples of this abuse to verify the claims she is making. I didn't see any abuse, the worst you could claim is the odd sharp rebuke after their main critique.
Most abuse online is at men, we just don't have the sympathy point system women do so don't make a deal out of it because we get nothing trying to blow it up unless we're the right type of fag.
And, of course, the BBC would by far prefer to talk about criticism of Marianna Springs (it's remarkable how often "online abuse" is synonymous with "criticism") than about their own disinformation that Springs somehow gives a pass...
The UK state has authoritarian internet laws going through it's government at the moment so this could be yet another attempt to give them another argument to go forward with them.
"Why would anyone get angry at someone being wrong on the Internet? This is unheard of and unique to my experience!"
-The wrongest person on the Internet trying to don the skin-suit of ultimate credibility.
She miswrote criticism as "online abuse" again.
Someone criticising her once per point she makes is not hate, abuse, harassment or stalking.
I read through the comments for that tweet (via Nitter obviously) and I can only see two types of reply. The sycophant who want her to notice them and believes that anything they disagree with is abuse. Or the critic who was asking for evidence and examples of this abuse to verify the claims she is making. I didn't see any abuse, the worst you could claim is the odd sharp rebuke after their main critique.
Most abuse online is at men, we just don't have the sympathy point system women do so don't make a deal out of it because we get nothing trying to blow it up unless we're the right type of fag.
Her twitter is empty except for making claims of abuse every couple of months. It couldn't be more obvious that it's a grift.
And, of course, the BBC would by far prefer to talk about criticism of Marianna Springs (it's remarkable how often "online abuse" is synonymous with "criticism") than about their own disinformation that Springs somehow gives a pass...
“I got criticized for lying and spun it into victimhood points.”
Refund or better yet disband
Company that shielded it's pedophile staff member says what?
Pose for another glamour shot, that'll accomplish something
Have you ever been so wrong on the internet that you were the mayor of wrongtown being caught doing wrong for the 500th time and have the balls to say
"Well, no, because you see..."
You know those horror movies where the people don't quite look human?
Is that a woman woman or a “woman” woman? It’s hard to tell from the picture or just in general in the captured industries, which includes journalism
The UK state has authoritarian internet laws going through it's government at the moment so this could be yet another attempt to give them another argument to go forward with them.
she should be in tears thanking them for keeping it at words, because she deserves physical consequences.
She's not abused but should be. All regime propagandists deserve far far worse.