Should recruitment managers sidestep or embrace job-hoppers? Next Story
Why we should spare nothing in saving our dying ecological system Previous Story
You are here  » Home   » Opinion

How to stop social media from making hate speech potent

By Sherif Elsayed Ali | Published Fri, March 9th 2018 at 00:00, Updated March 8th 2018 at 23:36 GMT +3
A template of various social media apps. [Photo: Courtesy]

Donald Trump’s retweets of anti-Muslim videos first circulated by an anti-immigrant, far-right British party were just the tip of the iceberg. From Myanmar to the United States, controversial posts by political leaders and public figures have sparked a growing and increasingly global debate about how social media may be facilitating the spread of hatred and discrimination.

But this discussion is only the latest in a larger debate that is as old as the internet itself: who should decide the limits of freedom of expression online, and how should they do it?

We have come a long way from the days when Facebook, YouTube and Twitter were hailed as enablers of free speech and democracy. Such platforms have undeniably helped to democratise the public sphere. Individuals can amass tens of thousands of followers, and earn millions of views, without relying on the media, public relations agencies, or governments. Activists can organize, disseminate information and mobilise more effectively than ever before.

Human rights

It is a testament to the power of social media that many countries are imposing stricter controls or even blocking their access entirely. We must bear the positive aspects of that power in mind when we consider how best to tackle its flip side: the way social platforms can be used to spread abuse, vitriol and hatred more rapidly than ever before.

In 2017, politicians in many countries deployed social media to spread hate-filled agendas. Amnesty International’s latest annual report on the state of the world’s human rights documents a global rise in state-sponsored hate, and chronicles the variety of ways governments and leaders are increasingly peddling hateful rhetoric and policies that seek to demonize already marginalized groups; President Trump’s transparently-hateful travel ban on citizens from half a dozen Muslim-majority countries was one of the most prominent examples.

As access to social media expands worldwide, it is increasingly being used by governments to promote hateful rhetoric, to control their citizens, and to silence any opposition. From xenophobic statements by politicians against LGBTI and Roma people in Bulgaria, anti-Rohingya propaganda posted on Facebook by senior military officers and government spokespeople in Myanmar, and the use of troll networks against government critics in the Philippines, those in power are learning how to use social media as yet another tool of repression.

These findings present many dilemmas. To what extent are social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter – who have responded only belatedly to the torrent of hate speech and “fake news”– at fault? Should governments take action? What can we do to preserve the good that social media can offer while countering its more corrosive effects?

Freedom of expression

There are no simple answers. The right to free expression protects ideas that many people find offensive, and there are many instances where racist, sexist, xenophobic or other hateful material is not prohibited under human rights law. Nevertheless, freedom of expression comes with responsibilities, and there are cases under human rights law – such as incitement to violence or child sex abuse imagery – where it can legitimately be restricted. Complexities tend to arise because the definition of “offense” is always subjective: one person’s free speech is another’s vicious diatribe.

Any attempt at regulation must also consider the fact that the right to be able to say things to which others – including those in positions of power – will vehemently object is one of the foundations of an open society. Take that away and you take away the free press and any kind of government accountability.

For all their potential for abuse, social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter provide a space for expression and access to information that is much freer than anything available in the past. Yet, this freedom is fragile – for example, Amnesty’s research has shown that online abuse can have a silencing effect on its targets.

So what’s the solution? There are three types of actions that can be taken to counter hate on social media and the internet more generally: legal enforcement, content moderation, and education.