Hate speech on Facebook: How much is too much?
NEW YORK--One of the most troubling things about the proliferation of hate speech on social media sites is the potential exposure to young people, Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said here on Wednesday.
The Los Angeles-based Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights advocacy group, had just released its annual "Digital Terrorism and Hate" report, which this year is focused on the proliferation of hate and intolerance on social networks. The audience consisted primarily of students from Manhattan's Independence High School who were enrolled in a class about genocide and ethnic violence and who had been invited to listen to the presentation and provide their reaction to the conclusions.
"As more and more people are going to MySpace, YouTube, and especially Facebook, the extremists...they're going to exactly the same neighborhood," said Cooper, who met with Facebook representatives in Palo Alto, Calif., earlier this year to voice concerns about the amount of content promoted by extremists on the social network.
The timing was especially apt considering the recent prominence in the news of Holocaust denial groups on Facebook, and the social network's insistence that such groups would only be removed if they directly advocated violence or threats. That, company representatives said, is what falls under a violation of the site's terms of service.
It's obviously an extremely contentious issue. TechCrunch blogger Michael Arrington posted a long entry last weekend accusing Facebook of hypocrisy for letting Holocaust denial groups to remain intact whereas all forms of nudity are 100 percent banned on the social network. Some commenters applauded his stance against Facebook, whereas others accused Arrington of "page view trolling" or argued that "allowing these groups to post in public places like Facebook makes it easier to create tabs on when merely speech (though appalling) turns into a push for violence against the hated group."
Facebook employee Ezra Callahan joined the debate, posting a long "note" on Facebook about why he supports the company's decision to leave some of the Holocaust denial groups intact. Callahan, who is Jewish (as is, he pointed out, company founder Mark Zuckerberg), wrote, "I find the mounting pressure on us to remove Holocaust-denying groups incredibly frustrating. I feel no shame at all working at a company that holds free speech as its core ideal in setting content guidelines, even if the end result is the occasional presence of content that I find personally outrageous and offensive."
"Silencing stupid people is not how you make stupid people go away. It's by pointing out how stupid they are and bringing those people into the light of day so everyone with a shred of common sense can see who they are and remember never to give them an ounce of respect in any aspect of life," Callahan wrote. "You do not combat ignorance by trying to cover up that ignorance exists. You confront it head on. Facebook will do the world no good by trying to become its thought police."
Callahan, as many commenters on his original post pointed out, may not be justified in saying that Holocaust denial groups that don't directly incite violence shouldn't be removed from Facebook. At the event Wednesday, Cooper suggested that when it comes to an atrocity on the scale of the Holocaust, anything promoting denial of its existence amounts to advocating violence.
But Callahan does have a point. If Facebook aspires to a culture of free speech, where should the line be drawn? There are a lot of fringe ideas and beliefs in religion, culture, and even academia that the Internet has allowed to bubble to the surface, from theories about 9/11 having been carried out by the Bush administration to environmental extremists who believe it's a moral and just act to vandalize Hummer dealerships. Many gay rights activists would say that some very mainstream religious denominations' views of homosexuality are tantamount to hate speech, and some animal rights activists would undoubtedly argue that a Facebook group for hunting fans serves to incite violence.
The issue also stands when it comes to comedic and satirical content on the Web. Should YouTube pull a clip from the movie "Borat" in which star Sacha Baron Cohen performs a "folk song" promoting the marginalization of Jewish people, because the three-minute clip doesn't explain that what appears to be a vicious anti-Semitic tirade is actually a satirical routine performed by an edgy Jewish comedian?
Cooper made it clear in his talk on Wednesday that there is no way to eradicate hate speech on the Web, bringing up a screenshot of a prominent white supremacist on YouTube who has been banned by the Google-owned video-sharing site over 60 times and keeps coming back.
"If they're spending all their creative time on hate, they will more often than not find ways to come back," he explained.
Cooper said that what's more important--and why the centerpiece of the announcement was the presence of a class of high schoolers--is education and awareness. The Wiesenthal Center distributed an "action plan" for parents that advocated tips like "make sure your child understands the difference between legitimate criticism or analysis or hate that seeks to rewrite history," and "communicate and challenge your kids: just because it's posted doesn't make it true or real.
Facebook might not be right in refusing to take down all Holocaust-denying content, and indeed, the social network is in a tight spot here. But here's where it's right on: A precedent could be set here that's dangerous at worst and annoying at best (see what happened when LiveJournal started purging its ranks of accounts that housed tawdry "Harry Potter" fan fiction) if Facebook doesn't handle the situation carefully. When it comes to the young and impressionable, deciding where to draw the line should be up to parents and educators, not the technology company that built the site that lets you "poke" your friends.
Simon Wiesenthal Center's 2009 report, "Facebook, YouTube +: How Social Media Outlets Impact Digital Terrorism and Hate"
(Credit: Simon Wiesenthal Center)
Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline. 
""""""do this: Click a blank space on your Facebook page and push these keys: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? B A ENTER then click around the page check it out! (thanks Ivan)"""""
I think we can all see from the racial environment in Europe how well censorship laws against pro Nazi groups have done. If they're still having to play games in empty arena because fans are making up racial taunts I don't think it's done that well. The way to defeat these groups is not with less speech; it's with more.
And when you ban these groups they'll end up either popping right back up or starting on systems like Freenet.
Hate speech is nothing new and it has been on the internet for the better party of it's existence. The Klu Klux Klan have maintained a website devoted to hate since the mid 90's and various other groups have done the same. It should come as no surprise that it shows up on fad websites like Facebook and YouTube. As the rep from Facebook correctly pointed out, deleting their groups and postings to various sites or criminalizing it is treating symptom but not addressing the underlying cause. Prejudice and hatred that inspired the creation of those groups and posting will still live on in the people that created them and those who agree with them. They will find other avenues to express themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/us-creationism-teacher-first-amendment
I would rather live with the hate speech, knowing that it is the product of ignorance, than live in a society that throws people in jail for saying something some else doesn't like under the banner of fighting hate speech.
If you do not agree with a persons page, speech etc. Then navigate and promote a site you do agree with.
I find it appalling that technology sites are limiting any type of free speech.
There's no such thing as "too much hate speech" as far as freedom of speech is concerned. Unless you're looking for gulags and dictatorship, of course. If you block speech, the only thing that will happen, is the thug that happens to be running your government next will use those very laws against you. Read a history book sometime, and then try not to repeat everything in it, ok?
If a site is not based on fact, then it is based on fiction or beleif. If it's fiction, then it's a form of art and protected. If it's a beleif, then it's religion and also protected. Holocaust deniers are members of a beleif system which probably could be called the religion of Anti-judaism. If any of these social networking sites wants to, there's nothing keeping them from placing a disclaimer on the index page, or a warning of the "anti-social" content of the pages.
Keep in mind these social networking sites are NOT federal government organizations, but private companies, and as such, are not subject to the first amendment. The feds aren't supposed to tell them what they can and cannot post; but they can choose to censor themselves, or not.
Fringe organizations thrive on adversity. The more you try to suppress them, the more they keep croppign up. Better to drag them into the light where you can keep an eye on them than to squash them down to breed and fester in the darkness.
Christians and other none Jews met the same fate as those who cry wolf every time someone that voices an opinion not in line with the Jews is made.
What happens when a Jewish girl want to marry a non Jew? ..... The parents go nuts and are out for blood.
If we draw a line it will inevitably be moved higher and higher until anyone who denies the existence of God or Jesus will be subject to criminal penalties, in addition to those imposed by your religious beliefs.
Google has it right. Put the spotlight on the morons who advocate hate. Point to them as an example of genetics gone wrong. Shout your disapproval from every street corner. That is free speech at its finest.
As for Holocaust Denial, that would be a no-brainer: it would be off the forum in a heartbeat and the poster would be told to leave it off or get banned. Why should a privately run site be considered a free-for-all for any idiot with a warped mind and a dial-up connection?
- by nashvillemusicman August 13, 2009 4:32 PM PDT
- I thought Facebook was priding itself on being a site which values and honors the right to free speech and the free exchange of ideas and thoughts between friends, family and the world community. I am always conscious of their terms of service and I never get confrontational or use offensive langauge in my posts.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(20 Comments)Last night I posted a couple of remarks about my views on healthcare and many others remarked on my page.. I also posted a YouTube video about healthcare.. I awoke thiis morning to find that my Facebook account had been deleted. I had almost 2500 friends and over 2 years worth of blogs in my notes and several hundred photos on this site. I was very active and never misused the online forum. Coincidently, I got a certified email today from the White House..from the President's Senior Advisor regarding the proposed health care plan.. I find this very interesting ..especially in this current climate..so...what is Facebook up to and is Washington really watching us? These are heated times indeed and we don't need to lose our voices. Stan M.