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.