>I think you're being rude. I'm sorry you think that. I'm not trying to be. Link 1: The article is light on methodology, and in any case it seems to be catego

>I think you're being rude. I'm sorry you think that. I'm not trying to be. Link 1: The article is light on methodology, and in any case it seems to be categorizing as "abuse" conversations between person A and person B about person C, who is not participating in the discussion. I.e. me telling you "I think emperor Hirohito was kind of a wimp" would be abuse, apparently. Link 2: Even worse. It's only counting uses of specific words without regard for context. Just uttering the word "slut" is misogynistic? So my previous sentence is misogynistic? Link 3: I have no tears to shed for any negative attention any politician gets. That's part of the job description. If they can't deal with it they really should have picked a different profession. Link 4: As a statistical data point it's interesting, but one should be careful about what conclusions to draw from it. They only counted blocked comments. We don't really know what those comments contained (although we're invited to assume they were misogynistic and abusive towards the writer). We don't know what the specific topics the articles in question were about. For example, could it be that women tend to write more often about controversial topics, for whatever reason? We don't know if all articles are subjected to the same amount of moderation. If articles A and B have the same number of comments, but B has twice as many blocked comments, and twice as many people moderating it, they might not be so lopsided as it appears. To be clear, I'm not denying that women probably do get more negative attention online. There's probably a fair bit of overlap between being loud and annoying and hating women. I just think these stats are garbage, except for link 4.