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.