Social media can be a joy or nightmare, according to the moment. When random people “like” your twits, you feel so validated. When they twit back that you’re the ginchiest, you bask in the warm glow of their love. But when some random, unknown frogboy responds that you should be raped?

This week, Amnesty International released a report declaring the social network “a toxic place for women.”

“The company’s failure to meet its responsibilities regarding violence and abuse means that many women are no longer able to express themselves freely on the platform without fear of violence or abuse,” Amnesty International said.

The human rights group conducted research on the site between December 2016 and March 2018, interviewing 86 women and non-binary individuals in the United States and United Kingdom about their experiences. The organization also conducted a separate survey of 1,100 British female Twitter users: 62 percent of them experienced abuse, while 78 percent said they didn’t feel they could express their opinion without being trolled.

Torture on Kosovo? That was the good old days. Landmines on the border of Bangladesh? So 2017. The new front of “violence or abuse” is social media, where troll hands reach through the intertubes, come out of your screen and smack women across their feelz.

And the Twitters are doing nothing to stop the violence of their toxic tool.

Given that about 500 million tweets are sent every day, it’s clear that female users are facing a steady flow of abuse. But at least for now, it doesn’t look like the site is doing much to stop it.

That’s a problem, especially considering Twitter’s responsibilities under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These rules state that Twitter has an obligation to identify, prevent, address and account for human rights abuses on its site and protect users’ freedom of expression.

This might not be obvious at first, but Twitter is not a member nation of the United Nations, and hence the UN doesn’t get to make “rules” that require a private corporation to comply with their Guiding Principles, which tend to trend a bit toward the extremely radical side of empathy.

It’s not as if Twitter isn’t trying to placate the unduly emotional.

“While we deeply respect Amnesty International’s mission and work around the world, we cannot help but feel disappointed at the tenor of the findings you have shared with us,” Sinead McSweeney, Twitter’s vice president of public policy and communications, wrote in an appendix letter. “Twitter is an open platform and often holds a mirror up to human behaviors—both the good and the bad. Twitter cannot delete hatred and prejudice from society, however we do remain committed every day to building on the major steps we have already taken to make Twitter safer.”

In other words, just because some twits hurt a gal’s feelz*, and Amnesty international has forsaken concerns about war crimes in lieu of women with the sniffles, it doesn’t mean that Twitter can censor every twit that isn’t a cute cat pic or proclamation of female subjugation. Then again, it’s not as if Twitter doesn’t do a lot of that anyway, even though they don’t want to be held responsible for doing so.

But Amnesty Internetional, having sunk its teeth in this monumental cause bringing death and destruction to the most vulnerable of human beings, females on the twitters, has no plans to relent.

To make its message clearer, Amnesty International projected abusive tweets onto Twitter’s headquarters last night.

Last night, we projected abusive tweets we found in our research on #ToxicTwitter onto Twitter HQ to show @jack what’s really happening to women on Twitter. https://t.co/SppkehaKyM pic.twitter.com/pyZu2GMHUb

— AmnestyInternational (@amnestyusa) March 21, 2018

And they received the confirmation they sought from a totally credible source.

“Twitter is the worst of the social media platforms, just because of the quickened and masked flow of abuse that happens,” Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti added. “The abuse on Twitter feels like a constant stream.”

So what could have possibly pushed Amnesty International to forsake cops killing unarmed folks in favor of Valenti’s sad tears? Have you seen the ACLU’s bank account lately? You can buy some sweet curtains with that kind of money, and it’s not like Amnesty’s mission isn’t about promoting cute cat pix on the twitters.

*Could someone whose feelings are offended choose to sign out? Block offensive twitters? Ignore them because they are merely pixels on a screen and not real? Of course, but what about their “right” to enjoy a social media platform provided by a private company for free?

But wait, did I write “gal’s”? Yes. Yes I did. Did it make your eyes bleed? At least I didn’t write “girls.”