We don't rate or judge web content in any meaningful, objective way; not Blogs, YouTube channels, Facebook pages, Instagram, Snapchat or Twitter accounts. For the vast majority of people web content is good or bad and has x number of likes, shares or views. There have been no successful attempts to establish the parameters that define web content.
The sad result is that web content is viewed very narrowly as good or bad with likes or dislikes. Equally the reaction is often polar and subjective. The internet isn't that simple.
Not as a solution, but as a place to start the thought process; here are five parameters to give context to web content. For the sake of argument and simplicity, lets assign each parameter a positive, neutral or negative value.
#1- intent - benevolent to malevolent
#2- depth - pictures, articles or combinations
#3- width - how many followers, readers, re-posts
#4- frequency - number of posts, quantity of content
#5- noise - original or shared content
This means, given the five parameters with plus, neutral and minus values, there are approximately 243 potential combinations of criteria. Clearly, the criteria are not scientific, there are far more variations that exist for each parameter and not all 243 represent what might be considered hateful content. So, to be fair, let's say that 10 percent of the 243 criteria variation represent hateful content. That means there are about 25 variations of hate. Each one different in its components, dynamics and impact. Each variation has its own optimum tactics the public can use for addressing, blunting, de-fanging and healing from that specific variation of hate.
Of the 25 faces of hate, no two are the same and no two have the same answer, solution or response. If it were easy to fight hate, there wouldn't be so much of it.