Countering Online Hate Speech

“The opportunities afforded by the Internet greatly overshadow the challenges. While not forgetting this, we can nevertheless still address some of the problems that arise. Hate speech online is one such problem. But what exactly is hate speech online and how can we deal with it effectively?” – Getachew Engida, Deputy Director-General, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

This report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization broadly identifies online hate speech, analyses social responses that are complementary to legal measures taken against hate speech online, and identifies four results-oriented mechanisms that counteract and mitigate it. The study outlines how solutions should be grounded in a better understanding of how hate speech emerges and is spread across online and offline venues.

The report groups its findings into four major areas - definition, jurisdiction, comprehension, and intervention. Hate speech is a generic term that is broadly used and can either present a concrete threat to individual and group security, or it can be a medium through which anger at/with an authority is more generally vented. Governments have found it difficult to address hate speech in the virtual world through regulation but some companies have begun to address the problem on sites that provide a public platform (Facebook, Twitter). The relationship between hate speech online and resulting actions offline is poorly understood; and attempts to look at how hate content can lead to discrimination, hostility, or violence has been limited. Addressing these three major areas requires a variety of methods in the private, education, and government sectors.

Key recommendations outlined in the report include:

• “A collective effort among states and private entities should further refine and elaborate definitions of hate speech that are used among a broad variety of stakeholders and develop tests that indicate what can or cannot be characterized as hate speech.
• Better structural initiatives are needed within shared online spaces to allow reporting of instances of hate speech.
• Empower targets of online hate speech to demand respect, allowing them, rather than the state, to develop an effective response to hate speech.
• Develop initiatives that promote greater media and information literacy among young people, along with measures to evaluate the behavior of young people on and offline, and their ability to identify and counter hate messages.
• Although nation states have attempted to stretch their regulatory sovereignty into the digital domain, states should also work collaboratively with, and help to, fund nonprofit organisations and volunteer projects that campaign against hate speech.
• Social networking platforms can take a more proactive approach to addressing hate speech online by correlating and analyzing the data they have access to and using it to better understand the dynamics that characterize hate speech. Companies that own these platforms can make sharing this knowledge with other stakeholders part of their social responsibility mandate.”

In conclusion, the report makes that point that the emergence of hate speech online continues to evolve, and that a collective effort among a broad representation of stakeholders is required in order to develop an effective response. The complexity of hate speech online demands a tailored and coordinated approach.