Jonathan Vick, North American Representative, International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH)
When the Internet puts appeasement and profit over
principles you get insurrectionists storming the US capital.
In the early days of the internet, emerging platforms had a
few simple imperatives; rely on “the greater good” succeeding, attract as many
users as you can, and don’t alienate them if possible.
From a business perspective this worked very well, from a human
perspective, it did not.
Yes, the internet provided marginalized communities a place
online. The pioneering platforms also discovered they were enabling hate, racism,
and abuse. As it turned out, there was a lot more business to be gained
indulging hate and paranoia than indulging those looking to uplift, champion
and ally.
The internet’s forerunners were not the first to deploy
appeasement as mode of business. They were not the first to discover the immediate
benefits. They were certainly not the first to prove the disastrous
consequences of appeasement. Just maybe, they should have been the ones to put
an end to it, but they were not.
In the formative years of the internet, hate speech was conveniently
considered just speech, just words. What happened online was not considered
connected to offline behavior unless a connection to a specific real-world
crime could be explicitly proved.
That practice soon became policy.
Hateful, racist,
conspiratorial, anti-Semitic, anti-government, xenophobic organizations could
participate on almost every platform, and make networks of connections, as long
as they did not express their violent anti-social ethos on the platform
itself. The result of tolerating hate,
and appeasing hate groups so they would draw an audience, facilitated the
creation of a foundation and acceptance of false information, just like the
information that led to the storming of the U.S. Capitol on 6 January.
The internet enabled those
events. Many of the policies which allowed highly destructive content were made
more restrictive months or years ago, but the damage was done. The channels for
caustic, corrosive, destructive falsehoods moved into their own spheres of
information. Distorted information, supported by self-validating disinformation
and incomplete logic, were now the life blood of the groups who had matured on
the major platforms.
Many companies that are now
respectable hosting services, Internet Service Providers, or Domain Name
Services, got their start providing services to the worst groups on the
internet under the camouflage of free-speech or a willful ignorance of those
group’s objectives.
Since the 2016 election
interference scandal, and certainly since the Charlottesville riot, many
companies have instituted policies which reflect an awareness and dedication to
addressing the harm that destructive forces on the internet can cause. However,
in every single case, the platforms were warned years in advance about these
groups. Respectable, credible anti-racism, anti-Semitism, anti-xenophobia
groups provided volumes of evidence that these groups and ideologies were dangerous
and vicious. However, before 2016, many
companies managed to rationalize practices which avoid antagonizing groups now
widely considered part of the network which supported domestic terror tactics.
We all know the axiom about getting the toothpaste back in
the tube or the worms back in the can. The new, recent policies enacted by the
internet platforms, as important as they are, do nothing to repair the damage
the previous lack of regard caused. The industry giants now have the experience,
and opportunity, to clearly declare their support for truth online, and
opposing intentionally destructive manipulated information. They can make a stand against appeasement and
tolerance for hate, exploitation and manipulation.
There will always be marginally moral and exploitive
internet platforms and groups. Perhaps there always should be. These people and
places must know that they do not have the support of a majority of the
industry or the internet community. The public must know that the internet
industry has their backs and is concerned with their safety and society overall.
That would be a start toward repairing the internet’s legacy of appeasing and
enabling our worst selves.
