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.