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.

When Zombie Chickens Come Home to Roost

 

Mary Shelley warned us in Frankenstein.  Ralph Ellison told us in the Invisible Man. So often we create our own monsters, but we do not always realize it at the time.

Even before the exploitation of the internet, the toxic rhetoric of the 2016 election, the alarming rally in Charlottesville or a president who spreads more poison than policy,  the mold was cast for all that grief,  and more to come by letting seemingly small bad things find a home, and a place to accumulate.

This road was not paved or monsters created  by any one person, company, organization, or government. Equally, once the problem became obvious, it was not possible for any single entity to address the problem. Deftly, those seeking to undermine the credibility of facts presented to the public, quickly coordinated domestically, internationally, and across agendas to share their own best practices. They exploited the competitive nature of business practices in the internet industry and that anti-hate groups were in their own similarly competitive mode for sponsorship. As a result, early in the internet age, extremist communities became more coordinated and strategic while civil society and industry entities prevaricated.  The mindless and all-consuming zombie chickens of hate had infected each other, flown the coop, were on the loose, contagious, and breeding.

Zombie chickens would seem a ridiculous choice of allusion to illustrate a serious problem.  Chickens are not terribly threatening. Zombie chickens are practically laughable, but not if you were counting on trying to eat one or get any eggs.

Conspiracy theories and the people who spread them were likewise not taken seriously.  Regardless of who decided conspiracy theories, or their advocates were harmless, that phenomenon began an erosion of our faith in information sources and fed our worse fears. The internet, until very recently, did not elevate the truth, it infected it with a virulent malady.

Now, those apparently harmless chickens we created have come home to roost. Those chickens, like our information channels, which were once a reliable source of enrichment, are now questionable and even dangerous.

The critical mass of stakeholders needed to develop industry wide hate management technology goals, standards, policies, and public education mechanisms did not begin to materialize for almost 20 years.  We can all see the damage that delay has caused. Once the choice was made to not get ahead of the problem of corrosive content, catching up became the only alternative.  Have you even tried catching a chicken? Like catching up with online hate, no simple matter.

Jonathan Vick

Schrödinger’s Internet

Cliffy died in 2010, but I did not know that until last week. Until then he was still alive to me.  I liked him, had not heard from him in many years and, as I have done so many times before, went looking for him online.  The adage holds true, be careful what you ask for. I want to add, be careful what you look for.

I am the North American representative for INACH (International Network Against Cyber Hate),  an accomplished internet investigator and researcher, and usually find what I am looking for - eventually.  We have all searched for people from our past who mean something to us. Helping others in this way, and with other online challenges, is extremely rewarding. When all the digging through endless piles of online manure is done, we sometimes find a pony, sometimes a rhinoceros, and sometimes tears.

People disappear for any number of reasons. There is no way to totally disappear, but with a little effort and time, you can get close. When someone does not want to be found, you should respect that. When they have disappeared, not by choice, you must respect that.  There are always exceptions, but they all come at a price.

Until last week, Cliffy was both alive and dead. Something called superposition.  That is the essence of the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment. When I found Cliffy, opened the reality of things on the internet, the reality of the two possibilities collapsed. Cliffy was indeed dead.

The internet acts like Schrödinger’s box, holding the truth of different realities but requiring an act of will to open it up and find the reality.

I do not think Schrödinger liked cats. I do not think he gave much thought to the cat. It was all about the box and the experiment.

I do not think the internet industry likes us. It historically has not given much thought to the people inside the internet. Internet users have, for far too long, been secondary to the internet itself and the experiment of all the stuff inside. The internet companies own the boxes on the internet and can decide to collapse the possibilities of information and help determine the reality, if they are brave enough.

This is the great conundrum of science and commerce. What comes first, the experiment or the cat; the totality of possibilities of information or the reality.  

Schrödinger’s cat is not a real cat. Schrödinger’s box is not a real box. It was never meant to be left closed. Superposition may be real, but it is not reality. You only get reality when you open the box and feed the cat or bury it.

I do not like that Cliffy is gone, but that is the reality. To change reality is to fictionalize it.  

Questionable Future for Cat Videos

With Trump doing his best not to get re-elected, and the world in the midst of the covid epidemic,  we must ask the important question…What does this mean for cat videos?

Cat videos are historically the most watched and shared.   Based on the numbers, even people who don’t like cats watch cat videos. There are many different specific reasons people watch cat videos. Research indicates that the bottom line is, in general, they make us feel good.

The number of cat videos, viewers and views has continued to climb for over ten years. This is especially true over the past four years, when just about everyone needed some way of feeling good. Cat videos are a form of escapism.

Lavish big budget, fantasy  movie musicals of the 1930s served a similar purpose for a country in the midst of the great depression and the looming specter of World War 2. Back then the public had limited choices, but the studios, once they figured out the public’s desires, produced those movies at a high volume. With the internet, the public can find, and identify, whatever appeals to them. That seems to be cat videos, not big budget musicals or dramas.

It seems ludacris to compare Fred Astaire with Tard the cat, but here we are.

Movie musical's golden age declined with the end of WW2 and I must say the waning depression. It seems we do not need as much to feel-good when things are good as when they are bad. Our optimism comes mores freely when we do not feel we are mid-apocalypse.

So, as we head for another pivot in history, society, economic or culture, for better or whatever, what is to become of cat videos?

Will decreased stress and strife lessen our appetite for cat videos the same way it happened for movie musicals? Will the post-Trump era leave us with a PTSD craving for more cat videos? Perhaps current events will have no impact at all.

Whatever change happens in our cat video watching habits, it may signal something important. I hope it is in some way an indicator that we have grown, and the world is a bit better.

Losing Track of Hate

We can never completely stamp out hate. Taking Mein Kampf off bookshelves, banning the swastika, or the Rebel Flag will not stop hate, it will only hide it. When we hide hate in that way, we make it harder for future generations to recognize the symbols of hate and easier for hate groups to operate and grow with impunity.

Do not get me wrong. The Rebel Flag should never fly over a public space. Klan robes should never be worn in public ever again.  No parade should ever be led by a swastika or anyone wearing one.  This goes for blackface, or any other racist caricature or stereotype. But we cannot pretend these things did not exist, do not still exist, and may surface from neglected boxes in attics or may even be prized by some people.

As much as a picture of Klan rallies are horrific, it is just a picture.  To see a real-life size Klan robe is completely different.  To see full Klan uniform face to face is to begin to understand, as in no other way, the fear it is meant to instill.  The same for any racist, bigoted, hateful, ignorant vestiges of our past.

We do not need to see these things constantly, nor should we. We should work to move such icons of hate to safe spaces where the context, truth and resolution of their existence can be addressed.  There are those who advocate hate. They try their best to desensitize us to the pain and revulsion such things should naturally elicit. These academic hatemongers argue that the expression and display of a racist heritage is their right. It is time we say, no. The intentional perpetuation of historic distress and intimidation is not part of free speech. There is no such thing as casual or harmless display of hate symbols.

In that spirt, we should work to drive hate out of public spaces.  We must come to terms that as we are progressively driving it offline, to whatever extent is possible, there is a responsibility to archive it. We also need to take measures that it will only manifest itself appropriate places.

The great catch-22 in empowering people to recognize hate is the need to discuss it and to teach about it. To know the symbols of hate you need to see the symbols. To know the language of hate you need to be hear hateful terminologies, see stereotypes, and learn bigotries destructive power. To make a better world we need to teach the ugliest of lessons.

 For years displaying hate online has been part of the educational process in fighting hate.  This has posed significant challenges. On every platform, accounts run by educational and informational organizations have been flagged and suspended for the offensive content they have post as examples of hate. Some websites have been suspended for posting examples of terrorist, racist or propagandistic content meant to target people belonging to ethnic, national origin, religious, sexual identity or social groups.  Sometimes these websites are flagged by people who do not understand why the material is being displayed. In other cases, the haters being exposed try to suppress the exposure of their truth.

Some civil rights advocates promote the unilateral removal of all symbols of hate. It is important to remember that symbols, slogans, acronyms, hand signs, and the like, are not just about intimidation, but also about communication within a group.  Removing all hate group references, and iconography from public exposure is dangerous.  If you saw a bumper sticker that said just “AKIA”, would you think twice about it? AKIA is one of the ways KKK members signal their identity to each other. It stands for “A Klansman I Am.” This is bad enough under any circumstance, but worse when it, or some other identifier for a hate group goes unrecognized.

Exposing hate is one of the most powerful tools in defeating it. Stetson Kennedy infiltrated the Klan in post WW2 America. He then worked with producers of the Superman Radio Show to use what he had learned to create content for that radio show. Klan symbols, identification phrases and passwords were all exposed by the Superman Show to the world.  The Superman producers and Kennedy knew that to know hate, expose hate, teach how to recognize, and track it was the best weapon against it.  The damage to the Klan was profound.

The 2016 election showed us that deep systemic hate was very much alive in the United States. It had not been defeated. It had simply learned to hide. It appears we were happy to let it hide. That did not work out well.

Hate will always find a way.  By far the first, best  thing we can do to oppose hate is to keep track of hate and teach about its many forms - the symbols, language and ideologies of hate, and the people who make it their job to perpetuate hate.

The true nature of hate and haters becomes obvious on close scrutiny.  If we lose track of hate, that is what hate needs most to survive.

Jonathan Vick

International Network Against Cyber Hate, North America Representative                                                                                                                                       

Dumpster Fire Behind the Marketplace of Ideas

The Marketplace of Ideas is important. It is the very reason we protect free speech, freedom of the press and human rights. The Marketplace of Ideas is one of our most apt and resonant metaphors in civil discourse. It is no wonder that a concept pioneered by John Milton, John Stuart Mill and Oliver Wendell Holmes is as relevant in the internet age as it was hundreds of years ago.

Like many places where people shop, it can be a crowded, confusing place. Because it is a place for ideas, it can be disturbing at times.  It is not always well organized, and the people who claim to know where everything is, invariably do not show us everything we should see.

Shopping in the Marketplace for Ideas can be expensive. It requires users to pay attention, spend time and invest critical thinking. When that cost is too high, there are those who shop in the discount aisle or maybe pick for discarded concepts in the dumpster out back.

The Marketplace of Ideas is not about facts, it is about opinions, thoughts and concepts. There are bad opinions, ideas that are discredited, wrong or destructive. National socialism, racial supremacy, scapegoating and genocide are a few that come to mind.  Some ideas deserve to be in the trash. Pulling them from the dumpster does not mean their time has come again, sometimes it means the idea is just cleaned up garbage. 

Best to be suspicious of the folks lurking out behind the Marketplace of Ideas and picking through the dumpster of bad ideas.

Jonathan Vick

International Network Against Cyber Hate, North American Representative

Facebook’s Darwinian Encounter

In its harshest terms, Darwin’s quote can be read to say, “adapt or die.”  Facebook must now confront this grim reality for the first time in its existence.  Having held to their policies in a time saturated with change, they are being unimaginably criticized and boycotted. Perhaps a surprise to Facebook more than to many observers.

For at least the past ten years, Facebook has steadfastly dismissed most of the red flags that have been brought to their attention. Content empowering racism, division, and hate has been a major topic of disagreement between Facebook and anti-hate groups for a long time.

The historic problems with Facebook have been more obvious to members of the internet community who are more attuned to the intersection of extremist and mainstream internet, but the problems were there, and Facebook knew it. Many years would go by before any research was done into the extent, intent, impact, or players in the hate appearing on Facebook.  

Facebook’s policy, then and now, is to let more content on the platform to allow debate, discussion, and discourse. To bring more material to the Marketplace of Ideas. Although racism, xenophobia, misogyny and marginalization should all be discussed, it is a very different thing to just allow it. Such policies have always been exploited. That is not feeding discourse. It is feeding hate. Instead of allowing bad content as a rule and removing it in exceptional circumstances, perhaps a policy of restricting bad content and allow it by exception is more circumspect.

Facebook ascended, in part, as the result of an unpopular move by MySpace to implement an eceptionally strong policy against hateful and inappropriate content. Reasonably, Facebook leveraged MySpace’s radical change to its own advantage, luring countless users away from MySpace. Unfortunately, it appears the lesson Mark Zuckerberg took away from that episode is that anti-hate policies are destructive to a platform’s health.  Perhaps there was a time when that was true, but that time has passed.

Any content area on the internet, if left unmoderated, will eventually be abused.  We have seen it time and again. There are no exceptions that come to mind. Those situations makes the valid Marketplace of Ideas look a bit like a burned out storefront.

Trump’s strident, abusive, and often irresponsible rhetoric is supported and enhanced by his online content. A common tactic in traditional hate communities it to spread supporting, self-validating material over numerous platforms and listed under many names to obscure its intent. Over time, patterns emerge and manipulation taking place becomes obvious. The deception is exposed and the true motivations uncovered. Hate, marginalization, disenfranchisement, and alienation can often be the sum of many parts calculated to come together when desired.  

We came into the information age thinking we knew what it was about and how it worked.  If Facebook is not prepared to adapt, and act against the weaponization of its platform,  the results are inevitable. There is always another contender in the wings.  

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

America's South Africa Lesson

South Africa, the once ultimate example of racial injustice, may have something to teach us about resolving the systemic racism in the United States. I was in South Africa (SA) in 2017 and saw how a country which could easily have tipped into a race war, decided to step back, and take another direction.

I am not black. Before going to South Africa, I knew little about it. I was there to work on emerging cyber hate and online abuse issues.  I came away with an immense respect for a beautiful country with amazing people who have accomplished something the United States has yet to achieve…creating a framework for interracial relations, airing grievances, and working towards solutions on deep-seated problems. This is not to say South Africa found the magic wand to all their problems, but they certainly have done something impressive.

The argument is often made that current populations should not be held responsible or pay the price for long standing problems. As it is very hard to hold the original instigators of a century old problem responsible, and it is the ultimate injustice to hold  unempowered victims of ongoing repression and racism responsible for their own situation, the only answer is for current society, as a whole, to be responsible for addressing inequity.

Many white South Africans may have lived within the apartheid system, but not many currently alive created the system. Similarly, no living Americans were slave owners, but many lived and accepted segregation in various forms. But there is no question that the legacy of the systems and laws put in place long ago are still a significant problem for populations of color around the world. As these disadvantaged, marginalized communities represent a significant percentage of the population, their suffering and frustration is unarguably impacting the larger society. In this way, bigotry, racism, tacit bias, amarginalizationnd  are more than just a black, immigrant or minority issue. It compromises society’s morality.

Looking back at history and pointing fingers at the players, policies, and political sources of racial issues provide context, but not always solutions. The context is important to help see the actions which allowed racism to become systematized and the way it is manifested today. The trap is not moving the conversations into the present. History cannot be changed but the future can be.

20+ years ago the vast majority of South Africa stood together to say, “this has to stop.” There was no question that it was going to be difficult, painful, costly, and dangerous. There was also no question that pointing at the past and saying, “I wasn’t there, it’s not my fault” was not deemed a reason for inaction by anyone. Everyone needed to participate.

The system that evolved with the leadership and inspiration of Nelson Mandela is, what I would call, a forum of obligation. Groups, councils, commissions and organization which were formed, abided by one overriding rule, if you join, you are included, your input will be taken, your voice will be heard in full, but you are required to sit and give that full consideration to everyone else who is included. No matter what. If you disrupt others, deny them their privilege to speak and be heard or storm out of the proceedings, you lose your seat at the table. This was my understanding and what I witnessed.

I attended meetings of various commissions and government bodies which were brutally frank in a way that no American legislative or policy body would ever withstand or tolerate.

Current generations taking responsibility for the past, empowers and enables them to have the hard conversations about the ongoing legacies of the past. This is what South Africa has done. Something the United States has not. In the U.S. reconstruction never finished the job of achieving equality, it was simply abandoned. The Civil Rights Movement moved the needle just enough to assuage people on both sides without ever making the fundamental, foundational, irreversible changes in society that were needed.  The hardest problems were just passed to the next generation.

Speaking the unspoken, the unspeakable, was a big part of the break from the monarchy and the establishment of the United States. Now we find ourselves in a position where tolerance, civility and “don’t rock the boat” culture has enabled the marginalization and abuse of many groups in our society. All of it wrong. All of it transgenerational.

South Africa showed us where to start. The U.S. can stop passing its bad racial and sociological legacies on to the next generation.  We can have the hard conversations. We can better understand each other’s pain and make the most difficult changes. We need to start by making a commitment as a nation and a people that racism and systemic bias against any group of people in our country or by our country damages and diminishes what we have, what we want and what we leave our children.

Trump Internet Age

The internet has a Donald Trump problem of its own making. In general, it was delighted with the emergence of the conflict, sensationalism, increased activity and profit which accompanied Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Now we know that very little consideration was given to where the advertising revenue came from, where the increased traffic came from and the implications of a precedent being set by giving unrestricted access to a known fabulist, misogynist and bully.

In 2008, I attended a generally congenial meeting, orchestrated by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), held at Stamford University, with platforms and service providers including Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Twitter. At that meeting there was one overriding message,  “Hate, racism, and incitement on the internet was a pervasive and growing problem”. The hate protagonists were active in many places and coordinating their efforts across platforms.

Subsequent meetings, two years later, were attended by over a dozen industry representatives. At these events, co-sponsored by ADL and an EU Inter-Parliamentary group, evidence was presented of on-platform and inter-platform activity used to support off-platform agendas of white supremacists, neo-Nazis and terrorist groups. The uniform response by the industry was that there was no evidence that online hate had any connection to real world violence.

ADL suggested a study to determine the extent of cyber hate and the vectors of transmission being exploited. This could settle the issue one way or the other. The major industry companies declined at that time. They had no interest in opening that particular pandora’s box of knowledge. Once a study confirmed the online hate there would be no way to deny awareness of it or the need to consider responsibility.

For years, the portfolio of internet industry leaders maintained they were only responsible for activity on their own platform, that their terms of service adequately protected users, and their preeminent goal of allowing the broadest variety of speech was in the public interest. In response the ADL, and many other anti-hate, safety and public advocacy groups vocally called for explicit terms of service which would be rigorously and universally enforced.

By 2014, with the rising political polarization, social tensions and increasing hate online, the stage was set for the emergence of the Trump Internet Age (TIA). The first personalities paving the way for Trump’s online behavior were a collection of different racists, anti-Semites and segregationists. Their underlying motivations were unmistakable. Years of appeals to platforms regarding Terms of Service violations resulted in removal of the most egregious content. Much of the more subtle, manipulative, insidious dog whistle content continued unabated.

Political campaigns have long been considered a sacred place where free speech was given great latitude. Non-profit and publicly funded entities have long refrained from commenting on campaigns or endorsing candidates for fear of threatening their funding or not for profit certification. The internet companies, as self-designated “front pages” of public opinion, strove to make no judgement calls. We now know that this position by the platforms was manipulated to turn them into propaganda conduits. The companies were deeply entrenched in a philosophy that bad content and untruth would be eclipsed by the good. Bad actors quickly dominated every space on the internet they could.

The, August 2017 Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia irrefutably demonstrated how hate speech leads to violence and how inter-platform manipulation of the internet is used to support the real world agendas of hate groups. Many platforms quickly banned extremist users, websites and groups related to inciting, supporting, or celebrating the violence at Charlottesville. Significant changes in policies were also made in response to the violence and online exploitation linked to the riot. Unfortunately, this clearly points out that the industry was far behind in policies and enforcement despite warnings and repeated requests by experts on the issue.

The shift that started in in the aftermath of the 2016 election and Charlottesville violence and other mass attacks by extremists, has now caught up to political propaganda. Trump is extremely upset that the same latitude which allowed platforms to permit his misinformation, also impowers them to speak out against him and apply all their rules of behavior to him, if they so choose.

The internet industry must now confront the ecology they have created. When self-validating distortions by a small-time conspiracy theorist are treated as fact, it lays the groundwork for self-validating distortions by the President of the United States, or any member of government, to be treated as fact. The internet leaders are now at a junction where they must work together to create an industry policy and practice coalitions or face an imminent and inevitable effort by government to restrict and control the industry. Trump is their Frankenstein’s monster. They are Frankensteins and have created the possible means of their own possible demise.

Fighting Hate - A Dance for Many Partners

Hate and abuse has been the over-arching focus of my work. Ultimately, we have not been fighting hate. We have been fighting fear. Hate, directed against people, creates fear - the weapon haters exploit. Fear is used to intimidate, marginalize, disenfranchise, and isolate. Fear creates doubt, paranoia, mistrust, and suspicion. The human predisposition to fear is deeply ingrained. It is part of our survival instincts.  It is not so amazing that the oldest darkest enemy of our species has followed us into the digital age.

For better or worse, fear is an inseparable part of many of our social ills, and yet has driven many of our greatest achievements. Fear of death and disease has fueled great medical knowledge and research. Fear of violence and mayhem has motivated a social order and justice system. Fear of hunger is responsible for an extensive food production and distribution industry. Fear of the right things is not a bad thing.

Hate speech itself is not always intended to cause fear. It can be an expression of anger or frustration. However ill-considered words often have a problem with how they are perceived. There is also the reality that true hate, intended to have destructive consequences, when outed, is often attributed to “poor judgement” rather than the true intent of what is said. There is no question that hooded KKK robes were intended to instill fear.  Other symbols, words, phrases, and images, although not originally conceived to express hate became just that over time through association and use. Equally, the ability for iconography and language to trigger fear is learned.

People cannot always know what will elicit a fear inducing reaction. Not all items or statements create the same reaction. The Confederate Battle Flag is one example. As a symbol of historic bravery in the Civil War. It symbolizes the battle for State’s Rights to some, other see it as a symbol of oppression. That the issue of State’s Rights also included the right own continue slavery and own slaves and the subsequent use of the Battle Flag by hate groups has clearly negated any historic context which might have been redeeming. Individuals flying “the stars and bars” know full well that it is a tainted symbol. It is therefore incumbent on people, as in many other situations, to use appropriate consideration in its use or the use of other potentially troubling symbols.

Yet among those people offended by particular hate content, reactions can be quite different.  Some studies indicate that younger social media audiences are far more likely to dismiss hateful material as not a significant problem. In failing to react or rise-to-the-bait, younger audiences rob the hate of any impact. Even content with the most malicious intent. Within these less reactive groups, haters will probe them for an emotional, social, or topical vulnerability and then exploit it mercilessly. It is not about the hate. It is about the motivation of the hater and the need to create fear, intimidation, and insecurity in others.

Those members of the internet community who are not phased by hate must band together and share their strength with those who feel victimized.

Those people who feel fearful, targeted, or victimized must have a coordinated place to turn for expert, consistent information on their options for protecting themselves, responding and how to stay safely engaged in their online lives.

The internet industry must develop unified, uniform baseline standards for unacceptable user behavior including incitement, targeting, abuse and coordinated information manipulation across all platform types, no matter who is responsible, and stand behind them.

Reducing the activities of those who intentionally create, profit, and perpetuate harm online, is not a choice, it is an obligation.

Magical Anti-Hate Machine

The danger we face these days is not about free speech. It is not about civil rights. It is not about being mean, hurtful, or offensive. It is about the potential to instigate real world harm; suicide, riots, attacks against racial or religious groups and much more. In all these events, in modern times, the internet has been a force.  The danger is our unwillingness to talk about the motivations and intent behind the words. The danger is in not acting in response to destructive speech.

As far as I can recall, we have never seen any good Nazis, fascists, dictators, authoritarian regimes, or racists. The internet is there so we can discuss such things. However, we can widely agree that applauding or advocating such hateful, intolerant, repressive, and destructive isms is considered part of the worst of the internet.  Especially in times of crisis, when populations are vulnerable, there are so many more important issues which need to be allowed bandwidth. Worse yet, many divisive ideas are used as a distraction from constructive conversation and better interactions.

When segments of society want to allow or tolerate hateful ideas on the internet, they invariably cite the ethos of Free Speech. Unfortunately, that is a false justification.  Free speech, as defined by the framers of the constitution, allows dissent. It permitted citizens the right to disagree with the government without fear of arrest or reprisal. Taken to a larger context, as a social contract, it empowers citizens to publicly hold debate, discourse and disagree with respect for each other’s opinion. The public context has no constitutional standing. In neither framework does free speech imply a right (legally or socially) to allow hate, incitement to violence, degradation, marginalization, violation of rights or abuse as outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

There are grey areas. Especially in an internet environment.  This serves an important function by bringing debate to the marketplace of ideas. These grey areas are not sacred. They are also easily exploited.  Speaking out against abuses of free speech are often decried as censorship or denial of free speech. It is the ultimate irony. Clearly a manipulative and insincere defense for hate.

Yes, the internet has enriched us in many ways, but so has fire. When abused or uncontrolled, fire is horrifically destructive. In the wake of disastrous fires regulations and codes were enacted, building and product standards agencies were established, and teams for fighting fires were created by governments to protect the populace. Much the same needs to be considered for the internet. Just as with arson or an unattended candle, a bad outcome can spread quickly and destructively. The damage can be impossible to undo.

It is inappropriate to regulate every internet site, for the same reason that not every match leads to an inferno. However, we exercise caution, respect, and a level of intelligence around all flames. Makers of all things that are highly combustible supply all sorts of directions and product warnings to avoid accidents. Often, not so with the internet.

Some websites do a far better job about safety than others. Some do a poor job. Others create outright dangerous situations. There is no product safety commission, or safety rating for websites and content as we see for other products. Unfortunately, the sheer magnitude of the internet and its eccentricities renders any physical world analogous solution useless. However, the vastness of the internet ecosystem also provides opportunities to improve the situation.

Internet industry leaders such as  Googles, Microsofts, Twitters, Instagrams are indispensable to every commercial content delivery service. They use their influence to monetize oceans of information but shrink from using that influence to motivate a better online environment. Internet standards for content cannot be universal. There will always be opportunists who will ignore them. But currently there is no framework or coordination for an industry level standard for the type of content which we have all come to recognize as culturally, socially, or politically leading to physical danger in the real world. 

The United States of Keep Away from Me.

Social distancing of people is hard and unfamiliar. Social distancing of ideas is old and too familiar.  

These are times of change. We can own and master the change or try to keep it away.

As if we did not have enough problems with our country’s polarization, dis-empathy, propaganda and animosity all running at all-time highs, along comes the Corona Virus.

We are subject to so many variables and unknowns that the outcome, much less any inherent changes in society and culture are still beyond prediction.

There are all kinds of wishful conversations online and in media about how the pandemic will bring us together. Examining history, like 9/11, this is not guaranteed. Sometimes these events bring us closer to those close to us, but these events can also feed xenophobia, fear and paranoia. Driving many apart.  Triggering unanticipated consequences, schisms and conflicts.

In an effort to stay engaged, some families have pushed the lockdown as a great opportunity for family game night. This sounds like a great idea. Once instituted though, it quickly brings with it the unremembered. Part of board games night is the discussion and interaction which takes place between each player’s turns.  This could go badly, especially if people had not realized that family discussions are rarely restricted to the safe topics like weather and health.  Playing games also may involve arguments and losing in both the game and argument. Think of Marshall Law lockdown being declared in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner!

Of course, President Trump has done nothing to mitigate the social downside of current events. Cheerleading and leadership are two different things.  He has not visited any of the epicenter hospitals or any of the Asian communities to offer direct support or calm any of the misinformation percolating up through society. These potentially small gestures can have great impact. All his gestures were reserved for large corporations and expressions of condolences for the rich, famous or politically advantageous.

Yes, Trump is in the high-risk category with age and who knows what underlying conditions, but his job requires the welfare of the country comes first. That is why it is called Public Service. If anyone thinks otherwise, they can consider the careers or JFK, Harvey Milk or even Mother Theresa. This is not a job where you come first, especially at a time of crisis.

So here we are.

Regardless of who is to blame, we must find our way out. It is increasingly obvious that the path forward is up to us. There are too few real leaders in government and far too much partisan brinkmanship for anything of real use come from government. Not where the welfare of real people is concerned. This seems to be a fact regardless who sits in the oval office.

It is in our best interests to examine future public policy molded without government participation. Maybe we can put together a few useful, workable ideas. Then we can explain it to government using simple words. Perhaps demonstrate that, although they cannot find even the most basic common ground, we can.

Any effort to applying the social, economic and political lessons we have learned will need to be led by voices of change. Except we are terrible with change. At every watershed period of history there have been ardent opponents of change; the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Women’s voting rights, desegregation, equal rights.  Today we still have people opposing each of those advances and seeking to turn the clock back long after their issue has expired. These same opponents of adaptation also oppose every other new social issue. Any new change moves their beloved old issue further into history.

Nothing represents a potential break with the past like what post-pandemic America could look like. Human interaction, social and economic safety nets, the true price of societal division and the need for great empowerment and better communication for everyone may change us for the good. But those who oppose change will be fearful and withdraw and obstruct.

We will not all always agree with everybody’s idea of what represents good change. However, we need to hear and understand the ideas of what changes are possible before we decide. After all this, the United States may not be the same. Unavoidably, the way we live in it and manage it cannot stay the same. Even before the Corona virus this was not the country created by the fathers of the Constitution. It is something much more. Change is natural and indeed inevitable.

Blank Screen Exiles

A year ago, if my internet went out, it would be an inconvenience, even if it lasted a few hours. Today, under lock-down/stay-home/shelter in place, it would be a disaster.  For some; children, seniors and those physically or socially isolated, without the internet, it is a disaster.

In a pandemic world, the emerging utility of the internet has become crucial, overnight. The bits of the internet which early adapters and the younger audiences had already welcomed, have found an entirely new and desperate audience. Yes, some of us have been proselytizing these services for years. Now the skeptical, resistant, uniformed or disenfranchised segments of society have been dragged in without much choice..

This is a problem.  The internet, in the US, and most of the world, is not considered a public utility. It is not government owned and access to the public is not guaranteed.  The time has come for that to change.

The digital divide is certainly the original issue. However, the problem has now grown exponentially in its depth and complexity. It is not just about addressing economic disadvantage, or geographic bias, but the need to establish a national policy on primary internet availability and access regardless of any qualifiers.

We are not talking about nationalizing the internet, Google, Facebook or any other company, so calm down.

The challenge, and opportunity, is to ensure that every American has access to the internet. It is a necessity. For the safety and security of individuals as well as the economic and social stability of the country. The commerce and interactions over the internet are as integral a part of business and social interaction as going to the mall, the coffee shop, the doctor, or religious observances. 

A universal national service would be for basic access to necessary services such as email, medical, appointments, banking and other low bandwidth demands. This would not be a service to facilitate video games, movie or music streaming.

More robust, high bandwidth services would still be commercially available. There is no changing that. Think broadcast radio and television as opposed to cable or satellite services. Such free services already exist in some developing countries.

There are many challenges connected to such an idea. Free national public internet access does not automatically eliminate economic disparity. However, once the core, primary ability to access the internet is a given, the motivation and urgency to close the gap on the other related issues runs much higher. We must also be prepared for segments of society who will oppose such a change. The potential for such a service to change the face of our country is very real. That will threaten some people. We can be certain of that. 

The internet has been integrated into our lives for some time, it is now integral for living. Until we make our best effort to give everyone access to the basic tools for participating in the economy, society and government, it is impossible to say we honestly believe in freedom, equal opportunity and justice.

Internet Victim's Fund

Is anyone in favor of cyber hate? Is anyone in favor of hate online targeting people for their physical characteristics, age, sexual identity or religion? I doubt it.  So why does this type of abusive, exploitative, degrading content persist? The answer is simple, and basic to our current attitude toward the internet. Hate and falsehoods online are orders of magnitude easier to create than they are to challenge or remove. There are no mechanisms that level the playing field between facts and fictions, truth and falsehood, attack and defense. Hate and lies can take minutes to post, but days or months, if ever, to remove.

Some of the more responsible internet platforms, especially since the 2016 election, have instituted forms, programs, policies and departments to try and address the problem. But the problem is not just isolated to elections, and not just isolated to one platform.  Targeting of an individual or group is often cross medium and platform. When one channel or account is deleted, another backup account immediately takes over. This is all done with a few easy clicks. The only way for victims to fight this battle is with a massive investment of time by investigation, filing reports or civil lawsuits to gain information of the perpetrators. This all takes expertise, lawyers, and paperwork. All of which involves money.

The result of pushing back against multi-platform abuse, exploitation or targeting is that the victim is faced with a huge burden while the instigator may only have an account suspended, if at all. The few cases where there has been legal action represents a very small fraction of the real problem.

It is almost impossible to strike a balance between the posting and challenging of bad content. It is possible to give victims and targets of abuse a better set of tools to respond to bad situations. This must include offering experts, advocates and, when necessary financial support to oppose abusers and exploiters. Not all aggressive speech merits or requires punitive action, but for far too long we have failed to err on the side of the c=victim and given the victimizers almost free rein.

Once bad actors realize that anti-social, abusive, targeted, aggressively caustic and destructive behavior will be met with responses supported by industry and may involve serious consequences, then and only then will progress be made against cyber hate.

A Fire Drill Conceived by Steven King

One thing I have heard repeatedly in conversations about the Corona Virus pandemic or the U.S. national and local responses is, “at least we will be ready for next time.” This is a horrifying thought. It’s as if Steven King was asked to organize a fire drill to prepare for the end of the world.

I’m not sure which part of the newfound awareness from this practice disaster is least comforting. That segments of the national government are more concerned with money than life? That our fellow citizens are prone to panic buying of stupid things? That it took over a month for the federal government to admit there was actually a serious problem? That it took a near catastrophe to realize segments of the news media and major internet platforms have no sense of what a valid information source looks like? Maybe it was disturbing that, rather than focus on the problem, there was a distinct undertone of trying to blame the virus’s origin on “someone?” Or perhaps that there is a real sentiment by some Americans that people should be allowed to die as long as they are not my neighbors or in my community.

It almost feels like the revelation of an obvious yet important lesson.  Like, that next time, as a hurricane approaches, I won’t let the cat out. Never did see that cat again after hurricane Sandy!

Worst of all, to me, is the complacent acknowledgement that this will happen again in some form. This time it was maybe actually good. It was not Ebola, bubonic plague or something bad that killed people.  

Ultimately and sadly, just like out of a Steven King novel, it is not the disease that posed the worst danger, but us. That there are those people and companies who shamelessly profit from disaster or guard their profits by refusing to admit there is a disaster.

Yes, I learned a few things. I need to read more Steven King. And I need to think about who I want to cough on first when I catch whatever the next plague turns out to be.

Time to Take the Internet to Court

Almost all of the user safety measures implemented by major online companies have been put in place out of the platform’s fear.  Fear of litigation, regulation, legislation – fear. Altruism has very rarely carried the day when it comes to discussions with platforms about user protection.  Companies have a history of refusing to act with an abundance of caution when it comes to user safety, or even act with concern for victim safety until something disastrous happens and they have no choice. This has been true of many industries over the years, but the internet industry has always maintained it was something different and worked from a higher moral standard for society.

For the bulk of the internet’s existence platforms have offered users a Terms of Service (ToS) or other policy outlining the standards of behavior for users, repercussions for violations of those standards and protections for user’s information.  Unfortunately, ToS are not usually considered legally binding and many companies have seen fit to ignore stated obligations or modify outlined policies in their ToS to eliminate any embarrassing or inconvenient clauses.

Are the ToS a legally binding commitment or not?  More than a few platform’s opinions cite that the ToS, for the majority of services, are not offered in exchange for money, goods or service, which is one of the main characteristics of a binding agreement. However, that logic ignores that most ToS allow platforms to sell or use the user’s data. This makes the users a form of money, service or a product.  It certainly ignores that fact that it is the users who enable the platforms exist and prosper.  Platforms may well maintain that they protect the user data, but without protecting the real people behind the data, the results will eventually go wrong.

Why haven’t ToS been tested in court?  It is a risky strategy. If the court finds in the company’s favor, ToS become meaningless and companies will have nothing legally compelling them to enforce their policies or respond to requests to do so. If the court decides against the companies…the burden of formulating and enforcing livable policies this late in the game would be daunting for any industry. Either way a court decision in ToS would have extensive impact regardless of which way the court goes. As it should. This is issue that has been left unresolved for far too long.

The solutions are not simple, but the first order of business is to establish, in court, by legislation or by mutual and binding agreement, that ToS and other similar user safety and assurance policies are considered legally binding. That failure for companies to enforce their stated policies and standards is the equivalent of a breach of warrantee. Until there is a time when internet users can have reasonable faith in a platform’s policies, and know they have recourse if the platforms fail to enforce their policies, then all the moderators, bots and artificial intelligence content watchdogs in the world cannot truly fix the problems of abuse, exploitation, hatred, propaganda and racism the world is subjected to daily.

Bananas in Kaunas and the Illusion of a Safe Internet - Anything Can Look Like Progress.

In 1995, just a few short years after Lithuania reasserted its independence from Russia, I traveled to Kaunas. It still very much had the look and feel of a Soviet Bloc country, with small signs of change peeking through the cracks in the old authoritarianism. The most obvious sign of change were bananas. You couldn’t walk through Old Town Kaunas without seeing several tables of Banana vendors and banana peels in every public trash receptacle. We were told that this was the immediate visible impact of the Russian’s retreat. For all the propagandistic “glory” of the Russian governing system, they could not manage to effectively transport the delicate and quick perishing banana to market in the northern countries. Bananas started arriving when the Russians left.

Of course, in 1995, the fifty-year legacy of Russian domination was not automatically dispelled with the arrival of bananas. This indicator of a new transportation and commerce capability was not a goal instantly achieved, but the start of a long road to reconstruction. However, because the Soviet systems in Lithuania were so dysfunctional, bananas seemed like a great victory.

Small things, when so little has been done before, can seem like a great accomplishment, a success. It took almost another twenty years for Lithuania to reclaim its identity and economy after more than fifty years of Soviet neglect. Entrenched systems, habits and practices, regardless of how obviously ineffective, are hard to shed. We often opt to accept little victories as complete solutions in order to avoid the truth that heavy, difficult real solutions often require.

Sometime after 1995, with the Internet achieving critical mass to go commercial, it became obvious to observers that something was seriously wrong. Destructive, harmful and vicious content was emerging on every platform which allowed public content. Content moderation, filtering and meaningful policies about prohibited material were also nonexistent.  Worse yet, when the problem was pointed out, it was dismissed, excused, minimized and ignored by platforms, companies and government. An emerging problem was given all the room it needed to become established, and it did.

 By 2006, David Duke, National Socialist Movement, many chapters of the KKK and various other racist, neo-Nazi and fascist groups have websites, YouTube channels storefronts on Amazon, aggressively exploring the then new Facebook and Twitter. Extremist news websites Vanguard News Network and Stormfront are being cited on Google newsfeed as sources. When brought to the attention of the companies there is again an unwillingness to look into the face of the problem. A refusal to consider that extremists were mounting a coordinated effort to exploit the entire internet ecosystem. A refusal to consider supporting research into the problem.

The burden of proving hate was prevalent on the Internet and becoming normalized was left to civil society groups. It would need to be done without the access to deep data, or the financial and technical support of the major industry players. In 2006, this meant proving the range and depth of the problem would be difficult and expensive at best.

Companies began to slowly improve their policies in 2010, largely in response to the threat of legislation in the EU and lawsuits in the US. By 2015 the movement to improve the Internet appeared to be gathering steam. However, hate was still prevalent, evolving, but had largely been accepted as a necessary evil.

In August 2017, the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia finally demonstrated to the internet industry and America the result of the hate that had been spreading online. Although officially called to protest the potential removal extremist groups openly called for armed confrontation. In the end, one person died and many were injured when an extremist group member rammed a crowd with a car.

Finally, more concerted efforts were put into action. This is twenty years after the first indications that hateful content on the internet was poisoning the web, and ten years after a conclave with the tech industry asked for help studying the problem. In that time hate and misinformation continued to permeate the medium.

The efforts now in place appear to be significant. During an announced 6 week “monitoring exercise” conducted by trusted flagger organizations in  the EU, on request of the European Commission (EC), to check if social media were upholding their end of agreements made regarding enforcement of Terms of Service,  the enforcement by the platforms complied with the requirements. However, when the International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH), an EC monitoring organization, conducted a similar exercise but this time unannounced, the outcomes were completely different.

As recently as this week Facebook and Twitter refused to remove maliciously altered videos showing Nancy Pelosi incorrectly tearing up a copy Donald Trump’s State of the Union address during a tribute to veteran servicemen.

This reticence by major platforms to act consistently against destructive content diminishes their efforts to date and makes any ongoing efforts seem disingenuous. Are the platforms truly fighting for a safer internet or is this just like seeing Bananas in Kaunas in 1995 – a nice symbol, but not really addressing the problem.

Intolerance for Hate

For far too many years most of the anti-hate groups have preached respect and acceptance for abhorrent, corrosive and destructive beliefs. That is what free speech is all about, isn’t it? Where has that gotten us? Not to a good place - That is obvious. In our best effort to defend freedom of speech, we have instead enabled overt sectarianism in government, blatantly racist and hateful internet content, and social divisions founded on extremist propaganda. This is not the purpose of free speech, but here we are.

The twisted interpretations of free speech and freedom of religion that have been promoted by right-wing forces is as much a perversion of the founding father’s intent as Al-Qaida’s ethos is a perversion of Islam. For starters, free speech was never meant as a weapon against religious or social groups, but meant as a protection for speaking out against an unjust government. Equally, freedom of religion was meant to protect personal religious practice and never intended as a vehicle for imposing religious strictures on segments of society, groups or individuals.  Anyone saying freedom of religion is there to protect their beliefs at the expense of others is attempting to twist our founding principles for their own purposes.

Free speech in a government context is a law, which most U.S. jurisdictions have a fairly good handle on. In a civil context, free speech is a social contract agreed upon by fellow citizens as a foundation for frank interaction.

In a social context, free speech is not a law. It is limited by the society and, although it may extend beyond social conventions, it is not unlimited in itself.  In that sense, anyone who invokes free speech as an excuse to be dangerous, abusive or hateful surrenders their right to that protection under the social contract. Increasingly, interpretations of free speech laws are leaning in this direction.

Freedom works similarly and is yet more complex at the same time. “Love they neighbor…”, “Do unto others…” may not be the most important principles of religion for some people, but they are cornerstones of every major religion in some way. At the heart of the Constitution is the Amendment respecting the establishment and practice of any religion. As a nation we have always been committed to supporting the practice of religion in its full spectrum.  We accept that to have faith people to not need to follow rules defined by others; about the calendar, worship, clothes, food or sexuality. The implication by anyone that any practice invalidates a person’s religiosity is a negation of the denier’s freedom of religion. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is not called the "Golden Rule" for nothing.

Yet, in our efforts to defend free speech and freedom of religion, we have inadvertently allowed horrible hate, propaganda and incitement against our neighbors. In trying to prove sunlight is the best disinfectant, we have gotten burned. Extremists and hatemongers made the seemingly reasonable argument that censoring their hate would damage the principles of free speech or freedom of religion, while all the time, damaging the founding principles of our democracy was their actual goal. We blinked. We were not brave or bold. We erred on the side of caution.

The result has not been good.

Voicing intolerance to hate, bigotry, propaganda, distortions and falsehoods is the ultimate exercise of free speech. This challenge comes with great responsibility. We must be ready to know how to defend truth, how to define hate speech, how to define our principles and defend what we say. This is all new to most of us and we may get it wrong. We need to start teaching the children how to recognize and advocate truth. The need to acknowledge and celebrate honesty. We may now need to be intolerant of hate as never before so that there can be a future where free speech is not weapon but is embraced as the gift it was intended to be.