Week 10; Social Media Governance & Online Harassment.
For the final week we examined the need for controls and restrictions online that are in place in response to attempting to restrict online hate speech, harassment and explicit content from the wider audience.
Bromell (2022) states that whilst the internet is a state of the art service that provides great abilities to communicate, share information, expand trading opportunities and works wonders for democracy, it equally involves an evil side to the use. Providing the opportunity for bullying, abuse and the spread of misinformation which in turn can generate hostility and violence to occur offline (p. 1).
In recent years younger generations have been labelled by a term coined by older generations who grew up with little to no social media; ‘snowflakes’. Haslop et. al (2021), explains the phrase snowflake generation is used to mock younger individuals who are deemed overly sensitive to hate speech and harassment that these older generations have become accustomed to in their youth (p. 1419). They describe this online harassment as any malicious behaviour or speech online. This violent communication is motivated by hostility or prejudice generally against a specific individual or community who share certain interests or traits (p. 1420).
Marwick et. al, (2018, p. 545) suggests that this behaviour is often orchestrated and the frequency of the abuse online has accustomed young people (in particular young women) to this behaviour seeing it as silly name calling and hitting back with an insulting dismissal of boys will be boys.
There is a broad and diverse list of reasons for better content moderation online. Issues that promote violating human rights and threatening anyone's right to feel safe. However research shows the actions of harassment that promote the “digital divide” (Haslop et. al 2021, p. 1421) are most prevalent with females and LGBTQ+ communities experiencing the highest rates of targeted malicious content. In an attempt to combat this never ending overflow of hateful or violent speech and images that are swimming around social media and the internet each day. A response from the EU recently was the adoption of the Digital Services Act (DSA).
Brown (2022) reports that “It introduces important measures to increase transparency by requiring platforms to explain to users how they moderate content, how automated tools are used, and how many content moderators they use for each official EU language”.
The European Parliament has adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA), landmark regulation that sets rules for internet platforms across the Eu
Whilst regulations are struggling to maintain efficiency in an ever-advancing technological climate, the need is there as the wider public rejects this hateful online content, with the producers often slipping under the umbrella of ‘free speech’.
The 2019 terrorist attack on the Christchurch Mosque was allowed to go undetected online when the attacker live-streamed the event. Bromell investigated the issue in his research and explained that the response to this new age of digital terrorism was the development of a new independent body. Supported by numerous countries throughout Europe and Oceania. Bromell (p.10) concludes that the main objectives of these newer bodies include:
“Prevent—equip digital platforms and civil society groups with awareness, knowledge, and tools, including technology, to develop sustainable programmes in their core business operations to disrupt terrorist and violent extremist activity online;
Respond—develop tools and capacity, including through regular multistakeholder exercises, for platforms to cooperate with one another and with other stakeholders to mitigate the impact of a terrorist or violent extremist attack; and
Learn—empower researchers to study terrorism and counter-terrorism, including creating and evaluating best practices for multi-stakeholder co-operation and preventing abuse of digital platforms.”
The Guardian reported that Facebook was forced to reevaluate its moderation protocols after the video was found to be live-streamed through their site. Reporter Julia Wong communicated that the platform CEO issued statements saying the company would “reverse its previous policy and ban content that supports white nationalism and white separatism,”
Wong elaborated that “the company had previously made a distinction between white supremacy, which it banned, and white nationalism, which it allowed, despite an expert consensus that any such distinction is merely rhetorical.”
After two weeks of criticism, Sheryl Sandberg published a letter saying the company is exploring live stream video restrictions
In a separately impactful issue, Rugby Australia fired Wallabies player Israel Folau, in 2019, after he posted hate speech towards people of the LGBTQ+ community. His defence surrounded his ability to exercise religious free speech online and fought the ending of his rugby contract stating that these feelings and posts were a reflection of his religious values and went as far as to detest this in court. The company dismissed these claims with the proof that he had broken his code of conduct. This sparked an uproar in Australia calling for greater regulation of this type of aggressive content. A 2019 BBC article on the case suggested that the case had called for amendments to future contracts to eliminate the risk of this issue recurring.
Israel Folau's case against Rugby Australia may set a precedent for national employment law.
References:
British Broadcasting Corporation, 2019, ‘Israel Folau: Sacked player sues Rugby Australia over anti-gay row’, British Broadcasting Corporation, 1 August, viewed 8 May 2023, <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49187646>
Bromell, D, 2022, ‘Regulating free speech in a digital age : hate, harm and the limits of censorship’, Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
Brown, D, 2022, ‘EU Parliament Adopts Landmark Regulation of Internet Platforms’, Human Rights Watch, 7 July, Viewed 9 May 2023, <https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/07/eu-parliament-adopts-landmark-regulation-internet-platforms>
Haslop, C, O’Rourke, F, Southern, R, 2021, ‘#NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide, in a UK student online culture’,
Convergence, Vol.27, p.1418-1438.
Marwick, A, Caplan, R, 2018, ‘Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment’, Feminist media studies, Vol.18 (4), p.543-559.
Wong, J, 2019, ‘Facebook finally responds to New Zealand on Christchurch attack’, The Guardian, 30 March, viewed 9 May 2023, <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/29/facebook-new-zealand-christchurch-attack-response>












