This research examines how the media report on sentences given to those who commit serious crimes against children and how this impacts on public knowledge and attitudes. Three months of press and television coverage were analysed in order to establish the editorial lines that are taken in different sections of the media and how they are promoted by selective reporting of sentencing. Results indicate that a small number of very high profile crimes account for a significant proportion of reporting in this area and often, particularly in the tabloid press, important information regarding sentencing rationale is sidelined in favour of moral condemnation and criticism of the judiciary. Polling data indicate that public attitudes are highly critical of sentencing but also confused about the meaning of tariffs. The article concludes by discussing what can be done to promote a more informed public debate over penal policy in this area.

gives the campaign visibility, allows people to follow the demonstrations organized across Turkey, facilitates the formation of new alliances, and creates an interactive online archive of feminicide and anti-feminicide activism. The hashtag has been received positively and has played a significant role in the debates on violence against women. Alongside the activists and independent users in Turkey and the European and North American diaspora from the country, many public figures, including survivors of domestic violence, have also supported the project and increased its visibility.Despite its many uses, the hashtag is not devoid of problems as a tool for activism. To begin with, direct participation in the Internet campaign is predetermined by literacy and access to technology. Moreover, the structure of the hashtag is monoscriptal and monolingual. First, while the original hashtag was created in Turkish script, many users have employed the English transliteration. This tendency, which reflects the internalization of the global power hierarchies embedded in Internet technologies, has led to a significant bifurcation that disrupts communication. Second, although the campaign initially offered hashtags in Arabic (, Armenian (#Կանանցկոտորածկայ), English (StopFemicideInTurkey), Greek (#Ypάrxeiswagήgynaikώn) and Kurdish (#QetlîamaJi-nanHeye) as well, their outreach has remained very limited. These hashtags in different languages were important because they demonstrated the campaign's multi-ethnic and diverse activist base and target population as well as the inter-ethnic and international alliances among feminists. The multilingual aspect of the campaign also operated as a strategy to avoid associating gendered violence with a specific ethnic group, as most commonly done with Kurds. Nevertheless, even in the promotional images and banners in other languages, only the Turkish hashtag was used. In fact, possibly because they were not aware of the original one, some Kurdish-speaking users created another hashtag, #JınTéNQetılkırın [sic], independently from the campaign's organizers, again resulting in a bifurcation. A major reason for this emphasis on Turkish is the operation of the hashtag as a metadata tag. Each hashtag connects the data users have associated it with, and the groups of data organized by different hashtags cannot be combined. Turkish has remained as the primary language of the campaign as a strategy to connect the highest amount of relevant data. Thus, in a sense, technology has limited the campaign's political possibilities. Still, especially because it is combined with social demonstrations, the campaign serves the struggle against feminicide effectively by raising public awareness and challenging the dominant discourses.We started out by asking ourselves what exactly a "feminist" hashtag is. We realised we did not know what exactly we would class as one. We then began to feel that the far more COMMENTARY AND CRITICISM 1103

As researchers we often find ourselves grappling with social media platforms and data 'at close quarters'. Although social media platforms were created for purposes other than academic research-which are apparent in their architecture and temporalities-they offer opportunities for researchers to repurpose them for the collection, generation and analysis of rich datasets. At the same time, this repurposing raises an evolving range of practical and methodological challenges at the small and large scale. We draw on our experiences and empirical data from two research projects, one using Facebook Community Pages and the other repurposing Facebook Activity Logs. This article reflects critically on the specific challenges we faced using these platform features, on their common roots, and the tactics we adopted in response. De Certeau's distinction between strategy and tactics provides a useful framework for exploring these struggles as located in the practice of doing social research-which often ends up being tactical. This article argues that we have to collectively discuss, demystify and devise tactics to mitigate the strategies and temporalities deeply embedded in platforms, corresponding as far as possible to the temporalities and the aims of our research. Although combat at close quarters is inevitable in social media research, dialogue between researchers is more than ever needed to tip the scales in our favour.