Thinking Faster than the Speed of Hate

 

Jonathan Vick, Acting Deputy Director, International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH) 

Why can’t the internet get ahead of hate? Why has fighting hate online almost always been reactive, and when it has been proactive, it is tentative and apologetic?

The time honored anti cyberhate techniques of filtering, blocking and counter-speech remain the cornerstone of online hate response. These practices are still at the core of more updated tactics which utilize AI and other technologies, but in internet time, they are still old approaches.

Blocking and filtering does not stop or dissuade hate, it simply hides it. The writer still spews hate. If there is hate on the internet and most people do not see it, is it still hate? Yes, it is.

If a person of an identifiable religious or ethnic group is walking down the street wearing headphones, and someone is walking behind them screaming abusive epithets, the target may not hear the hate, but everyone else on the street does.

That is filtering and blocking.  It does not stop hate.  It does not stop the spread or promotion of hate.

Counter-speech is the modern substitute for the lost arts of debate and dialogue. It is most effective with audiences who are receptive and willing to engage. These are rarely extremists.

Racists, xenophobes, and extremists are always looking for new ways to proselytize and manipulate audiences. Despite their protestations about anti-hate procedures on platforms, blocking and filtering are not insurmountable barriers. Developing new tactics to evade online content safety measures is a long established, ongoing practiced.

Each new breach of online anti-abuse prevention is not simply a display of creativity by bad people. It is a signal that the platforms, and community, have not been putting enough effort into outthinking the haters.

When it became obvious that manipulative political advertising was being placed by off-shore bad-actors, that was not just an indication of poor due-diligence by the platforms. Those ads should have been a warning deceptive internet content was not just the result of offensive or misleading posts on social media.

The dogmatic, unflinching defense of free speech and profit, and hesitancy to decry repugnant, corrosive, and hateful behavior has allowed the internet to become infected with opinion disguised as fact.

Hate protagonists do not hesitate to try new methods or seek subversive allies, yet anti-hate measures are agonized over endlessly and often spoil on the shelf.  We can improve the internet. We can stymie the propaganda networks which seek to undermine facts, truth, and civility. The problem is, we need to be smarter, braver, and bolder than the bad guys. If we are, we are not showing it.

 

 

.

 

Donald Trump Fixes the Internet

For the first time in the history of the internet, a wide array of platforms took a hard stance against a spectrum of online hate and the propagation of intentionally false and misleading information.  All this has happened in response to Donald Trump’s egregious misuse and exploitation of the internet. These new standards are long overdue. Many civil-rights and civil-justice organizations have lobbied the internet industry for years to take such action. But despite a decade of determined effort prior to 2016, it only took Trump four short years to convince the internet companies how dangerous and destructive it can be to avoid implementing policies which support dangerous online behavior.

Many recently banned extremists, and inflammatory voices including Alex Jones and David Duke, have been on the internet almost since day one. The danger they posed and the slow corrosion they sought to inspire started then too. Each of them and many more have exploited every new platform and service. They were rarely turned away by the platform operators.

Extremism in the US, and on the internet, became systemic because of reluctance to act responsibly.  Donald Trump exposed just how deeply parts of our country are invested in hate. Just how significant the internet has become is in their thought processes which foster the worst in societies. How tolerance and free speech have been weaponized against democracy.

Has Trump awakened us to how far the internet has strayed from its original aspiration? Is this the watershed moment for the internet?

Unfortunately, the decision to change the ethos of the internet seems to be in the hands of the wrong people.  Despite being the fastest evolving industry in history, policy changes have always been excruciatingly slow.

Significant policy changes have only come about reactively in response to the threat of regulation, lawsuits or, arrest. Proactive policy adjustments have been far from tectonic. In an industry which regularly promotes itself as making the world better, in some very real ways, the opposite seems to have happened.

This can be an inflection point for the internet. The internet industry can never again escape the proof that it has some responsibility for what appears online. They can continue to try and evade the issue, or they can own it.

Imagine an internet dedicated to the safe, responsible, open, and yes, even contentious debate of ideas?  That would be a bizarre and wonderful side effect of Donald Trump’s attempt to undermine democracy, censor truth and marginalize dissenting voices. It may take years, but Trump may have started the process that may fix the internet.

Jonathan Vick, North American Representative & Board Member, 

International Network Against Cyber Hate

Appeasing Online Extremism - A tradition of failure

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.  

The Internet’s New Chance at Redemption

Jonathan Vick, North American Representative, 

International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH)

The promise of the threat posed by unbridled internet content has come to fruition. As a member of the internet safety community, along with many colleagues, this has not come as a surprise.  We alerted the platforms that comment sections and public forums showed warning signs of exploitation and dangerous abuse more than 10 years ago.  Despite outcries over Donald Trump’s hate-enabling rhetoric and dog-whistle propaganda from irresponsible media outlets who were focused on ratings, actions against this nascent, yet obvious hate speech, never happened in most corners of the internet.  Let us call it opportunistic negligence by leading internet industry leaders.  Too many companies followed their example and too few companies voiced outrage.

After the attempted coup of 1/6/2021, belatedly, sadly, some things have finally happened.  

The internet’s opportunity at redemption may have arrived. Will it be embraced?

I am not talking about censorship, government oversight, or laws allowing crippling lawsuits. I am talking about the internet industry acting as a cohesive group where primary standards are discussed and agreed. Where the impact of content is studied openly. The protection of marginalized communities and the good of society should be enshrined as industry policy, not as an advertising slogan.

We have seen powerful, and evil people abuse a powerful medium for their own ends. This should not have happened. It can be prevented from happening again, but only if the internet industry is brave enough to seek redemption and commit to it.  

Borderless Hate Counter Offensive

Jonathan Vick, International Network Against Cyber Hate, North American Representative 

Hate spreads. It has been famously and accurately described as a virus. Like polio, smallpox, or covid, responding to hate cannot be a local challenge if we expect to succeed. Without a borderless approach to stopping hate, as with any contagious disease, we cannot hope to stop its reemergence and resurgence.

Prior to World War 2 there was a thriving American Nazi Party. It was based on National Socialism, the ideology of Hitler’s  Nazi Party and Third Reich. National Socialism and Nazism was presumed to have been extinguished with the defeat of Germany in 1945. National Socialism  had been resoundingly declared anti-democratic, racist and authoritarian long before the downfall of the Nazi regime. But, in early 1959, a disgruntled and dishonorably discharged Navy Commander re-established the American Nazi Party.

Nazism had remained dormant for less than 15 years after its worldwide refutation.

Today the ideological descendants of National Socialism, the KKK, and an array of White Supremacist and Nationalist ideologies continue an ongoing cycle spread, retreat, hide, and re-emerge to reinfect the society.

Hate is terribly unlimited. It is an International enterprise. The Klu Klux Klan, which was strictly American organization, now has chapters in a several other countries. Combat 18, a British neo-Nazi group, is now a worldwide organization.  These hate groups follow the template that is well established by terrorist organizations for a system of building borderless networks and operations. They exchange information, propaganda, tactics, reading lists within their own group internationally, and with other hate groups. They cross borders, continents, and ideologies.  None of this is new information.

 There are woefully few international anti-hate organizations sufficiently equipped and ideologically   broad enough to currently approach this challenge. Many organizations are limited by geography, audience, community or founding philosophy. Until the anti-hate world can act as borderlessly as the world of haters, this battle may never be won.

Our first assessment of any threat is the immediacy, personal impact, and its proximity to us. This is, of course, rooted in our survival instinct. It is why, for most people, local news is often more popular than world or international events. Our minds even amplify our response to direct or local threats beyond that of more seemingly less significant threats. Even if those seemingly less significant threats ultimately have more dangerous implications.  

Best Screaming Pillows of 2020

 

If you do not need a good screaming pillow, you either have not been actively present, or you may need to consult a doctor. Regardless of where any individual stands socially, economically, or politically, I cannot imagine anyone who does not need a good scream about now. Perhaps many of us have needed a good scream for a few years.

Screaming pillows occupy a time-honored place in society. Likely they have existed as long as bedding has been a thing.

When choosing your screaming pillow you should consider several factors: comfort you desire, scream suppression qualities, your living situation, and nature of your screaming.

Traditional feather and foam pillows have long been the mainstay of screaming pillows. Modern material like memory foam and air-cell products have grown in screaming pillow popularity as their use has increased.

Each option has its advantages. Ultimately, it is a matter of the user’s preference.

Your best bet is to try several pillows around your house. You may find the perfect screaming pillow is right under your nose.

Another option is not using a screaming pillow at all. A full throated, blood curdling, primal howl to the sky, may be just the ticket.

 My ultimate recommendation is work out your options as soon as possible. In the coming days, weeks, and months, there will probably be a lot of need for therapeutic screaming.

Facebook’s Policy Banning Holocaust Denial. Progress Not Victory.

 Jonathan Vick, International Network Against Cyber Hate, North American Representative 

Facebook has announced it is banning Holocaust denial in an apparent extension of its ongoing policy adjustments regarding hate speech and anti-Semitism.  Not surprisingly, a number of organizations who have been lobbying Facebook, each for varying lengths of time, are claiming credit for influencing Facebook’s actions.   Every success in advancing action against hate speech and destructive distortions is progress against hate.  This victory however, lives within a saga of failures.

After years of lobbying, debating, arguing with internet platforms, it is gratifying to have seen many platforms take positions against civil corrosion. It is critical to remember that Facebook’s actions, like Twitter, YouTube, and others, are only the actions of individual platforms. These antihate policies are often characterized by critics as a capitulation to the existing power structures, government, media, banking, or culture. This unfairly throws into question what are genuine efforts to confront a thorny issue.

Ultimately the only commonality for platforms comes from people moving between them to change jobs.   The industry’s lack of a cohesive humanitarian-based baseline set of standards is unquestionably used to exploit the internet for hateful purposes.

Our intuition that the democracy of the internet would create a self-correcting system led us to seemingly reasonable, but ultimately false assumptions. Part of that fallacy is that the internet was the ultimate competitive environment. No need for oversight, regulation, or coordination of any sort. That did not work exactly as planned. The power of truth is real. But supporting the truth is not a spectator sport, and the internet is overwhelmingly a spectator environment. Equally, hate is not spectator pursuit, but it is obvious that a lot more people are willing to play at hate than at truth.

Rather than marshalling the armies of reviewers, acting in collaboration, or accepting some notion of responsibility, everyone’s big bet was technology. Filtering, machine learning and artificial intelligence would allow impartial review, flagging and removal of blatant hate content. Our aspirations for technology are still way ahead of reality. Technology only multiplies human efforts. It does not yet replace them. Massive resources have been diverted to the development of AI and machine learning while the problems and damage from cyber hate continued.

Just as each platform’s efforts are an isolated approach to the issue, so are the definitions, terminologies and measurements applied by each of them. We rarely agree what is defined as hate.  Each faction usually insist their specific interpretation of hate is correct.

There are endless volumes of incredibly useful,  intelligent, relevant documents, studies, and civil society declarations. These are often dismissed  out of political, economic, or business expediency. Often we have seen competing priorities reflecting only the priorities of the stakeholders in the room at any one moment in time.  When looking to take credit or serving a specific agenda is the motivating factor, the result only send a limited message and may only be a limited success.

Holocaust denial will not be disappearing from Facebook, or any platform, any time soon. Facebook correctly points out that it will take time to adjust its processes to achieve any progress in banning Holocaust denial.  Hate is highly adaptive. Chasing hate terminology, including Holocaust denial,  may be an endless job. The real-world impact of reducing anti-Semitism through Facebook’s change may well be marginal. Online hate, once posted, is quickly shared. Once that happens, even if its removal on one platform cannot stop the poisonous content, links and ideas from propagating. Facebook’s commitment and efforts to address Holocaust denial is largely a victory for Facebook.  

With each incomplete effort, even when each effort may indeed represent good progress, there is the reality that time, energy, resources, and hope are left on the table. Every time.

The Holocaust happened. Denying it does not improve our understanding of it. The same is true of racism, bias and xenophobia of all kinds. Until we accept that no group is innocent of hate, or safe from being hated, only then we can begin to scrape the rust off our ideals. Banning Holocaust denial on Facebook is a start, but only a start. Only one facet of much larger questions.