All of the biggest social media companies were started and owned by conservative political activists. They are not? You mean they were started by liberal capitalists? Who would have known that.
4
@Shamrock
-Money is its own politics
If over 11,600 people made
the effort and had the accounts
to post hatred for Jews on Instagram,
I can not imagine how many others
felt and spoke of their prejudice.
To be pleased that a 97 year old woman,
a physician & a dentist, two developmentally
disabled brothers, to name 5 of the 11,
were murdered in cold blood is
incomprehensible. How do we process
the fact that this invites
more hatred on social media?
Are haters ever sated?
We have to make it more
difficult for these people to have
the means to carry out their
evil impulses.
6
The social media companies hide behind “Freedom Of Speech” as if the Constitution extends into their virtual worlds, but make no mistake... it’s not about Freedom. It’s about Money. If you don’t post on their site, you’ll post on someone else’s. That’s the only thing that matters to them.
5
Social Media... the scourge on earth. $$$$$$. All American culture seems to care about.
I hold “ them “ responsible.
It wasn’t about free speech. It was about $$$$and ego.
They produced, & reinforced the hate, and continued to provide the means for mankind to demonstrate their absolute worst characteristics.
And most believe they are God loving.....
3
People feel so emboldened to say whatever, hidden behind their cell phones and computer screens.
What I don’t understand is Zuckerberg. Isn’t he Jewish? Why doesn’t he care?
Some of us have long avoided Facebook and it’s ilk for these obvious reasons. I don’t see Social media as a tool for the positive.
I deleted all my accounts when Trump arrived on Twitter.
3
It’s easy to see why social media is so addictive. I realized how when I was scrolling through these comments with a mere supposedly purposeful flick of my thumb how stupid I must have used to look when otherwise only mindlessly twiddling them. But at least then I strengthened them both together.
After reading this article I searched for #jewworldorder on Instagram there are 10,200 posts, nearly the same as was reported. Apparently Facebook doesn't see a problem with this because most of the parts are still there. I'll be voting with my feet.
The problem is the internet. Most people are not intelligent enough, or know how to think critically enough, to discern truth from fiction. It's destroying this country.
4
Of these 11,696 posts, we have little information about who posted these messages or where they are located. Could this be largely the work of a handful of people overseas? We don't know. So, it is dangerous to use this as a metric for the general level of hate in this country.
We are not trained to deal with a flood of false and misleading information. Additionally, millions of people glum onto falsehoods because it makes them feel better about themselves and their choices in life. They drink it in like nectar when it is, in fact, poison.
Unhappy, disturbed people want to share that state with everyone. As Bob Dylan sang a long time ago about a person "who cares not to come any higher/but get you down in the hole he's in".
The breakdown in trusted sources for news and information is part of the larger problem, but in many cases people who see conspiracies everywhere and who believe everything is a plot didn't consult major media anyway. It is so much more fun to see something that might be true and spread it around.
The first rule that every decent person should follow is to not re-post clips and memes on sites like Facebook unless they come from responsible sources or represent something that the person re-posting knows to be true. Just posting it to rile up other people is disgusting and ugly.
We've always had half crazy elements in American society and politics, but they were standing a mile away from your house and now they are shouting at you in your living room. If you are not well grounded, if you haven't looked closely or studied American history and politics, you are a sitting duck. Clearly, one of the first steps is a better education system that emphasizes the ability to carefully gather information and to think for yourself.
4
I deleted my Instagram account.
I have also decided to attempt to patronize businesses that also have deleted their accounts or don’t have one.
Done with the stream of hate flowing through social media. I will no longer be a part of it. Pathetic.
2
For all ya’ll wrapping yourself in the US Constitution and right to “freedom of speech”, please at least read the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The words are very clear...”Congress shall make no law... “. While we may think Facebook or Instagram or Gab or any social media platform company as having governmentalpowers to communicate to millions of people, the simple fact is that they ARE NOT the US or State Government nor are they Congress. They are legal entities (i.e. corporations) with no legal power to enact laws.
You DO NOT have a Constitutional right to “freedom of speech” on any privately owned social media platform; that includes this Comment Section on the NYT. Yes, they have every right to monitor, censor, and ban people who spew hateful and hurtful and false information.
Put another way, the “freedom of speech” guaranteed by the US Constitution is not an unlimited, unrestricted right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, however you want. It has limits, just like every other Constitutional right. If you don’t believe me, go read the Federalist AND Anti-Federalist papers....
“Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest.”
2
This isn’t only a social media question. Fox News has been essentially spewing fact free hate content for 20 years. People are being “radicalized” by Fox News every day. When hatred of your fellow citizens is being stoked every hour on the hour on a mainstream cable news network, how would anyone be surprised when social media then devolves into full on calls for their deaths?
3
Go on a social media platform and search these hashtags and you will see that it's rampant. Fix it!
How many of these radical comments came from other countries? Is it possible to tell?
I think (if one watches, and listens carefully to PBS Frontline documentary about Facebook) that there is absolutely no "moral or ethical" responsibility on "Social Media" - certainly not on Facebook. Does anyone believe that if there was a shout of a "Jew" during the Nuremburg Hitler rallies that there would not be a killing?
Once again, most people, unfortunately will follow anything that moves. They'll believe anyone that will bring them a scapegoat, a reason for their peril. Enter stage Right - Trump.
Social media has NO moral, ethical, or human content - it is all algorithms - data bits - and advertising profit - greed, consumer manipulation and complete invasion of privacy. We're all being watched and being used.
2
Just now scrolling through Instagram and I stopped to view the latest video on a page I follow (and support), the US Holocaust Museum’s post, “Why do they hate us,” featuring an Auschwitz survivor. And there’s a comment posted, it’s still there, which reads: [sic] “ Cuz yr Jewish.” Still utterly disgusted this is allowed to stand, not to mention the virulence of anti-Semitism everywhere.
1
The irony is that these same companies promise advertisers the ability to target consumers down to the pixel, but suddenly turn into befuddled tech luddites when asked to detect and scrub toxic disinformation. Why is this so hard to fix? It's not, except for one reason: because Silicon Valley can utter no more sacred word than “scale.” Put a check on trending hate speech posts and multiplying supremacist fanatic followers, and you curtail user growth. It's not right, it's not moral, but it's real.
Everyone should be sure to watch Frontline's two part (part one was last night) The Facebook Dilemma. Part one exposed Mark Zuckerburg and Cheryl Sandberg for the money-grubbers they were and are. They ignored warning after warning that FB was actually being used for inciting violent uprisings in the Middle East and Ukraine. They ignored even their own employees who could see the problems in the platform. Once they opened FB platform to third parties the game was over-they were fabulously rich and users privacy was forever corrupted. Don't know what part 2 will cover but I would like to hear further investigation about the use of FB in US political campaigns since 08. It's very likely that their lobbyists huge campaign contributions (tech now has the most lobbyists in DC) and/or worse, user information to politicians. We know that Obama's campaign was actually lauded for its clever use of the platform in 08 and especially in 12 (Romney used it as well). In exchange it seemed regulatory agencies kept an arms length at least!
I'd love for all social media sites to shut down for 30 days to flush out faux profiles, update software, et. al. and let the world catch its collective breath without the aid of social media.
I don't use social media but still feel the negative effects of its existence. It's become like secondhand smoke to me. Still cancerous and I feel badly for people who have become addicted to it.
2
Drop these platforms. They are using your personal identity and photos for $
Actually why can't any hashtag reference to 911 just get flagged? Not only is it a date of horrific terrorism but also is the number used for dialing emergencies. Why would anyone use it unless it's a remembrance or a true emergency?
The only way to demand accountability from the social media gods is to leave them. Quit facebook, twitter, instagram. They do not serve us, they threaten us. Eleven people died this weekend I believe in part because one man's hatred was aided and abetted by a free platform of social media. He used another site, a cheap copy of our national obsession. We have sacrificed civility, kindness, respect and privacy all so we can strut our private lives and thoughts online. Please my fellow American citizens for all our sakes give this up.
1
blaming social media has always been the fall back. the printing press was soundly condemned by the church back when it made books, bibles, newspapers, pamphlets and broadsides available. marx didn't have social media, he managed to spread his ideas just as widely. hitler and the nazis had their own propaganda machine, movie reels, newspapers, broadsides, radio... they surely did a lot of damage without twitter and facebook. i am not sure what the solution is but i don't know that banning social media will do more than slow down the dissemination of evil.
9
It is impossible for naturally impulsive humans of any stripe to keep their mouths shut. I see social media as counterintuitive and have found The Times blogs to be my only regular outlet. Even then these postings are anonymous and we all can pretend to be whomever.
No society can function without limits to expression. The concept that Americans have a right to say anything they want is ridiculous.
Check any youtube video about Israel, no matter how simple ( food, tourism, language+) and you will encounter many anti-Jewish comments.
However, this is not a new phenomenon, in my experience.
The difference, as is pointed out in the article, is that the anonymity and easy access to the web and the possibility of reaching millions of people with a few hastily typed words on a keyboard, allows anyone to post anything.
Truth is in short supply on the net.
And then there is censorship on the part of possibly well intentioned minders.
In the last few weeks two of my comments ( one on Trump and his war on transgenders and another on the shootings in Pittsburgh) have received Editor's Pick designations.
Almost every comment I write on any topic is approved for posting on the NY Times comments section.
Except for one topic.
No matter how well documented, reasoned, and thoughtful, all of my comments on the anti-Semitic tone of the current Washington, DC city council elections, pitting a black mayor, a rabidly anti-Semitic councilman, and an anti-Semitic man on the staff of the mayor, against Elissa Silverman ( I), a Jewish woman who is seeking re-election, none of these comments are ever approved for posting.
The Times seems to have ignored this story entirely.
The Washington Post has written several articles and an editorial on the topic.
I have no idea what makes my comments on this topic unacceptable. Could it be that mentioning black racism is taboo in the Times?
5
Posts referenced in this article should create more disdain and disgust for the thoughts they promote. Sadly, for too many it only inflames the ignorance.
It seems clear that the value of traffic is such that it takes to censor after the fact will continue to fail.
One solution that must be used is to review information before it is posted. It would require a system in which they did participants do not have to use their posts for a review. One can assume that the vast majority of users would fall in that category.
Now it is daunting to think of the effort to transition to researchers system, it could be done gradually by isolating known bad actors. Facebook and other providers must step up to the job.
It seems clear that the value of traffic is such that it takes to censor after the fact will continue to fail.
One solution that must be used is to review information before it is posted. It would require a system in which they did participants do not have to use their posts for a review. One can assume that the vast majority of users would fall in that category.
Now it is daunting to think of the effort to transition to researchers system, it could be done gradually by isolating known bad actors. Facebook and other providers must act.
O brave new world that has such people (as mark Zuckerberg) in it. Perhaps he was actually born yesterday? Otherwise, there’s no excuse.
Why don't these social media platforms screen out these hate messages.
Whomever screams the loudest, most offensive, most divisive things imaginable - that's what sells. Just ask Donald Trump and his sycophantic cohorts in the modern GOP.
The day it stops selling, is the day their reign comes to an end.
Stop buying it, and they'll all go out of business.
Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press begot the wide distribution of ideas and information both dangerous and enlightening. In the end, and not without cost, it contributed a pathway out of a dark Hobbesian world of cruelty and violence.
Is a similar paradigm is now occurring with digital social media.
I agree with those who suggest that we would do better without social media, that we could find genuine "likes" and "friends,"and make better use of our time, especially since this unchecked background noise does seem to bring about the worst in human nature.
I disagree strongly that we as a society can ever agree to put that genie back in the bottle, any more than it would be possible to un-invent the Internet or email. Our society can't even agree on providing health care our reversing climate change. That leaves it to platforms to devise much more effective means of policing themselves, with standards that we all can agree (?) on.
Yes, there really are people this bad saying things this bad. Let's see it. All of it. We can't afford to be naive in a plague zone, and we're in one right now. Social media is the microscope we nee. By looking down deep into the muck we see the pathogens that have always been there. All that has changed is the visibility, the implications, and the timely extinction of our simplistic assumptions. There really are people this bad saying things this bad, and what they plan to do is what we need to know.
5
@Next Conservatism problem is, social media isn’t just revealing it, it’s actively stoking and amplifying it. A mob isn’t merely a collection of individuals.
4
You are both absolutely correct.
It is easy to imagine social sites with standards for behavior. Membership is contingent on civility etc. Nothing new here. People are not allowed to make noise in libraries.
7
When were you last in an actual public library? They've become more like childcare facilities and homeless shelters than sanctums for quiet study. People brazenly carry out long and loud phone conversations. Children run around. I can't remember the last time I've seen a librarian shush anyone.
As for your larger point: When you act as thought police and exclude people from public forums for the ideas they express, you only push them into ever darker corners where they'll encounter ever fewer people to challenge their views and develop an ever greater persecution complex. You're also giving up on the entire notion of the free exchange of ideas which undergirded the Enlightenment and the foundation of the United States, and giving in to the tyranny of majority opinion.
@Phyllis Mazik seriously. Dorsey and Zuckerberg want to whinge about how they can’t but what they really mean is they won’t. Their entire business models depend on the mob depravity they claim to not be able to control. Facebook and Twitter are the worlds biggest dumpster fires and that is their entire reason for existing.
I have an idea, why not boycott social media for a time period or simply, not engage for a while. Allow yourself to seek other forms of information and entertainment. Is it possible for the average American who is attached to their phones for one reason or another to at least consume less or not at all?
5
You can be on your phone and laptop quite happily without Facebook or Twittter. I have refused to use either. I have no need to broadcast my life. I am missing family photos, but I will not support these sites, especially now.
6
The problem with social media is that it gives everyone a soap box to stand on, where as in the past you had to stand on the street corner on your soap box to be heard now your corner is the world.
The only good thing to come out of this is that it also gives those that are willing a place to express the love and good deeds that are done and hopefully not over shadowed by the hate.
4
I worked for 25 years alongside the corporate culture that dominates the Bay Area. The agape posture workers in that ecology take toward technology and and its implementation guarantees the type of morass described in this article. Why?
1) The tech folks have little respect for history. Unless its the history (hagiography) of their own brethren.
2) Their problem is not idealism. Its cynicism. Its still about the money first. The idealism people notice is marketing whitewash or internal brainwash.
3) They are arrogant. They are also tribal.
Tech is a kind of colonization that folks who love machines are blinded by. And and if they do wake up, as the recent NYT pieces on how folks in the tech center regulate the uses of their products by their own children, they seem to find it alarmingly difficult to question their masters.
It behooves tech users to think, with their pocketbooks, how connected decent humans need to be. I wager the answer is less, rather than more.
6
@Southern
I don’t think that agape means what you think it means, in either definition:
“Agape (Ancient Greek ἀγάπη, agapē) is a Greco-Christian term referring to love, "the highest form of love, charity" and "the love of God for man and of man for God".
“Agape: wide open”
I found myself responding to another poster and realized that I wanted to say this more broadly about social media and what we have unleashed.
Can't remember the author, but he commented about why the Stasi was able to exist in East Germany; he compared it to the practice of shaming at the pillory in the public square. These practices thrive when there is a mechanism to feed that part of us that wants it. Many of us can keep it in check, but who hasn't at least lowered oneself to gossip?
There is a PBS Frontline special currently airing dealing with the rise and development of social media. What it appears to be unveiling is what we once feared from automation written about in science fiction. The surprise is that it is not the machine becoming self-aware that is the danger. Rather, it appears to be a collective conscience of some of us motivated by the worst of our natures, acting together, empowered by social media.
In other words, the Frankenstein monster we have built is not a being, but a software program that frees the worst of us to reveal and empower the worst part of ourselves, together, with others.
Ignoring social media will not fix this. It will require work.
8
"YouTube said it has strict policies prohibiting content that promotes hatred or incites violence and added that it takes down videos that violate those rules."
It takes down the videos? Why would it not take down the videos and permanently ban the person / entity that put that video up? A video that promotes hatred or incite violence is not going to be a one-off.
9
Social media companies should consult Trump About misinformation, since he is a genius at this kind of speech.
3
I share the same last name as one of the murdered. We can trace our family tree back to 1812 in Poland. There are hundreds of us here and still alive in America. My dad defeated Nazis in North Africa after he enlisted in 1939 ( thru 1944). He was awarded a Bronze Star. I served. We will defeat every last one of you. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
14
Tech entrepreurs, developers and anyone who was involved at the advent of social media was warned about hate online. I was reporting on tech at the time and saw the lack concern about online hate. Hatred was seen in newsgroups, new paper comments sections,online forums and blogs. It was well know. But developers didnt care. In the early days of Twitter, several women received death threats and other harrassment and while Twitter's ToS said it would remove offenders it never did. The problems we have now come from a laissez faire attitude about social networks, coupled with a desire to demonstrate their earning potential. Venture cap investors needed to be paid back, so all principles and monitoring for hate speech went out the window. "First Amendment!" the developers claimed but the real reason was money. The reason for inaction has always been money. Safety of others was never a consideration regardless of what the ToS said.
6
I used to believe that "letters to the editor" offered the vindictive and punitive among us the opportunity to vent, short of picking up a weapon. Now I well know that hatred cannot be diverted from it's path of least resistance in a society that refuses to celebrate and reward tolerance and encourage diversity.
4
Traditional human communities worked by word of mouth and filtered out bad ideas by simply not repeating them.
When newspapers first arose, editors enforced content standards.
The scope of social media posts need to be limited in terms of the maximum number of views permitted and restricted to a person’s group of friends.
Only moderated high quality posts should be allowed to go viral and this needs to be enforced by law.
2
Free speech is the constitutional right of every American. The effort to limit speech is undermines our nation's core principals.
2
Hate speech is not free speech, and social media platforms enforcing their terms of service is not a violation of freedom of speech.
8
No it isn’t. There are the seven famous words not allowed to be broadcast on the air. Only prime time cable can show full nudity. There are many restrictions on speech in the USA. If only there were as many restrictions on military style guns...
9
@Jacob Somers
Free speech rights govern what the state can do to the citizen. They do not apply to the private sector. I do not allow racist or sexist speech in my house. My house, my rules.
It's nice to think that if we just monitored social media more, hate wouldn't exist, or at least be as bad. But the sad truth is that Jews have been a target of hate for over a millennia, in every part of the world they have lived in. Hate is taught. It is passed down from generation to generation, from uneducated parent to innocent child, from heartless President to his angry base. Human behavior does not begin with Facebook, but with the faces of those who lead you, those who you admire and love. We must all teach those we love to love others, regardless of their race, color or creed. That is the American way, and the human way.
14
For every other public problem, the discussion is about identifying and eliminating the causes of the problem, not only dealing with its symptoms. But for anti-Semitism, that doesn't happen. Why?
The big elephant in the anti-Semitism room is that Christianity, as a whole, has promulgated theology and teachings that villainize Jews. The history is very clear. And while the specific accusations of Christian animosity and hatred of Jews has morphed over the centuries, the core dogma and teaching that Jews are spiritual enemies of Christianity hasn't changed. That's the wellspring and reason anti-Semitic feelings persist over the generations.
Social media is just a means for those imparted teachings to be shared among the masses. Even without social media, there would be just as many people with anti-Semitic feelings.
8
The first step toward returning civility to social media is to block Donald Trump's postings. His rhetoric is responsible for the increase in racial and religious hate messages.
8
Support your local newspapers
The cheapness of the information affects the quality because fake news is easy and cheap to manufacture online.
For good information read a paper or book it’s too expensive to produce in most cases.
The same for voting let’s use paper.
12
Reading the comments brings a feeling that I’m among the remnants waiting on the beach for the atomic cloud to wipe us out. Personally, before last week, I just found the internet irritating and without adding significant pleasure or happiness to my life. Now it has become apparent that it is a powerful negative force. Trump and the social media have opened Pandora’s Box, society ‘s evil demons flying out.
8
If there were no pseudonyms and everyone's name was published then there would be a lot less of this abuse of a social media to promote hate and violence.
This is one way to stop people before they even start.
24
I see alot of people saying that the best way to live is without any social media, and while it is true that alot of social media is an echo chamber for hate. There is also alot of good that can be found on Social Media, Support Groups on Reddit and other online forums can be just as supportive as some are destructive.
Most Social Media sites are portals with doorways going in multiple directions. Social Media is incredibly powerful but perhaps a little bit of mentoring is needed in order to see the full benefit.
Just my thoughts don't roast me too hard.
4
I distrust the government to control speech just as much I distrust corporations, social media platforms, activists, journalists, religious organizations, etc.
Leave speech outside of top-down control.
I'm an adult and can make my own decisions and don't need the ideas and content I'm exposed to censored for my overly delicate ears.
2
@Mmm "I'm an adult and can make my own decisions and don't need the ideas and content I'm exposed to censored for my overly delicate ears."
That's good, but you aren't the only person out there. Rules, laws, an even informal policies sometimes have to be geared towards protecting the most vulnerable, rather than those people who can protect themselves. (Or, to take it up one level, towards protecting us *from* those who are most vulnerable *by* protecting them.)
7
@William Starr I disagree. First, I distrust any censor with power over what information I (or others) can access. Take a look at the outrage expressed by many far left activists when someone violates PC norms -- not even hate speech or even racist speech, but arguably (subjectively) insensitive speech like that Google employee who said something along the lines of "the gender gap in Silicon Valley is due to more men self-selecting into technical fields". He was fired.
I don't want these people controlling free access to information the same way I don't want the government too--they'll abuse their power and discretion to serve their own ends and further their own causes and values. Free speech means hands-off. Debate, rebuttal, and argument rather than censorship.
Second, to say free speech must yield to the most sensitive is an argument that's been made before regarding pornography and other uncomfortable messages and I thought was rejected as the whole point of free speech is to shield speakers AND listener's from majoritarian dictates.
The point of the First Amendment is we all have the right to think freely, listen to whatever we want, read whatever we want and make up our own minds without the powers that be telling us otherwise.
I'm well aware that the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to be heard on a private social network. But if you truly believe in free speech values, you'd advocate for that right all the same.
1
It's a real shame that none of these social media platforms has any way to control this. But I guess that's okay. It's not like anyone's going to take it offline into real life, right?
7
It has become obvious, over the course of the last two years, that social media really do have potential to create havoc with democracies, and to privilege extremist discourse and to incite extremist political behavior. I am curious to know what discussions are taking place among those who study media, free speech, and legislation of the press, about what legal frameworks should be developed in order to curb the outsize influence of social media. I know that we need more data in order to demonstrate the pernicious effects of social media on civil society. But so many people would feel less desperate if there were some visible proposals about how these effects could be curbed through legislation and/or legislative pressure on the companies who own social media.
4
Excuse me but the social media platforms are fully capable of monitoring and deleting hate speech and sites that propagate it. If they are smart enough to create sophisticated algorithms then they are capable of writing them to recognize hate. Let’s stop making excuses for them as to why they can’t manage these sites.
22
May we conclude that free speech (in this case hate speech) is a right guaranteed only in anonymity?
6
11,696 posts in the headline?? Really helpful to readers to know how much of this hateful, nauseating response was really unique posts by individuals, and how much robot/machine-driven auto responses. How big is this problem? A hundred or so crazies who need to be put back under the rocks they've crept out from - until they can heal or control themselves. Or really almost 12K crazies activated in 24 hrs??? Please get past the clickbait and clarify the problem that you've uncovered.
5
Here's a thought -leave Facebook and shut down Instagram. Also, when soemone lies - call them out immediately and publically - Don't be a Sarah Sanders, do good instead. There are still plenty of sources and the world would benefit. When you allow rotten poeple to spew their filth and lies without barriers or consequence - thats when there wll be trouble. Tune out, turn on, drop out.....
8
It would be remiss to blame social media for all the world's evil when comments on newspaper sites can get pretty vitrolic.
5
Psalm 58:3,4 warns us , "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.
Their venom is like the venom of a snake,
like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears"
Warning applies to rulers (58:1,2)
"Do you rulers indeed speak justly?
Do you judge people with equity?
No, in your heart you devise injustice,
and your hands mete out violence on the earth."
1
"Social media companies have said that identifying and removing hate speech and disinformation — or even defining what constitutes such content — is difficult."
What an embarrassing statement. This is why it is difficult to take Silicon Valley's diversity commitments seriously.
They have no trouble defining what it constitutes when they make grand gestures like firing Neo-Nazi sympathizers, or sacking the inordinate number of Permit Patties that keep springing up among their Bay Area employees. They know what it is when Sheryl Sandberg hosts (overwhelmingly white) women's empowerment conferences. Zuckerberg's demanding that the Black Lives Matter banner be put back on the wall at Facebook corporate indicates he gets it. The Alex Jones removal shows everyone gets it.
One could hope that this tragedy will spark a genuine and vigorous attempt to put the Genie back in the bottle, but it is easy to imagine what @realDonaldTrump will tweet about that.
3
On a daily basis I go on Rolling Stone's website and there is one particular individual that spews hate about everyone - women, people of different races, Jewish people, etc. I finally got so fed up with this troll that I told him or her that he needs to dial back his hateful rhetoric. I ended my comment by saying "You are being watched!!!" After that, this troll illustrated much more restraint in his/her comments. Maybe it's time to instill some paranoia in these hate-mongers.
4
Some chat boards have ways to flag violators. I have no problem using it.
2
It’s time to rethink social media. If a newspaper published lies about me
to hurt me, I can sue them. The same should be true of social media. When you post, you are essentially ‘publishing’ on a platform meant for public view.
If you claim that Jews were behind 9/11, or you forward or friend it or retweet it, you are libelous. Plain and simple. A few empty bank accounts would take the air out of this hate-filled balloon very quickly.
5
Illustration 11,697 resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
3
I think that the NYT's front page editors were far too kind in writing the banner for this article. The problem is not that the social media companies "never quite understood." The problem is that they never quite cared. In that regard, they are not different than the sort of mining company that dumps all of the pollutants into a stream - as long as the filth doesn't affect them, its consequences do not matter.
8
@Quiet Waiting Absolutely. Watch the Frontline part 2 tonight, part one online now. Many saw the problems and tried to warn FB. It was all about money and power Zuckerberg seemed to have a need to have others see him as some kind of superhero saving the world. Don't forget he didn't really 'invent' FB, he stole it. And Cheryl Sandberg? Well she has blood on her hands from both Google and FB.
I have been posting on Breitbart lately. It is very interesting. You should try it, but have to be able to stomach some abuse. People there are living in a parallel universe. The writings of rising fascism are on the wall, clearly. I am from Germany and sadly quite familiar with this topic.
Maybe engaging people in this movement in personal conversation is a good investment in the political wellbeing of our country.
3
The company is not FLOUNDERING, fishing for flat bottom-dwellers. Instead, the company is FOUNDERING, adrift amongst the rocks. Thank you.
1
I have been reporting anti-Semitic comments and memes to Facebook for years.
So far, Facebook has not removed one anti-Semitic comment or meme I have reported.
Apparently, Facebook does not consider anti-Semitism to qualify as "Hate Speech" or a violation of its "community standards." This clear and deliberate failure to remove anti-Semitism on their social media platform is in itself blatant anti-Semitism.
Facebook is a publisher. It has every legal and constitutional right to decide what content to publish, to edit content, and to remove content. "Hateful words lead to hateful actions," said Rabbi Jeffrey Meyers. Facebook is either part of the problem, or part of the solution. At present time, Facebook is part of the problem.
For shame.
8
There's more to this problem than "social media". News organizations such as WaPo and NY Times, among others need to come down off their high horse and stop with the left, center or right news and stick with the FACTS. News organizations plant the seeds pf discontent the germinate on social media sites.
3
Who defines what is “left of center?” Lately, referring to science and evidence, both in reporting and in conclusions arrived at, is being called left of center by those on the right.
1
@Joe It's a real problem...in both hard and soft science. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-25/distorted-science-often-results-from-a-predictable-pattern
Left out of the article is the fact that the only reason that Facebook and Instagram exist is because of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyri ght Act - DMCA, that just had its twentieth anniversary on October 28th. The DMCA gave safe-harbor to copyrighted material and allowed for social media sites to be considered as applications not publishers, thus avoiding responsibility. The DMCA needs to be revised every five years as technology changes. The large players do not want you to know about this law. I wrote a piece on this two years ago that may be of interest. https://www.pelicancafe.net/digital-millennium-copyright-act-18-year-anniversary/
5
Religious hate is experienced towards all religions and as a Catholic I have experienced this myself. I have had people say horrendous things to me and I have called them out on this rude and vile behavior. I will not tolerate it for one second and they know not to ever do it again.
I have read many comments that are highly derogatory towards Catholics and it makes my blood boil. This is unacceptable and no religion should be subjected towards these hate-filled messages whether it is towards Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. I want all faiths to be respected as those who practice their religion take it very seriously. It is who they are and they should never be belittled.
Let's start loving one another and accepting people for who they are. There is good and bad in every religion and race but most are wonderful people. We need to stop this hate that has become so prevalent in our society. It can start with each one of us and if someone says something nasty or mean-spirited towards another person's faith tell them to stop. This should never be tolerated and if we all work together we can live in a loving and peaceful world. Let us start today.
1
I recommend that folks watch PBS' Frontline about Facebook. Part 2 is tonight and focuses on the 2016 election. Facebook and other social media is very scary for democracy. I fear we've lost America.
2
@Mary Looking forward to part 2 but they need to go back to 2008 and 2012 with regard to campaigns. FB was heavily invested in DC during those two and sharing users info with campaigns.
This question is not central to the issue, but --
Does anyone have a rough estimate of the proportion of these hate posts that is coming from Russian or other trolls whose aim is to set Americans against each other?
I'm not trying to blame the phenomenon on outsiders, just wondering if there's any evidence that it includes such an element.
I have really come to believe that social media is probably going to be the downfall of human civilization.
1
According to the article: "Other hashtags on Instagram referenced Nazi ideology, including the number 88, an abbreviation used for the Nazi salute 'Heil Hitler.'"
During my studies of symbolic communication, the numbers '38', '45' and '88' are almost universally mean 'significance' or 'size of impact'. From what I can see they became popular during or after WWII, and are rooted in gun calibers. Thus, '38' means 'small impact' (for 0.38" bullet diameter), '45' means 'big impact' (for 0.45" caliber), and '88' means a 'really big impact' (as in the German 88 mm artillery shell).
This sort of symbolic communication is called a 'direct substitution code'. Other examples of a direct substitution codes are Morse code, the Braille alphabet, and the so-called Hobo signs. They are a 'direct substitution' because one thing is directly equated to another. However, these sorts of codes may take on a unique 'dialect' within a particular social group. Harvard researcher Gerald Zaltman has done extensive research on how specific metaphors can be used to identify social networks.
The symbolism that '88' refers to 'Heil Hitler' is new to me. However, there is a precedent for this, such as the use for '11 11 11' as a direct substitute code for 'KKK'.
I do know that the gun caliber codes are widely used within American veterans organizations. It is quite possible that the dialect changed when it hopped over to a right-wing extremist group.
I was trying to think of a good acronym for Facebook. The closest I got was Fear-Acrimony-Chaos-Everywhere. Twitter is even worse. It's like a social disease. In fact, these services operate like some kind of parasitic social disease. Once infected you have a very hard time doing without, yet they slowly sap you of vitality and leave you a paranoid, fearful and pessimistic person.
2
The rise of the digital age has brought the decline and fall of the “gatekeeper”.
Go ahead, write a book, make a record, be a journalist or a graphic designer. All you need is a computer and an internet connection. No training needed. No vetting to overcome. No editor or producer or art director to win over.
We might have hoped “content” would rise or fall based on its merits alone, in the noble eyes of the masses. I suppose that was the idea and maybe it’s been realized on some levels.
But some of the consequences have been utterly horrid.
Is A.I. ever going to be able to do this work?
1
ALL Social Media platforms should be removed until we have controls in place to stop this hatred from spreading! No business in the USA should be allowed to fuel hate and murder which these companies currently allow.
I realize these painful, shallow posts of crime and extremism are not plans of their business model yet Social Media Companies are responsible for the contents they allow to post. Either shut them down or live with the pain of being responsible for loss of life and safety.
3
We should write it as "social" media because it ain't social at all.
Hate speech is not free speech.
1
Shame on the man-children of silicon valley. Their iniquity is that they have spent years fostering this explicit "move fast and break things" ethos, never pausing to consider that technology intersects with protecting or endangering human lives...now that we're having the conversation, they have to be regulated. Big tech is here to profit from us, not help or protect us. It is the job of duly elected legislators to constrain the unchecked ambition of the morally bankrupt (insert tech CEO name here). Please, elect those who want to do so.
2
As with this comment section hosted by the NYT, there is a need to mentor submitted contributions.
Mentoring is not censorship. Mentoring could be as simple as to indicate that the comment is factual wrong (and it should be called a lie) because of evidences available.
The current social networks are driven by an assumed business model that is currently in contradiction to any ethical considerations. That model requires to get as much as possible users, that increases the likelihood that the number of ad impressions (clicked or not clicked) increases.
A hashtag like “#jewsdid911" should get mentored and flagged by means of good tested algorithms. It is inconceivable that this is not done yet.
Many consumers from different age groups accessing the platform. As in real life, some people need context, some need explanations, some others don't even understand. Letting the consumption flow unsupervised (particularly for those suspicious hashtags) is irresponsible.
Would we as parents (the vast majority of parents) allow our kid to develop a view on "911" that is factual incorrect? Would we as responsible parents not rather explain the history correctly?
Why then social network platforms are not acknowledging that responsibility?
As with cars, air travel and other products, there are security standards producers need to be compliant with. Those compliancies are tested independently. Why we are doing that with social network platforms?
66
Because what you are suggesting is not possible at scale. Not until some major advances in machine learning anyways.
1
@Han Dwavey
I think it can be automated and/or semi-automated.
The point is not whether we can do it sufficiently now, the point is whether we have the intention to do it - and trying to engage with independent parties - like universities, etc.
We should not follow the narrative that big social network platform are not doing it and therefore it cannot be done. It can be done! Many innovations were created in smaller companies.
4
@Amy Katz I think you mean monitoring not mentoring.
3
Social media can only spread fear, division and hate if you, the reader/watcher, let it. Predisposition to hateful beliefs is a product of ignorance. Stopping hate is a hard job but a necessary one. The question is whether we have yet evolved enough to sustain a hate-free environment. In the United States, the answer is no. Too many people make a good living off the hate business.
28
@Frank Hate business needs to be outlawed.
It needs to be recognized as "bad" and "wrong" and has no place in society.
1
@Frank Agreed. Who knew? 40 or 50 years ago we thought a progressive system would educate and enlighten and that these avenues would lead to a less hateful human mileu. I believe...the path to a less polarized and antagonist society is premier education in all its dimensions. Education which remunerates teachers and professors with a much better-than-good wage.
And yet, the crash of economic systems in the 20th and 21st centuries has contributed mightily to the creation of an angry "underclass." And these economic failures fall entirely on the shoulders of our most privileged and highly educated humans in all of history. Full circle. Where to next? Thank you.
1
Anonymity emboldens. The normal social controls that include shame and the desire not to harm people. It's the shameful underside of human nature.
47
Anybody who has ever dipped a toe into the social media waters knows that it is a fountain of hate and anger. The question is why is that. I think it comes out of a seething anger that comes from a false conception of life that the media places on a pedestal. When we look at TV all we see is highly successful people, pretty , smart people, and all these people seem to be at a party that none of us are invited too. Life is much harder than what is represented in the media, in fact there is nothing easy about life, and most people are very lonely and feel life has passed them by. This anger has nothing to do with politics at all, and in fact people are using politics as an excuse to vent their anger. The anger is there all along. People are angry at life. Woe to the man who channels that anger. They might find they have a Tiger by the tail.
1
“Social media companies have expanded their reach globally, but they never quite understood what to do about the negative consequences of that influence.”
It’s not that they “never understood” - they never even considered the consequences of their influence. Their focus was on profit. The naïve mission that fronted the social media enterprise was “to bring us together,” but the real engine was to mine and sell personal data.
Tech engineers create because they can, because of the challenge, because they perceive some esoteric need, because they want to make money. Too often they are young and driven by the “cool” factor. Considering the psychology, sociology and ethics of possible consequences is not part of their tool-kit. Zuckerberg should have studied philosophy along with computer science.
This is why liberal, critical-thinking based education is so important. Did Harvard give Zuckerberg a real education, or just enough ability to unleash a giddy dorm-room experiment on the world?
Capitalism too often plunges blindly and naively ahead and society is left to pick up the pieces. There is nothing “free” about the free-market. The cost can be staggering.
3
You plant a garden and some weeds sprout up among the flowers. Does this mean you should get rid of the garden? I have had only positive experiences on Facebook reconnecting with classmates and hometown neighbors as well as on Instagram interacting with people who also like literature, music, art etc. Perhaps more stringent weeding procedures are needed to have these online platforms adhere to conduct we depend on for a civilized society.
Technology has far outstripped our ability to reign in our baser impulses. The internet was designed as a means for sharing scientific information between concerned parties and not the entire world. It may be heresy but I don't feel that unfettered electronic speech is healthy. After all with the click of a button one can shout fire and the entire universe hears it and not just the patrons in the proverbial theater. I think a timeout is in order.
2
In our military it has become standard practice to have a "stand down", usually for a day, after a major disaster. Facebook needs to take a "stand down" day with banners on every company-owned web page, a world-wide company meeting, and all that day's profits going to charity.
It will not bring back the dead, but it can jolt its corporate culture into awareness of the pain and damage they are inflicting on their customer base through their careless malfeasance.
8
I grew up in a different time:
A time when character was valued and a cult of personality was suspect.
It was a time when different politics could agree to a common truth and result in reasonable policy.
Today we seem insensitive, removed and immune to the value of character in our dialogue. We accept the loud bravado and demagoguery of an overpowering personality instead of inspecting, questioning the character from which it emanates. A portion of the electorate follows the noise, gold trim veneer and the imprecise invented information as truth as they scurry to the precipice.
We are collectively in danger now. Words do matter they can insight, enrage and lie. It is time for wiser people, particularly women to change and challenge this national chaotic noise.
Lies need to be examined, debunked and publicity charged to the perpetrator. Truth must return to our debates.
Character needs to be exposed, examined and elected before personality and self generating terror of the mob.
Cross the street carefully look left, right, and left again. Put your Facebook down and find your news and truth and check it 3 times.
Seek truth and honesty in the character you vote for.
5
Our notions of freedom of expression were formed long ago when conveying one’s ideas meant speaking to others face to face, perhaps in a literal public square, or in a signed letter to the editor. Today’s efficient communications networks enable rapid dissemination, wide reach, and anonymity. It turns out that the “inefficiencies” of earlier days provided time for people to think before they spoke or wrote, and to consider the effects of their expression on other people or on their own reputation. Bad ideas did not travel as far or as fast. The inefficiencies turned out to be an important part of the equation that limited hateful, crazy, and mob-inciting speech.
11
Would you give your enemy the key to your front door? That's what's happening through social media today.
Russia used it to hack our election and distort the result so Donald Trump - Putin's favorite - would win.
Our lying president uses Twitter an an unblockable source for many of his lies to reach gullible people to sow discord and hate. He calls the media fake news because that's an easy way for him to refute the facts that he lies constantly. The real downfall to our democracy will come through social media which exists mostly to make money for its investors.
How many reasons do we need to either regulate Facebook, Twitter and other sources or close them down? Social media as it currently exists is a threat to our democratic principles because it allows our enemies and detractors to freely use it to take down our democracy and the concept of free speech. I don't trust that these media sources will take the steps to regulate and fix social media as it is almost too late at this point. How much advertisement do we need to inflict on the public when we already have an overabundance of it on TV, radio, the internet and newspapers? Most advertisement is disingenuous as it is scripted by companies that use actors to portray real people. Perhaps that is why politicians are using the same methods to distort the truth.
3
I do not agree that the social media or the internet service providers should regulate what is shared.
They should use the same criteria and whatever they deem unworthy of inclusion they should make adds that appear in everyones feed that shows where you can find it.
The only good thing that Trump has done is enable these ideas to reemerge. I thought and I think a lot of people thought that this was done. How wrong we were.
I don't use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or any of the other popular sites. So I'm just guessing ..... If Twitter would simply eliminate the ability to re-Tweet it would calm things down a lot.
12
It isn't that social media doesn't know what to do about hate and the like on their systems, it is the opposite, they thrive on it. Social Media is based on advertising and on selling user information, and with that the more people on the platform, the more they charge advertisers and marketing companies and the like. It is only when it becomes obvious social media's darker sides (hate groups, election meddling, etc) that they attempt to do something, but the reality is if it puts bodies on their application, that is all that matters.
The only counter to this would be if advertising agencies and marketing companies made clear they won't advertise or buy data from platforms that allow hate to go on, that allow election meddling, racists, you name it free reign to do what they want. Some will say that is troubling, that free speech should remain free, but what that leaves out is that people on those platforms are getting a free ride (ie not paying for it) and they are supported by the advertisers. It would be like saying an advertiser pulling ads from Roseanne because of what she said is stifling free speech. Besides the obvious (free speech only applies to the government and law), commercial activities have never been about free speech. If advertisers and the like made clear to Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and the rest they expect them to clean up their act, they will; if they don't, then it is window dressing.
7
@bill d
not all those who advertise or run businesses have benign attitudes towards minorities, sexual preferences, religion and so on...
the speed and breadth with which hate speech, activity, etc., can spread is much more malevolent than one blow-hard president's rantings...
Charging a fee for each post and limiting the number of posts per month per account might help. Reading and posting on social networks apparently has replaced many people 's just reading a book and joining a book club to air their opinions. And, of course, there's always the excitement that one's post might go viral and one would become famous, perhaps even make some money. It's like the gambling disease. Combining these fees with much more moderating by real humans, not just algorithms, would help enormously too. Perhaps putting time limits on posts would be useful -- remove them after 3 days. But all of this would cost money that the greedy owners of the networks wouldn't want to spend.
4
Like the traditional print or the audio-visual media, the modern tech driven social media too ought to have due filtering and processing mechanism to offer a balanced presentation to diverse views and opinion that it is neglecting to earn huge profits. Still it remains the medium only amplifying what gives it profit and popularity. It's the hate mongers siting in positions of power and their supporting crowds on streets who are to be really blamed and held accountable to the law. But if a person like Trump who is supposed to uphold the rule of law and ensure social peace, refers instead to promote hate and distrust in society, what could be the remedy?
3
Policies in government, especially since Ronald Reagan, have hurt the general population of the country in major ways, leaving huge swaths of Americans insecure and frightened.
Those fears are causing a rise in animosity toward “others”.
Our government only serves the rich at the expense of the rest of the country.
And the rich have little interest in a country that is for all.
Ronald Reagan convinced too many that we are not “We the People” working together for a great country for all, but “rugged individuals” basically in competition with other Americans for survival.
When Americans are afraid and insecure, there will be peak unrest in the country.
Our government leaders have betrayed the country for personal gain.
If they don’t pay for their crimes, the problem will only persist.
It is destroying the country.
10
It's pretty obvious that if Twitter and Facebook were restaurants in the physical world, they would not let troll "customers" continually insult individual patrons or harass groups at their own tables. Even if the trolls hung out at their own table, they wouldn't allow them to bring guns into the restaurant. And if night after night patrons of all stripes got into fights about politics, they might declare the bar a no-politics zone.
If I owned Facebook, I would take these steps:
When you sign up, you go through a simple electronic background check, like a credit reporting agency would give, to prove you are you.
Rules of conduct take over the page when you sign up and repeat across-site every 60 days.
Specific slur words would be forbidden - ie, AI functions so you can't make a public post using these words. If you want have a nasty argument, fine - take it "outside" and DM each other.
Each report blocks you for 24 hours. After 5, you're booted off the site for 60 days. If you appeal, then you and the reporter both receive a suspension until your dispute can be reviewed. Hopefully, reporting cuts down on mean visual memes also.
Private boards must be moderated by the owner and will be periodically reviewed.
No carve outs for stars or politicians.
No political advertising or speech 45 days before an election.
I wish I had the money and know-how to start such a site myself. I'm pretty sure I could blow Facebook out of the water.
17
There is an absolute reality we all need to face: social media companies cannot "contain" anything on their platforms. This is physically and technologically impossible. What's more, the leaders of these companies--geeks, one and all--are the *last* people who should own this responsibility. Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey *think* they can solve this problem. They're wrong. In a democracy, it is up to society as a whole, through all the mechanisms available to it--legislation, regulation, due-process prosecution, etc.--to address these issues. Stop pointing at Zuckerberg. Start pointing at Trump, McConnell, Ryan, and Roberts.
12
Five years ago, I decided to close my Facebook account. Current events prove I made a good decision.
11
How hard is it for a social media company to delete one of their accounts? Especially if one of those accounts is spreading hate speech? I would like to think that’s just basic corporate responsibility.
8
@William Carter Farrahkan is still up after being reported numerous times. Some hate is more equal then others.
@William Carter
What is "hate speech" Speech with which you personally disagree?
During key moments in our history -- American Revolution; Civil War; WWII -- a great deal of public speech against the British, Confederacy and Nazis would have qualified as "hate speech". Much of the metoo blather would also qualify as hate speech.
It seems to me that, no matter how wonderful one's ideas might be, advocacy of violence rather than ideas is a reasonable line that should not be crossed. Ideas should be protected. Violence should be prevented.
Drawing the line anywhere else -- for instance, today it's popular to draw the line at possibly hurting someone's feelings. (At least, so long as the feelings belong to someone you like!) That position doesn't pass the laugh test.
But I think most of us would be content to express our ideas so long as they don't advocate violence. For example, one could oppose illegal aliens, but not advocate killing them. Ditto for transgenders. Ditto for Trump. Ditto for white supremacists. And so on. (May I carve out an exception for myself about Wall Street speculators? Alright, I'll abide by the proposed rule if everyone else does!)
red sox 9, your feigning IGNORANCE by asking (rhetorically) “What is hate speech” is a thinly veiled maneuver to maintain the status quo of aggression and bullying which characterize social media platforms such as Facebook. This is apparent when you wrote “It’s popular to draw the line at possibly hurting someone’s feelings...That position doesn’t pass the laugh test”.
You know very well that people don’t have to advocate violence directly, as Hitler did in Mein Kampf, to actually trigger violence among others. There were plenty of people in the United States who used your definition of ‘free speech’ during the Civil War - they were better known as Copperheads.
It’s way past time social media companies started doing something to stop the use of their platforms as asocial weapons. The good people of Pittsburgh will attest to that.
Private companies can decide what content they'll allow on their platforms, but taking down offensive content will give mystique to groups who already fancy themselves a shadowy resistance. They'll develop more codes, secret handshakes and winking acknowledgments - "1488", "kek", Pepe the Frog, etc. - to get around loosely defined "community guidelines." I'm sure many will be thrilled at being cast as the rebels that mainstream society wants to put down and keep quiet.
It's certainly a difficult problem, but I think we need to have confidence in the power of conversation. If we're worried about people who might be influenced by dark messages then we need to counter with brighter ones which, importantly to me, do not come across as unthinking orthodoxy. Daryl Davis and Deeyah Khan are great examples of people who intermingle with people who hate them and eventually win them over. That they're willing to risk their personal safety is testament to their faith in persuasion.
4
@HC45701
That assumes that those spewing hate want a conversation, and therein lies a fallacy. Conversation is people exchanging ideas and actually listening to others, but what social media often is is a one way rant, it is designed that way. We aren't talking people chatting in forums, we are talking people posting bilge on Facebook, Twitter, etc, then posting more bilge, and if you post a message trying to refute what they say, all you get is 'that is lies', 'that is false news' 'that is liberal propoganda'. There is a political forum on a site I am on (that is not primarily political) where they have a weird thing (it is moderated). When the hard right types, Trump Nation, post their claims, ideas, they can post them and assume them to be true, but when someone posts from the center or left, they have to provide links supporting their position. Social media is worse than this, because people post one sided bilge and that is all.
@HC45701, the idea of winning these people over one by one is very appealing, but who has the time to do it? Shouldn't employees of the insanely profitable social media companies be required to do this?
@bill d Yes I agree that the medium of exchanging ideas is important, but I'm not sure that people who spew one-sided bilge on social media wouldn't be changed by a face-to-face discussion. I read that Bowers was posting under his real name in Gab, so I wonder if it's possible to monitor sites like Gab, identify posters of hate, and arrange some kind of outreach to them. I fear that banning people from posting, taking down for a like Gab, stigmatizing and marginalizing these people would lead to more violence.
That is quite a bit of productivity - over 11, 000 in a 24 hour period. To point out the obvious, such productivity is not random - and certainly not generated by isolated, poorly educated individuals who are find the mastery of English spelling & grammar beyond their kin.
A large portion of what we see on Social media (including comments on these very blogs on the NY Times) is the Gerasimov Doctrine realized. The weaponization of Social media to spread hatred, fear division and fear.
In other words, the use of social media to destabilize democracies.
15
I work in Silicon Valley, and more and more of my friends are simply leaving Facebook. I deactivated my account two years ago and haven’t regretted it at all.
I have more time to interact with friends in person, and don’t have to be subjected to anxiety-provoking memes that do not yield anything productive. Turns out that “connecting the world” may have as many negative consequences as good.
Do yourself a favor and leave social media behind. Facebook will never be able to solve this problem without strict account verification and pre-approval of all posts. And don’t forget that their incentives aren’t really aligned with yours. You are not the customer. You are the product.
29
congress, congress and congress is all responsible for this. they can do it but will not do it for political correctness.
1
And who’s run Congress for the last four years, please? Because it sure ain’t lefties; and it sure is the shabby likes of the far-right, hilariously-named “Freedom Caucus,” or Big Jim Inhoffe, who’ve been spreading pretty much the same messages of fear and hatred. Oh, and stupidity.
1
I appreciate that this piece is, in part, about how folks who hate can spread their vitriol. I have another perspective on the state of our culture. This country has always had folks spewing hate, but, before social media, it was contained so that its impact was relatively benign, although hate speech is almost always never benign. The "genius" of the internet--of social media--is that we can now see the depth and breadth of hate, its sources, the motivations behind it, and its consequences. It's scary to see all of this, but it's now in our faces, so there is no excuse for failing to oppose it.
7
The rising concern about the use of social media to spread hate is good, but the fundamental problem is the large fraction of the population is receptive to hate messages and incapable of distinguishing truth for lies. This is not a new problem and will not disappear when Trump is gone and will not disappear if social media manages to purge hate from their media. Trump and his enablers need to go. Social media needs to purge hate. But we need to think hard about why hate and fear are such a powerful forces in our country.
20
@Dave - I agree 100%. Democracy depends on an informed and thoughtful electorate where knowledge of history and willingness to compromise are promoted values. These values, along with understanding the difference between democracy and capitalism, understanding the mechanisms of advertising (both economic and political) and encouraging development of integrity (which I understand to include valuing honesty, generosity and compassion), should be as much a part of public school curriculum as the STEM subjects - even more so in the early years of school. And, there is no reason why these cannot be introduced, age appropriately, beginning in pre-school. My kids had a book where a young person asked a grandparent how to know which of the 'internal' wolves of good and evil would prevail - the wise answer was: the one you feed the most. With a well chosen curriculum to really aide our little human-animals-in- training, by feeding truth, beauty and kindness instead of fear, confusion and anger, things could shift in one generation.
Fringe communities of Neo-Nazis and other racists have existed on the internet for a long time, far longer than Instagram or Facebook have existed. In the early days of Web 2.0 you'd most often encounter them in the same kind of places you do now: on under-moderated forums and internet chatrooms, salting the discussion there with casual bigotry and the occasional rant.
So trying to smear the social media platforms for causing this problem doesn't really hold water. They aren't doing anything special, they're just better at fulfilling the prime directive of the internet than pretty much everything that came before them: connect people and allow them to share ideas and information. From the very beginning this is what the internet was about, and from the beginning there was no special filter that prevented bad people spreading bad ideas and misinformation. The internet just got bigger and more efficient. As the total number of people increased, the total number of bad actors increased proportionately.
Facebook, Twitter, etc are not the main platform of any extremist community, they're mainly just used to recruit people and spread their toxic ideology into mainstream discussions. By all means censure the social media giants, they probably deserve it, but don't mislead the public by pretending they're to blame for internet racists or that they have the power to end their influence. Banning racists is an age-old battle on the internet, nobody's figured out how to win it yet.
3
The president is so very much concerned about “Islamic terrorism,” a term he pointedly employed on his 2016 campaign trail, dueling President Obama’s dialed-down, calming references.
What happened on Saturday in Pittsburgh qualifies—in the very highest relief possible—is domestic terrorism. I think it’s fairly clear and obvious why this president is reluctant to call out Robert Bowers’s slaughter for exactly what it is: the word “terrorism” is a lit fuse snaking toward (one of ) the dynamite kegs that that he has strewn around social media rants and rallies. He wants it both ways: fear of terrorism but only as it applies to immigrants or people whose religious backgrounds are not white and “Christian.”
Every “social media” company should have a moral and a legal responsibility to ensure that they will not be allowed to be used as sieves for hate speech of the most appalling sort. Instead, they are conduits for the potential unraveling of an America that began with Donald Trump’s candidacy and has now gushed—not spilled—over into his hate-filled and divisive presidency.
How can the executives of these companies allow this ripping apart of the country to continue? Is the money really worth it?
14
The person to blame is people like me who follow the social convention in of not saying something when we know we should. When white people sit around with other white people and someone makes an anti-semitic comment or joke, we follow the social convention of saying nothing. Last Saturday was the results of our behavior. It makes mentally unstable people think they are going to be seen as heros by murdering innocent people. Anti-semitic jokes are not funny and anti-semitic comments are not ok. We need to stop pretending that we don't know that the bullies who make the anti-semitic jokes and comments don't want what happened last Saturday to happen because we know the do. We need to stop pretending that we don't know how to stop it.
11
Greed trumps discernment and responsibility.
Social media is designed to further indoctrinate us into rabid consumers endlessly purchasing things we don't need in order to enrich the creators of the platforms.
Imagine finding the courage to forgo Twitter, Face Book and Instagram.
A healthy choice in all ways.
5
@Discerning
It's not that hard -- try it!
Do we really need social media? What good comes of it? I get an ego boost from posting a picture I took or hook up with someone I knew when I was 8?
Mostly I see harm coming from social media.
7
Hate is not illegal. Murder is murder, whether it is committed in a state of hatred or not. Laws should not attempt to police a state of mind. Question: if a group of people engage in a phone conference call, and speak hatefully, should the phone company be held responsible? Why then should Facebook et al be held responsible for what people say on that communication medium? If you don't like what some people say on Facebook, don't read it. If you don't like the play, don't go to see it. Think for yourself?
4
@Radical Inquiry You don't seem to understand that the problem is not what I want to hear or read, it's what other people who hate me want to hear and read, and the exponential effect these conversations create. Go read McLuhan to understand the very different impact electronic media has, with millions of readers vs. what used to be restricted to fliers with a circulation of thousands. I can walk away, but as long as haters, psychopaths and bigots feed off these platforms, I'm walking around with a bulls-eye on my back.
What would Defoe say now?
"We had no such thing as printed newspapers in those days to spread rumours and reports of things, and to improve them by the invention of men, as I have lived to see practised since."
Journal of the Plague Year, 1722
2
Manufacturers are legally responsible for the safety of their products. An example is car seats for children, or a battery operated device. Law suits can cost these companies millions.
Very often a product when first conceived is used in an extreme way, but the manufacturer or distributer is still responsible. Is it different for social media? I don' know, but a trial ballon would be a good place to start.
4
@jdoe212, sorry J. Doe, freedom of speech is enshrined in our constitution and our way of life. Think of a new idea.
@jdoe212 By that standard, Boeing should be held responsible for the 9/11 massacre, since it was their airplanes that were flown into the towers and the Pentagon.
I want to see Jack Dorsey and our dear friends at Twitter make a bold, ethical decision and follow their own terms of service by canceling Donald Trump’s account.
Making him communicate with the public via the news media in live interviews will continually demonstrate to the public that this man is dangerously uninformed and can’t put together a coherent sentence (seriously, he can’t even talk).
14
@X
“Social media companies have created, allowed and enabled extremists to move their message from the margins to the mainstream,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, a nongovernmental organization that combats hate speech. “In the past, they couldn’t find audiences for their poison. Now, with a click or a post or a tweet, they can spread their ideas with a velocity we’ve never seen before.”
Sounds like Trump's Twitter account to me.
4
The problem with expecting social media to police itself is that the business model requires more and more users in order to sell more ads. Why would Mark Zuckerberg weed out the posters who inspire thousands more to generate millions more opportunities to sell ads? Until social media has an incentive to control its content, hate speech and lies will continue to be a significant feature. And why would this great capitalist country do anything to diminish profits regardless of the damage to society when it can’t even do anything to prevent the planet from becoming uninhabitable?
13
Who's buying the ads on these postings?
So long as elected governments continue to actually benefit from social media’s disinformation (not to mention database targeted ads), so long will it be left up to unelected techies with no idea or experience in such things as societies or politics. Who benefits from anti-immigrant, white-supremacism, homophobic or racial hate? Conservative politicians, who currently control the Presidency, Senate and House - plus the UK, Hungary, Brazil etc etc. Whilst they may not explicitly espouse such things, they still always enact social policies that typically aim at minorities and so become the go-to choice (until the Klan fields a candidate, I guess - never say never in these times).
6
And...anti-LGTBQ also prevalent.
With Trump's "employment rate at the lowest point ever in the history of this planet or any other planet" you would think that people would be too busy to focus on spewing this vile nonsense.
4
I some what understand the problem. Social Media is very toxic with kids being able to do what ever they want and to get away with it. Platforms have been working to fix the problem but it will take a long time till their is peace
1
Shouldn't we be more worried of minds than tools?
The other day Tom Friedman mentioned Civil War II.
Racism and antisemitism were always simmering in the USA.
Either we wake up fast or the regret will be fatal.
5
When I was a little girl, I was a Girl Scout. We played a game at meetings called Whisper Down the Alley. We’d sit cross-legged on the floor in a line. The girl at the head of the line would whisper a sentence to the girl next to her. That girl would whisper the sentence as she heard it to the next girl and so on. By the time we got to the last girl the sentence bore no resemblance to the original and was often quite silly sounding.
It was fun and we’d all laugh.
The point of the game was to demonstrate the danger and unreliability of gossip.
Gossip, particularly celebrity and political gossip, is the new pornography. The stereotype of women gossiping over the back fence used to be considered a derogatory thing. Through the medium of the internet, gossip has been coopted as a useful tool to promote products, careers, ideas. It used to be considered a vice.
11
This week I raked the leaves from the 20 plus Aspen trees in my yard, to spare my neighbors.
It is time for congress to develop a spine, and make laws that every company that makes any product is totally responsible for what they have created.
Even if it becomes a Frankenstein Monster like the gun manufacturers.
4
Thank you, for taking your aspen leaves! We lived in the Rockies for 25 years, raking the leaves is an act of kindness.
1
@Steven of the Rockies
-Good on ya for raking, but I'm not sure that we'd like where your doctrine of "total responsibility" could end up taking us.
@Steven of the Rockies So, it is not the Jewish Conspiracy that was responsible for 9-11 but Boeing, since they made the airplanes?
Commercialization for money pretty soon ruins all good things.
But in this case it could work to solve the problem. If your ISP account (even for business) limited you to a fixed spending amount per month and each sending of an email , a tweet, a facebook post, etc., had a cost associated with it, we would stop the repeated and widely distributed stuff instantly, including spam. Even better, if the cost was in proportion to the estimated number of recipients.
In practice, it would be a government tax, withe ISP's allowed to keep a portion of the payment in return for collecting it. And the gov't could use it's own ID system to ensure that each person or entity only got one account.
@Tony Reardon
Not sure how this would square w the First Amendment. How do news organizations fit into your idea?
@TLibby
For US mailn it's called postage and it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment.
For news, or any other mass delivery organizations, they can have each subscribing recipient volunteer to pay their share of the cost instead, so they have no charge to subtract from their spending allocation. Just like now you only pay to buy the newspapers you want.
Basically, we treat the internet messages like we do paper now.
Interesting. The NYT comments section is a kind of "social medium," where people are free to engage in thoughtful and civil discourse and where contrary opinions are welcome. By and large, people don't make unsupported assertions or portray their opinions as facts. Why does it work where other social media fail? It's not that all the commenters think alike; far from it. And it works even though people can remain anonymous. I do think they tend to make an effort to be civil and to elevate the level. It also helps that comments have to be reviewed and approved before they get published.
131
@John, great point. The discussions here seem more thoughtful and civil than the unmoderated discussions on the Washington Post site. Those often devolve into name-calling, especially on political articles.
26
John, I think your last sentence hit it on the head: this stuff is reviewed post by post on the NYT. Who knows what doesn't get through. If this is how social media worked, it would be a very different landscape, but the sheer volume of content is simply impossible to contend with.
23
@John
The NYTs has at least some limited policy regarding posts: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/readersopinions/FORUMS-POLICY.html?8bl . Many places do not, or do not adhere to those policies. Even within the world of major newspapers, the WP and a few others appear consistently less civil than what we see here.
There are any number of publications--articles and books--outlining the destructive forces released by social media. One example: "Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy," Oxford Univ. Press, 2018, https://global.oup.com/academic/product/antisocial-media-9780190841164?cc=us&lang=en& . It is the people who choose to use the technology in destructive ways, but that provides little solace at the moment. Individual state policies will not help much--this is going to take cooperation on the national level and that is in short supply.
Throughout our history, almost any technology that could be weaponized was. This is part of a pattern. Social media are far better at pushing intolerance, relative to fostering tolerance. And it is much easier to tear down institutions than build them up.
4
This article paints the social media platforms as the problem. I understand that it's about Instagram posts but saying that social media is to blame is wrong. Hateful sentiments were always there, and the vocal ones were either shouting it or writing about it. Now they have a new medium. The medium is not to blame, just like it's pointless to blame the paper used for writing hateful words.
13
@RB. “Blame” of social media-what for?
Lets look at what social media is able to do-the dark side-make it easy to spread all kids of lies
And hate. While it can be used for good, in its present form it is an easy to use tool for people with
ill intent. Furthermore, it enables these bad actors to get together and become a greater and more effective force for the propagation of evil. It provides a platform for dangerous types like the man who
went on a bomb sending spree, and the evil actor who attacked and killed people in the Pittsburgh
synagogue. I do not have a solution here, but I am reminded of nuclear energy-great potential for good, and for the greatest destruction. We try our best to control it. I think social media needs
some genuinely effective controls-if this is not possible than perhaps it should be made to go away!
2
@RB Before social media you had to seek out like minded people/positions. Now they are pushed at you in large numbers and with falsehoods, shared in an instant. A very different environment than 30 years ago. Absolutely social media has changed our world and our politics, to think otherwise is blind.
3
@RB Social media is most certainly to blame. It's called propaganda. In the run-up to the Rwanda genocide, the Hutu government started broadcasting violent hate speech against the Tutsi minority. Bigotry against Tutsis was certainly rife, but it didn't metastasize into genocidal fury until the propaganda started. We don't typically allow that kind of incitement on TV and radio. You have to go to a Trump rally for that. But social media is by definition un-mediated. As a consequence, the demonization of others is given free reign until the evil spills out into bloodshed and violence.
5
We have precedence for outlawing speech that is harmful or dangerous. One cannot be in a building and yell “fire”, for example. As a minimum hateful speech on social media should be outlawed. It is harming our society.
Beyond this minimum we should consider prohibiting social media altogether. Regulating speech is difficult, and social media is not only unnecessary, it is more harmful than beneficial to society.
Myself, I stopped using Facebook, and I find that I am no less connected to issues, family, and friends. And by “connected” I am not including “friends’s” political rants, pictures of dogs, or posts of them with people I don’t know in some restaurant I don’t care about.
140
@Paul Stuart. I stopped using Facebook as well about six months ago and am much happier for it. I still know the birthdays of people I care about. I just don't see the none stop noise and stupidity that was my Facebook feed. I found that the daily grind of "maintaining" my Facebook notifications is gone and I don't miss it a bit. It's crazy. I have to go through and address hundreds of emails everyday at work and Facebook was piling on with even more emails and " notifications ". Facebook has to be hands down the worst method of getting news. It's still just a brainless feed of none stop propaganda. Zuckerberg has a lot to answer for. History should NOT ignore his role in tearing down democracy and helping Russia.
14
@Paul Stuart
First, a bit of background. PhD, Purdue, EE. Then a software designer, developer -- and coder -- with my own software R&D house for 30 years, doing cutting edge development. The scientific and commercial databases we created were online, accessible world-wide, before the internet began.
With that as qualifications, I comment on this quote from your post:
"Beyond this minimum we should consider prohibiting social media altogether. Regulating speech is difficult, and social media is not only unnecessary, it is more harmful than beneficial to society."
I agree, enthusiastically. Where do I sign?
9
I have thought for some time there out to be tighter laws online. One way is to issue every user an encrypted digital signature which must be accompanied by any post, tweet, reply, forum or even NYT letter. This latter is moderated thankfully. The signature must contain all contacts and full address. It must be unlawful not to report changes within 30 days. Couple this with laws on social media companies to police content and you are already many steps ahead. It still allows free speech. Far from being a big brother it effectively shuts down hate forums because all views are saved and can be used in courts of law. This would mean it cleans up online content at a stroke or face the consequences. In Europe trolling is easy and anonymous. The big tech companies must do more to stop radical hate and toxic thoughts polluting the internet.
94
I agree that the awful mess we are in has been brought about by the ability of individuals and state-run organizations to hide their identities online. What you describe is in the process of being implemented already. Read about China's Social Credit System and how it's linked to Alibaba's Sesame Credit system. The implications of this are absolutely chilling as it will stifle open discussions such as the ones taking place in this forum.
I don't know what the right solution is or I'd be incredibly rich overnight. I do know that allowing some level of anonymity has allowed incredibly productive and meaningful communities to flourish on the internet. Globally imposing this level of control will drive a lot of beneficial services back underground.
8
@Stuart. Probably unconstitutional.
2
@Stuart
-Quite possibly the scariest idea yet. It's entirely Big Brother, despite your weak claims otherwise.
1
I'm not a Facebook or Twitter user, and when I read these articles, I'm more confident in my decision. There's a filter that's missing when people communicate online - it's instant, so thoughtful contemplation about what is being said is not necessary. I imagine that promotes impulsive, emotional vs rational messaging.
The other missing filter seems to be lack of accountability. Anonymous speech means you can "get away with it" more easily. And dialogue is absent - real live conversation where someone replies to your message - is not required.
Still, I find myself questioning this theory when I consider the TV ads for the upcoming elections. They are filled with false accusations and inflammatory speech. I fear we are becoming de-sensitized to this type of language and lies. The president has certainly contributed to the problem. Sigh.
183
@Hope
~"I imagine that promotes impulsive, emotional vs rational messaging."~
What you have described is how these folks conduct their daily lives and their basic decision-making process. They vote against their own economic interests predicated on the same impulses.
45
People that use to say disgusting things and tell lies were usually met with disdain. It kept them quiet and out of sight. Now they post and get lots and lots of positive feedback. it feels good, so they do it again, and again. A rush of joy, they found acceptance! Nixon and Atwater had to use dog whistles..imagine if they had had these tools!
15
@Hope
You’re exactly right. My wife and I never signed up for Facebook, Twitter or any other social media website despite pressure from our children and grandkids to do so. We never felt we needed those to communicate with the kids and grandkids or friends. Better to just talk to them. And not a day goes by that a story like this one in the news media confirms that we made the right decision. For anyone reading this, I suggest you shut down your accounts - you’ll be glad you did!
6
I’ve always believed that technologists like Steve Jobs & Mark Zuckerberg are utopians are heart — naïfs who truly believed in their own idealistic notions of “connecting the world” & didn’t foresee how their creations could be misused. And they — and we — continue to trust that they will technology our way out of the mess Apple, Twitter, Facebook et al have created.
I’m starting to feel that despite its immense convenience the advent of the smartphone has damaged society in ways we are only beginning to grapple with. Social media is an offshoot; Twitter and Instagram thrive because they’re easily accessible all the time.
Technology was supposed to make life easier, but it many ways it has made it worse. Kids, mine included, don’t talk to other kids; they text and are losing the skills of phone etiquette and face to face contact. Depression and anxiety rates among the Gen Z (the group after the Millenials) are astronomical. Privacy is a quaint notion. Data breeches are routine because everything is conducted on and connected to the Internet. (Do we really need “smart refrigerators” to tell us we need milk?)
I’m no Luddite, but I’m incredibly longing for a less technological world.
And with our democracy hanging by a thread, we need a reckoning of our relationship with technology and its effect on us all and our social contract.
423
We have, as a while, forgotten that technology is a tool. I live the outlets, as I started reaching out to actual friends first, then people with the same likes. I would imagine that others have done the same. Therefore, there are no white nationalists in my 800 contacts. we meet over crochet, knitting, crafts, reading, being spoonies, nerds, comic book fiends, etc. I am on numerous Black oriented pages and sites, but I don't have a violent contact among them. I use it all as a tool for learning, and have contacts in other countries from Norway to Ghana to Brazil. I'm also only on socmedia about two hours a day while waiting to do something irl.
But I also have friends, a thriving faith community, decent neighbors, and family. Social Media was meant for people like me. Unfortunately, our society has socio- and psychopaths. We have marginalized people who lash out at everyone, and those who feel they must blame someone else for their trouble. And, we have exploiters who fire them up. We need to deal with their problems rather than trying to shut down the tools.
15
@EWood Our democracy is not "hanging by a thread." That is an outright exaggeration.
2
@Merzydoats:
Fine intentions no doubt. It was terrible how nobody could share crafts before the advent of the computer - OMG, people had to actually put things in print, or talk to each other, or possibly even be in the same room! Ick!
Sorry, but I think all users are the problem. You're just keeping oxygen in the space for the haters and everyone else to use as well.
You are no doubt a fine person, but you're still enabling those who most definitely are not.
5
Global billionaires are financing hate to divide and conquer workers, and to keep populations from fighting their brutal policies with democracy.
You centrist Democrats who compromise with the far right are helping hate. The right doesn't compromise, it just terrorizes people until they fall into line.
Trump was mimicking an assault on a reporter, by "my guy," the day before yet another mass murder in a house of worship by a White Supremacist.
Far right terrorists have killed more Americans than international terrorists. The Party of Trump is their allies. Everyone who still supports Trump is watching him push political violence all of the time, and they love him for it.
The constant "compromising" with the extreme right Party of Trump, getting absolutely nothing in return has emboldened them to go ever more extreme.
If you consider yourself a centrist Democrat, you need to see the Party of Trump for what it is. They think a combination of hate, greed, and violence is the solution to every problem. Is that really what you want to compromise with?
Is the left really just as bad as a party that beats up reporters (there is also video of a reporter being slammed to the ground by Trump rally security), and calls thugs shouting "Jews will not replace us," before the beating up unarmed protesters "fine people?"
The activist left faces militarized police, unarmed, to promote social, economic, and environmental justice, peacefully.
Compromise with bravery, not hate.
7
It's important to keep in mind absolute and relative numbers here. Even 5 years ago, there were 4.75B shares on Facebook everyday. Hard to find more recent stats.
So, even assuming no growth (it's likely more than double, couldn't find newer), the ~11,000 and ~1,100 numbers of bad shares/posts is around .0002% of total daily posts.
I'm not trying to minimize the tragedy at all. It was awful. But I think the vitriol directed at these technology companies is misdirected, and disproportionate. Everyone is online, so that subset includes nuts. Hate speech is a blurry line, and this feels like the equivalent of having Gutenberg personally read, monitor, and judge everything ever printed using a version of his printing press. That's not reasonable, and it's not desirable either (it's censorship), and will push folks onto less known platforms like 4chan and Gab. Better to hope their more "normal" networks might curb their behavior on FB or similar. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
4
What I am unable to understand, when Jewish people or Israel are insulted, the media and other venues react to defend. Although, when other people or countries are denigrated is not news. Trump vilified Mexicans during his campaign, the media didn’t reacted the same way. When Muslims are insulted is not worth of coverage. Why we have double standards? In saying that the Wall Street is controlled by people from Jewish background is considered an offense, although is stating the obvious. It seems that people from Jewish background are considered special people, although Palestinian peoples appeared to be disposable.
4
@RBR
Please stop hate-baiting. We are all threatened by these events that are happening here and in the rest of the world. A reason the Tree of Life Synagogue massacre is so compelling is that it is a strong reminder of the Night of Broken Glass in Germany that announced the true horror of fascism.
Hate speech should not be considered freedom of speech. No company should host or allow hate speech. If they do, they are capable.
2
Free Speech? Am I within my rights to hate? Am I within my rights to communicate these ideas with others to see if I am right or wrong? There is no clear path to how we should censor each other and curtail our rights to free speech, but there is a clear path to what came next in history when these things happened before. First came terror attack, then came the suspension of freedoms, then came fascism and tyranny. Then came a genocide that killed 6 million.
4
@Mark
More speech, not less.
With a man like Donald Trump at the helm, an impulsive abuser of Twitter, it appears highly unlikely for the American public to push for controls on the nefarious aspects of social media. The disinhibition of certain internauts is positively frightening -- political chat rooms and other social media are the perfect means for creating spontaneous terrorist squads. To my mind, ISIS and other Islamofascists' threats to the Western democracies pale in comparison to the immediate threat within : the isolated bachelor who feels totally legitimized to strike out at imaginary enemies because so many 'voices' online validate such senseless violence. We are all in deep trouble.
2
Trump remarked that this massacre was "unimaginable" and "hard to believe."
Really? In today's America, led for the past few years by Trump's nationalist and racial venom, I would say it is more "expected" and "par for the course."
5
The problem with Social Media is that it allows every wacko on the planet to find their fellow wackos and to feast off of each other. The interactions reinforce and normalize sick ideas and behaviors. Before internet, social norms were generally the domain of the local community which kept a close eye on their local deviants.
But now, we think Mark Zuckerberg should watch over us. Scary, scary world.
10
@Born In The Bronx
-And the people that Zuckerberg outsources the job to admit that they substitute their personal judgements of what is "offensive" for the incredibly vague "community standards" all the time. Who's going to watch the watchers?
@Born In The Bronx
Bingo. We used to get all our news from newspapers and TV programs where facts were checked and opinions were moderate. Now everyone can go into their own echo chamber and have their extreme conspiracy theories confirmed. I think the desire to fit in socially is so strong that 20 years ago a fringe person would say something hateful, their neighbors would rebuke them and they'd change course. Now people can find other extremists online and build a virtual community where they not only feel belonging, but some kind of special status that they understand how things "really are", while their politically correct neighbors are just stupid sheeple.
I have never seen any value in any of these social media sites. Seems their primary function, beyond pure narcissism (e.g.. everybody look at me on vacation!), is to incite bigotry and spread falsehoods.
Shut them all down.
6
While it’s true there are many negative aspects to social media, “shutting them all down” isn’t, you know, very American.
There are also many positive aspects to social media, such as being able to exchange ideas with anyone in the world. Helping smooth over our differences might just be the thing that actually saves us in the end.
The solution to the ills of social media is better education. I’d argue that younger people are less fooled and less influenced by, for example, the vast swathes of the voting electorate tricked on a daily basis by the dinosaur medium, TV.
1
@T. Rivers
Agreed. Young people now get tricked and fooled by an entirely new medium. Quite an improvement.
@TLibby Touché.
I think picking on the innovators of social media is about as ridiculous as picking on Alexander Graham Bell (telephone inventor) or Johann Carolus (first published weekly newspaper). Arguments can be made for and against all forms of communication but denouncing and rejecting the newest form only sets us back. Instead of pushing them aside lets spend our energy eliminating hate speech and more importantly, hate itself.
6
Facebook? Instagram? Twitter? All net-negatives on Society and the quality of human life. All mindless wastes of human intellect for the privileged.
Do your part for humanity: rid yourselves of social media and go have lunch, or take a walk, or get on the phone or watch a movie with someone you care about. Or better, take all that time saved and actually go out and do something positive with/for others you don't know so well: get to know them; learn to appreciate the lives they lead; stop obsessing over your own.
105
@cfxk 100% agree. I'm 31 and have been on Facebook for 13 years and 2 months ago I quit, along with Instagram, Snap, Twitter, and any social media dating apps. I can tell you I've missed nothing. It is absolutely toxic and unhealthy for our minds.
13
@cfxk: Social media is just a tool, and like any tool, it can be abused. It doesn't hurt anything when I post a picture of me and my brother hiking, or when he posts a picture of his dogs.
A friend of mine is into barbecue big time. He and his friends post pictures of various cuts of meat in various states of being cooked. Fanatic, maybe, but harmless unless you are a vegetarian. I'm sure they spend more time cooking and eating the meat than posting about it.
A couple of my friends rant against Trump. I'm no fan of his, but I can tell a rant from a post with some substance. I ignore the rants but sometimes respond to a post with substance.
If your heart is full of hate, you will post and share hateful content. If it is not, you won't.
Twitter is a phenomenal tool for coordinating activities. I learned that at a conference when a bunch of us wanted to meet for dinner. We were spread out all over the place, but all managed to find each other and enjoy the dinner together.
If you're not spending too much time, or investing too much of yourself on social media, that's a problem. If you're full of hate, that is also a problem. But social media is only a tool, which can be used or abused.
5
@cfxk Facebook is a great tool in times of crisis, such as when your son's school is shot up or your wife is battling cancer. You can reach way more people who are concerned than communicating on a one on one basis, especially by phone when you don't feel like talking, or you're pulling in at midnight from visiting her in the hospital. FB and Instagram are also good tools for connecting family and friends that are spread around the earth. There are hundreds of people that I hadn't connected with for 20 years that I now converse with routinely through these mediums. So there are features that make these platforms valuable.
Twitter on the other hand is pointless from that aspect and is merely a form of marketing or "entertainment".
I saw lots if hate growing up in the full segregation Jim Crow south. It takes many forms and its all about power, fear and tribalism. Institutionalized, it is a great evil and consumes all, especially its creators and supporters. It never ends well, and this will be Trumps legacy. Vote them out while you can.
22
@James
From one former southerner to another, amen.
1
Perhaps this hatred always existed, but the social media lets the rest of us see it. In exchange for that visibility, the haters get to use the social media stoke each others hatred online, instead of actually gathering.
But government agents used to infiltrate those physical meetings, to identify the bad actors. None of them were up to any good, but the government agents would have a chance to ID the ones who might actually do something, as opposed to those who were just mouthing off.
Now, government agents can infiltrate the groups online, again trying to ID those who are likely to actually do something. I'm sure that they do this, but as always, there are too many to watch all of them.
Alternatively, I wonder if social media actually amplifies this hatred, or does it just act as a conduit for something that already exists.
7
@mlbex
You can read interviews with former undercover agents from some of those meetings where they realized eventually that most of the other participants were either informants or also undercover.
1
It's not just social media channels that are failing to clean up their online acts. I recently read through some comments on the Fox News site related to the migrant caravan in Mexico. You can not believe the level of violent hatred being spewed by their readers. From disgusting jokes about lining the trail with poisoned bags of Doritos to outright threats of traveling to the border to shoot some of the migrants themselves. Emboldened no doubt by the behavior of the President with no hint of monitoring from the classless folks at Fox.
17
@Brian Rogers I have been wondering if we can at least petition to have "News" removed from the Fox brand?
3
@PieMaker Interesting. I read somewhere that, in court, Fox News actually lists themselves as an entertainment medium.
1
@PieMaker
-I don't know, they are always either making it or making it up. Maybe have them run a constant disclaimer at the bottom of the screen? "Not to be confused with actual journalism"?
1
Check all sources on all social media for confirming trustworthy before sharing your posts. It is as simple as that. This is not a new phoneme for news medias to have haters using their own money.
I'm sorry that is your job not anyone else. It is what I do.
2
I read a couple of days ago a fictional story in the Times describing a hired gunman attempting to kill the President. The story took you to the point at which the hired assasin fires the weapon. It was written by a novelist at the invitation of the Times. Would this be considered acceptable if Obama was the current President? Would it be acceptable if the target was anyone else in the world? How was it not hate speech and an incitement to violence?
6
@Shamrock- excellent point. I was reading the other stories and wondered why the Times would go to this length. I am completely against everything the current president has said and done but this was over the line. And I am a democrat from Santa Cruuuuuuuuuuuuz, CA.
4
@Shamrock - I read the Times every day and did not see that. Please provide a link or reference b/c I don't think it exists.
2
@Kevin Kelem You and I are on the same page. Couldn't have said it better. And Santa Cruuuuuuuuz is my second home :) Let's keep spreading love and not hate and lets not sit on the sidelines when we see these things.
1
The rise of hate speech and hate crimes seems to be coming from emboldened fringe groups. Everyone I know, all of my friends and coworkers, are appalled that a 97 year old woman in a house of worship should be killed because of her faith.
It is inconceivable how someone can go into a house of worship, whether in Pittsburg or South Carolina, and kill people who have simply come to worship. It is an unredeemable crime. We can never give this a shrug.
10
A fish rots from the head.
Trump has a lot to answer for in relation to the conspicuous uptick in hate, animus and division in the United States.
Vote!
16
They are getting more revenue from more traffic. Hire more people to remove the hate speech! I reported hundreds of hateful comments blaming a young woman for her own murder and nobody did a thing to remove them.
8
The problem is they outsourced the people checking content to foreign countries that don’t even understand what they’re looking at
10
I don't know what social media platforms don't get. My daughter had her pictures which were taken of her as a minor on Instagram hijacked by someone who is using them to promote a gay dating app and Instagram won't take the account down because they say since the person is not posing as my daughter, they are not technically violating the terms of service. On the other hand, Facebook has suspended me a couple of times for posting pictures I make with an app called "PicCollage" because apparently the number of pixels automatically flags the photographs as nudes. These were all pictures of my fully clothed nephew in a pumpkin patch or with my sister.
I think I need someone who is at a higher pay grade to explain the discrepancy here.
11
I will respond to this but I have little faith that you will publish it. I have been saying for DECADES that social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook (what is a facebook anyway?) are TREMENDOUS VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY. People look at me like I'm crazy. I'm can program in multiple languages and I was also a professional musician at the KenCen in DC. I know what's under the table as far as code goes and I have never belonged to FB and only for Twitter when it was brand new in the early years. Privacy? What's that?
11
It's the American way. Build a product to scale as quickly as possible without worry or concern for the implications, pocket the cash, and then let someone else figure how to solve or pay for regulating and cleaning up the problems it has created. We have this dynamic in spades with social media. On the whole, digital social media has been a disaster for society; it's the new smoking.
24
@JeffB It's opioids these days. Most people weren't born when the Surgeon General banned smoking.
1
The relationship between social media and the stirring of hatred is all too clear, and I applaud those who do the research.
However, has anyone ever tried to research how love and understanding fares on social media?
I'm serious. By searching for how hate (or fear) spreads while not searching how love (or understanding) spreads, we create an incomplete picture. A more complete picture--whatever the findings--might help us understand better how to discourage the truly hateful stuff or to create counter-memes that would be both honest and more hopeful.
Does anyone research that?
8
What a surprise that the boy wonder (Mark Z) can’t be expected to deliver on his commitments...
Exactly how much value is created for the public by mergers and acquisitions? M&A is just a way to consolidate and reduce competition by taking out a competitor.
Funny that Republicans talk about choice and competition and then they wholeheartedly endorse M&A activity that by definition reduces competition.
The GOP: opportunists in search of an ideology.
14
Social media is not the real world. The real world occurs when we put down our devices, get out of our houses and be with people--helping, working together, having fun.
Make the effort, it's worth it and it will save our country.
12
We don't need to focus on social media, we need to focus on the individuals who aren't educated enough to believe the ideas that they are being fed. Instead of believing anything they see on social media, individuals should be responsible enough to do their own research and make their own educated decision on whether that conspiracy theory/meme/article/photo is legitimate.
5
If you pull a stunt like this in Germany, you go to jail, and the reasons are clear. This is a hate crime, and we should handle it the same way.
30
Free speech advocating hateful ideology belong in the public square where is it displayed and scorned by rightminded citizens. To hide in the internet alleyways where likeminded sociopaths lurk and hide (but comingle) goes unchecked. Hatefulness toward others is a scourge and America is inching towards an endless kinetic state of unrest and disorganization. Trump is the elixir for the sociopaths and nothing but death of innocents will follow his trail of vile ideology. The President divides everything and everybody simply because he enjoys media oxygen and he basks in the spotlight of chaos and mayhem. He's not a good person nor does he have a drop of empathy in his soul. Trying to fulfill Judaism tradition for the victims in solemn ceremony will be difficult with the Trump circus intown and will automatically carry anti-Semitic consequences.
11
@terry brady Agreed. I use my real name on anything of this nature and apparently so do you. I feel that it makes me a little more thoughtful about what I am claiming, repeating etc. If I can't own it under my identity then perhaps I should reconsider the thought or statement.
1
“Facebook said this year that only 38 percent of hate speech on its site was flagged by its internal systems. In contrast, its systems pinpointed and took down 96 percent of what it defined as adult nudity”
So, in practical terms, nudity is unacceptable and must be avoided at all costs, while hateful speech that incites violence/murder is ok and not an urgent matter? Wow.
Social media companies need to seriously evaluate and change their priorities and values. And they need to actually DO something. However, each time something bad happens, all they have to offer is talk and platitudes (“we’re gonna be better”, “we’re planning to hire more reviewers”, etc.) while nothing really changes.
8
i question the premise that some have put forward that Zuckerberg et. al. had good intentions when they built these platforms. But that aside I agree with those who maintain that all internet activity should be identifiable as to who the sender is.
Anonymity makes cowards brave and fools smart.
20
if this writer had fished those thousand hateful anti semitic, white supremacists post and videos, how come Facebook can't?
I'm very sure they have a more sophisticated algorithm to extract them. So the big question is why they still exist? Are they afraid of someone or it's a question of bottomline?
9
@fmsyoga: I firmly believe it's the bottom line. Zuck loves being a powerful billionaire.
3
This is NOT on social media! This is on people who make their own choices with their ow free will.
2
I suspect when history looks back on this century it will not look back kindly on the evolution of social media.
It has removed the collective social filters, and allowed the most vile, base, and abject individual thoughts to bubble up to the surface,and spread their virulent hate.
Our POTUS is a prime example of this.
7
How is our local media company any different than Facebook?
Here in Denver, the race between Jared Polis' and Walker Stapleton feels lifted right out of Facebook...
Years ago, when Polis was a CEO, he caught a former employee attempting to steal paperwork from his office... Polis 'held' her for authorities that he called...
Now, years later, Stapleton is running ads daily -- hourly -- that claim that whole episode is a 'metoo' thing... they portray Polis as having attacked the women when he was only defending his rights and trying to get authorities involved... by highlighting selected lines from the police report that Polis filed...
It's been debunked by local media but the ad keeps playing. How is it different when Facebook takes money to run fake ads, than when our local news station does it?
(I'll give you guys one guess who the republican is and who the democrat is... everyone knows who is fighting dirty here...)
5
When word spread that Cesar Sayoc had Facebook accounts called Killgeorge Soros and Killall Socialist, I was able to find Sayoc's real account and the accounts of his Facebook 'friends' (some of whom appeared to be bots) and groups that he followed. I found one ongoing conversation, where people were discussing who 'needed to be killed'. Someone found it before me and posted that he was reporting it to the FBI. I selected some posts and reported them to Facebook. Yesterday, Facebook responded that the posts did not meet their standards for removal. One was a picture of a Quran with the caption 'This is a declaration of war on our country'.
Another depicted George Soros giving a bag of money and a list of addresses to a black clothed terrorist carrying a bomb. This terrorist was labeled 'Antifa'. It seems that the bar for what is unacceptable is so high and the volume of hate and misinformation is so great, almost anything can be disseminated, even on a platform that purports to police it's content.
13
Does not anyone else feel more disturbed by the fact these people who either create or share these hate-filled posts EXISIT than by the fact they share their thoughts? I sometimes think I was living in some kind of bubble before the advent of unfettered social media. I had no idea there were SO MANY people who were this angry, ignorant, racist, etc. And I worked as a reporter at a daily paper for nearly a decade. It is truly frightening to me that these people are out there, harboring this evil.
20
We seem to think that because something can be done, it should be done; that technological innovation is inherently improvement. Is the world really better with social media? Has it improved us as individuals or as a culture? Or is it just another addictive consciousness absorber like bad television, violent video games, and porn?
So many awful developments of the last 20 years would simply not be possible without the Internet and social media. I sincerely think it is possible that what is generally thought to be one of humankind's greatest achievements will ultimately end up being its undoing.
6
Platitudes about "free expression" and "we must do better" from Social Media companies' communications departments does not absolve them from responsibility for profiting handsomely by inciting mobs and murderous individuals worldwide.
When they remove the small amount of "hate speech" on their sites, they get worked like basketball refs about "censorship" so they relent. That explains why 96% of porn is scrubbed but only 30% of hate speech. Human behavior is hardwired and incredibly influenced by this medium.
Our forefathers may not have thought of this technology (insert sarcastic emoticon here) when writing the first amendment. The answer to destructive technology is not more technology.
If any of our elected officials have a shred of courage left they must deal with this now.
2
they "don't know" or they "don't care" ?
4
These companies need to ban bots.
8
If Twitter is worried about hate speech, the first account they should close is Trump's. There is no larger dissemination of hate, divisiveness and racism than the bully pulpit of this horrible man.
5
Making more money is the real driver. Figure out how to profit from curtailing hate and you’ve got a solution.
5
There is no cure for ignorance. Social media exemplifies this fact.
4
Quit Twitter. Only those who eagerly await Trump's hate and fear mongering will be left. Let Trump play with his followers in the sewer he created until advertisers have to justify their participation in support of hate. If smart, will leave as well.
6
There will always be riches in targeting the mentally disabled, the ungifted, the uneducated, the unlovely, the unloved. Bad taste, ugly, loud, cesspool, unkind sells. As one world-famous purveyor of junk puts it: "Billions and billions served."
Social media companies are not going to do anything that will cut the flow of gold. Watch.
5
Wouldn't it be nice if Twitter found its backbone and BANNED Trump from having any account at all, whether a personal one or a "presidential" one?!
IMAGINE the impact if his bullhorn were taken away from him! His followers wouldn't know what to think, nor in many cases whom to hate.
8
I wish we could mandate a shut-down of all social media platforms until we can resolve these issues. I fear we are in over our heads and we need thoughtful, timely action - but it’s not forthcoming. Where is Congress when you need it? Do we not have the collective intelligence to deal with this?
5
Who decides what is hate speech. Is something like the lies told about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq by the Bush administration subject to this conspiracy censorship. It’s one thing to have looneys spouting nonsense but who is going to censor politicians. Should Ms Clinton’s “deplorables” comment in 2016 been flagged as hate speech. Beware of knee jerk reactions to tragic events
2
Companies created by privileged white men weren’t prepared to handle hate speech? I’m shocked.
8
Instagram, a Facebook company.
Mission?
"Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.”
Nothing does that better than mass dissemination of hate speech and images.
9
Why can’t social media tools be used to identify likely perpetrators of violence in advance of their actions? If algorithms exist that can target customize advertisements directly to me (did I mention a certain department store in a text to a friend? Next thing you know, news of that store’s upcoming sale pops up in the middle of my on-line New Yorker article), why can’t a man with 21 registered guns and torrents of on-line anti-Semitic hate speech be targeted as a crime risk? Policing needs to shift from a post mortem activity (literally) to an anticipatory one.
4
On the streets of Chicago social media does not kill people. People kill people.
The weekend before last a gunfight broke out at a funeral for a local rapper who was gunned down the week before. While 40 to 50 shots were fired no one died. I-57 is the deadliest highway in the Chicago area and two more victims met their end that same weekend.
And many more were shot and killed and wounded in the usual suspect neighborhoods. But other hoods crept into the target range too. No one saw anything and no one was arrested.
On the international front social media does not kill people. People kill people.
Trump's snarling and snarky demented tweets are meant to be a distraction. Putin's smiling and smirking face sends people to mental institutions, hospitals, prisons, urns and coffins.
Cowards and punks use social media to threaten.
3
"Silicon Valley’s social media companies.... never quite understood the negative consequences....and that they cannot put the genie back in the bottle."
Those words perfectly describe social media today. And there is not enough money to spend in their coffers to put the genie back. Not even goverment regulations can help. The tipping point has been passed by years ago.
Just like Climate Change, all caused by humans.
2
Our nation had previously been attacked by terrorists who were radicalized overseas in countries most of us have never been to by paranoid and evil people who abused their power to stoke hatred.
Now, we're being attacked from within by Americans being radicalized by our own President.
6
These companies are not liable for the content on their sites. They make money from this content. Section 230 needs to change so they are held liable just like other advertising or media corporations.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S. Code § 230
Amazon also uses it to avoid liability for counterfeit and dangerous goods, including toys. If Toys R Us sold you something illegal that harmed your child they would be sued and lose. But if Amazon does it - they are not liable.
Section 230 has been exploited by some really dark parts of the Web. Until it goes and internet and social media corporations are liability for their businesses this problem will continue.
7
Those who run social media platforms should be considered publishers, legally responsible for the consequences of what they publish. Currently existing laws on fraud and libel could be applied to those hateful posts which are easily documented to be known falsehoods.
5
Stop using social media. Just stop. It's serves no legitimate purpose and it's a colossal waste of time and energy. Study after study shows that people - especially teenagers - feel worse after using social media. Silicon Valley tech big shots are now refusing to allow their children to be online and are making nannies sign contracts that the children they care for will have zero exposure to any screens.
To paraphrase Obama: bitter people cling to guns, religion and social media as a way to explain their frustrations.
12
An observation: the FCC has authority over radio and TV content because Congress granted it jurisdiction over the "airwaves." By a similar act, Congress could assert control over he Internet.
3
@arvay It is that simple.
Ah, for a peaceful world where humans had forgotten all about religion and political zealotism. Then folks could settle down to a more rational practice of focusing on making money by selling goods and services to others. What rational person, in that mindset, would kill or disable a potential or current paying customer? There I go showing my B School indoctrination again!
2
This is not social discourse. Shut it down. Shut it down. This does nothing but stir the pot of evil. There's no other way to say it. Either screen out the evil postings or shut it down. If any of these people left their phones and went outside and began screaming these hateful thoughts at their neighbors next door, they would be arrested. They would be arrested. "Social Media" needs to be redefined and modified. Or - shut it down.
6
I was astonished by two statistical items in this article, which appear to have been missed by commenters thus far. The report by YouTube that 10 million videos were reported as inappropriate by users in a three month period is astonishing in and of itself (how many videos were posted in total?), but less than 10% of these were actually in violation of policy. So, over 90% of the content reported was offensive to a user, but not offensive to the rules of the site. Chew on that one for a while and see where it takes you.
The other one - nearly 7 million videos were actually caught by YouTube’s automated review system as having violated the rules. Again, we don’t know how many videos were posted in total, but that is a huge number of videos that failed the test.
Censorship in a free society is an oxymoron. But we seem to have lost the ability to self-censor. A number of factors have been proposed to try and explain the incredible volume of hate speech posts: anonymity, spontaneity, the easy audience, and others. None of these seem to answer the question completely or adequately. For me, the question is, why do so many people seem to believe this junk, and why are so many people prepared to accept unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy-mongering so quickly? The majority of people used to have the capacity to dismiss this kind of tripe for what it was, the ravings of the lunatic, and our laughter seemed to shut them up.
No longer, and that is at the heart of the problem.
6
11,696 posts is manageable. As a west coast liberal, it's strange for me to say this, but...where are the internet police when you need them? My sense for a long time is that USA cranks out too many Soldiers and cops and not enough psychologists and social workers. We know the feds are trolling online for terrorists, and the local cops for sex crimes. How come our entrepreneurs aren't cranking out blockchain identity services for social media sites that could tie up with social programs to take hateful speech out of the echo chambers and bring these people face-to-face with people trained to listen instead of react. If this stuff is bad enough for the sites to take down, why not give it to applicable or local jurisdictions for review, using blockchain identity in the metadata?
We all give up an email or some personal info when we join a social media web site. Many of us have certificates on our computers or web sites that actually establish who and where we are. Maybe anonymity on the web should have its limits, and membership to post on social media sites should require accessible, if indirect, accountability, to a greater extent than it does now.
A lot of these people can still respond to the right kind of attention, whatever that may be.
4
@DAM It's not a crime to say or believe "hateful" things nor should it be. There is no federal designation of "hate speech" nor should there be.
Although private companies should certainly be able to moderate their forums as much or as little as they wish, I don't think that the government should be reviewing anyone's speech.
As a quick review of placards and newsletters from pro-segregationists circa 1963 shows, this strand of hatred in American political thought is nothing new.
So I’d like to hear from Justice Roberts if he still really believes we are living in a post racial America. That was his excuse for gutting the voting rights act and other protections for minorities. Or is he just part of the conservative cabal that has taken over the once highly regarded Supreme Court?
7
Most people are saddened and appalled by the hateful actions of the mass murderer in Pittsburgh and the Florida pipe bomber but, sadly, there are too many people who support this hatred. Trump is not the cause of this hate, but he has benefitted from it politicly despite his attempts to distance himself. No, Mr. Trump, there are not good people on both sides.
5
There were no world-beaters among the people who perished at the synagogue. They were common, ordinary people leading common, ordinary, quietly successful lives.
They practiced their professions, worried about money, fretted over the problems of their children and followed the fortunes of local sports teams.
Few, if any of them, seems to have been intensely political. Not a single one of them was ever remotely involved with a caravan.
Looking at them, Mr. Bowers -- a man obviously incapable of leading a common, ordinary life -- saw nothing but people who were a threat to his survival.
If the people at the synagogue had ever had any contact with Mr. Bowers, they probably would have tried to help him.
5
These are public forums. People are willing to say these things publicly. Perhaps we should be able to identify (those who use anonymous handles) and monitor them. If someone were yelling these things at an event, I would hope they would be “watched “. They are generally too cowardly to do so, because they know their sick ideas are generally considered abhorrent; But the online forum is at a physical remove as well as a distance of time. Laws have not caught up with technology, will they ever? Certainly not in this political climate.
1
I am scared that the social media will destroy peace, harmony and civility in society and also destroy our democracy. Trump’ Twitter driving the Americans and the whole world crazy. We should have social media laws and red lines. Thieve have to be monitored.
2
I am grateful for social media to pop the cork and let the bottled-up humanity show its colours. An experience not to be dismissed, since life is just a short adventure. But I am deeply depressed and embarrassed about the club I am a member of without having had a choice. Yet again, because I am a German. I wish a wizard could wave his magic wand and turn me into a pig, so that I can be proud again.
2
Hate is the coin of the realm on social media. It's the major source of profits for corporations that would do anything to increase user engagement and corresponding advertising revenues. All the "good intentions" and promises of the founders are lies. This is their business model writ large.
5
Why does it take companies like the New York Times to monitor social media companies like Facebook and Twitter? If these companies are unable to self-regulate, one has to question whether or not these companies don't do more harm than good.
2
This seems new in America, but plainly it's been brewing for a long time. Reagan abolished the fairness act which required broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoints -- which opened the pandora's box to hate radio. Out went balanced discussion and in came propaganda designed to trade away the give-and-take of democracy for easily-digestible lies, blame, attack. It was politically expedient (and made it soooo much easier to pick the pockets of the gullible), but over the decades, and now inflamed by social media, this weaponized hate is now blasting holes in our social fabric. Until people again value truth--hard won, reasoned truth based on facts -- it's only going to get worse.
Quit social media. Read the paper. Talk to your neighbor. Vote.
4
Trump has fueled so much hatred in this country, he should respect the wishes of the people of Pittsburgh and stay away. He was not wanted at Bush's funeral, McCain's funeral, Prince Harry's wedding, his visit to England and Scotland. He is unwelcome in millions of US homes. Respect the dead and grieving relatives by staying away.
8
Things that bring the power of great good, also carry the power of great evil. It is ever so. I got off social media awhile ago and while I miss seeing the cute pictures of my grandson, I am so much happier as I don't have to listen to the political rants of friends and acquaintances. Everyone is ratcheting up the rhetoric and accusing people on all sides of the political spectrum of the most horrible things. The problem is people do not accept "no" anymore. If you say no to someone, they just circle like sharks waiting for a weakness and they jump back in. I am so horrified by what social media has allowed some to do. I am so deeply sad for the losses of Jewish people on Squirrel Hill. We have collectively gone crazy. The difference between me and most writers here though is that I don't think President Trump, flawed as he is, is responsible. I think it is the dark side of human nature. I think the hatred that the left has demonstrated daily for Mr. Trump since his election has been just as responsible as his massive insensitivity. Angry words, insults, and resistance all have consequences too.
1
It is easy to point the finger at the newest technology, in this case “Social Media”, however the root-cause is as old as human society and psychology. Fear and dread of “the other” is rooted in us and we humans easily blame “the other” for all the personal and societal problems that we face. This is exacerbated in times of conflict as we turn on the near-enemy who just happens to be the very same group that we have always hated for reasons lost in the mists of history.
The solution is critical thinking, easy to say, but exceedingly difficult if not impossible to implement. We don’t like our prejudices challenged as that would put the blame for our problems somewhere closer to home and a lot more uncomfortable. It is easier, and more satisfying, to simply blame those we have always blamed and lash out at them. It doesn’t ever resolve the real problems but it feels better to vent your rage in a convenient direction.
Social Media only makes the process faster and a bit larger but the hatred and vitriol have always been there and will persist despite all our efforts to remove it.
To punish these companies that tolerate this hate speech, why not simply BOYCOTT them, that WOULD work.
4
This is the end of the world.
This is the end of the world.
This is the end of the world.
Not with a bang but with a tweet.
5
@ClearwaterHmm, I have wondered about that myself.
1
We need government to create laws that penalize social media companies.
The only way this will change is if the likes of Gab, Facebook and Twitter are held accountable for their platforms and the hate crimes they foment. Otherwise they will extend platitudes about free speech and do nothing.
I bet that as soon as one is successfully sued for tens of millions of dollars, many boards will urge “risk mitigation” and implement better screening that they have not done because it’s costly.
Doing the right thing to ensure a safe and civil society is clearly not enough for these for-profit companies.
3
Whenever someone can post anything anonymously it unleashes all the pent up rage and anger that has been building up throughout their lifetime. As long as one doesn't have to attach a name to the posting it gives free license to say anything.
I don't think this is anything new to the human psyche. I'm not a shrink and I never played one on TV, but realistically, all the Internet has done is give a venue to the basest level of human nature.
But. . . but what is different in the here and now is that we have a president who is using the White House bully pulpit to give a green light to white nationalists, and they are responding gratefully. They see him as one of their own. That dynamic has to change. The next president's job is to restore a moral center, an ethical core to the office.
And after Donald Trump, that really won't be hard to do.
38
It seems clear that social media needs to start taking responsibility for its role in shaping our nation and it’s rhetoric. In the meantime, I think that traditional media including the NYT needs stop covering the President’s tweets. If people are interested in what he is saying, they can follow him on Twitter. I don’t think it should be covered as news. It BECOMES news when it is.
14
I think the main problem is that posts and comments can be anonymous. If you can hide behind a moniker or such, there's a temptation to cater to your worst, lowest thoughts, feelings, and instincts.
If these sites could make people use their real names, things would improve dramatically. Would that be possible?
20
@Ira Brightman
Hi Ira, I used to use my full real name when I commented on NYT articles. But then along came the era of Trump and his seemingly unstoppable campaign and I realized, through news reports how potentially dangerous and or rather abusive his followers were becoming. Their tactics were trolling anyone that talked disparagingly about their post-truth idol. It was not worth the risk. I reluctantly started using Clearwater (a phrase I love by the way).
I write as very truthfully as I can. I work hard to get to the ecstatic essence of my thought when I write anything to post in NYT. Perhaps others do not. I'm sure some others do not. There lies the rub.
2
@Ira Brightman: I'm sure sites could make people use their real names. And with that would come domestic terrorism, delivered right to one's own door by anyone who disagrees with you, as we have seen this past week.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech if you fear for your life or your family or your home because of speaking out.
2
Ira, Trump uses his real name and spreads disinformation shamelessly on Twitter & elsewhere. It appears he relishes such activity, far from seeking anonymity.
1
Why would the GOP Congress act? Trump uses Twitter for the very purposes abhorred. The GOP billionaire backers use Fox News, Facebook, disinformation web sites, YouTube, etc to promote their candidates and diss their opponents.
Fixing social media would not only remove large paying customers, not something Zuckerberg et alia would enjoy, but would seriously impact the brainwashing apparatus working to re-elect the GOP Congress.
33
Were the founders of our nation mistaken when they believed that the free publication and expression of ideas would persuade the public to find Truth? What happened as a result of the first amendment was chaos at first, but then the press established schools of journalism and professionalized the practice of their craft with norms of responsibility. Those norms have always been challenged on the fringes of society, but big money produced Fox News and profits have always followed rags like the Inquirer. The norms held until full democracy was achieved through social media. Now we must find ways to regulate the media without destroying its freedom.
4
One solution:
Social media vetting for hate speech as mandatory background check for firearms purchase, (in addition to criminal and mental health checks). It won't eliminate the hate speech, but it will reduce it.
10
@MJG Define "hate speech".
Also explain why the government should be able to prevent you from exercising your free speech rights in order to exercise your right to bear arms.
Are there other rights that should be made conditional of speech that you like? Because I am sure conservatives would line up to place such restrictions of voting if they could get away with it.
I have reported to twitter so many accounts and tweets that include hate speech. Occasionally Twitter agrees with me, and states that it has determined that the accounts violated policy, but more often than not, the accounts and tweets remain, and the hate speech flourishes. If Twitter and other social media companies can't even weed out reported hate speech, I don't see how there is hope that they will do it on their own. People and companies that have advised us "not to feed the trolls," are basically telling us to ignore it, and that has not worked. I don't know what the answer is, but it needs to be figured out.
14
If Twitter wants to stop hate speech, they should cancel Trump’s account.
110
@BWCA
Absolutely. I was thinking the same thing myself. But, not having a Twitter account, I assume the company is making money on Con Man Don's racist rants.
@BWCA
That's only half the problem. Half the problem is the left, and the other half is the right. It's funny at times, and downright annoying at others.
Concerned about 'hate' speech and 'fake news', social media sites in the early 21st century tried using their, quite primitive, 'AI' to control ideas and communication on their sites... I can see several science fiction plots, just from that line. What is more dangerous, the free flow of ideas, good and bad, or the robotic thought police?
@IMiss America: I think you've set up a false dilemma. The "free flow of ideas" imposes upon the communicator a duty to act responsibly. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is criminal, and egregious falsehoods are addressed by the slander and libel civil laws. None of that has anything to do with "thought police". This isn't an issue of free speech -- it is an issue of enforcing old laws in a new environment. The AI is simply a way to identify what postings might be in violation of those laws.
2
While visiting Social Media sites, the most recent generations are quick on their trigger finger, forced by attrition to respond to their recently visited screen in a knee-jerk fashion without any investigation as to the authenticity of its content due to their being programmed, and subliminally since adolescence, to believe they'll be left a click or two behind-and all to their detriment.
I am amazed when I am purchasing something and attempt to pay how the clerk taking care of me enters my space and tries to take over my attempts to use my credit card or discount card and sometimes even attempts to reach into my wallet to spur the transaction along.
This is unreal what we are experiencing in this now-click, now-click, now-click let's get this instance over with and move on with another e-click moment.
I can just imagine how their brains react when they see someone not whom they believe to be e-savy approaching them on-line. Without even consciously thinking about it, immediately it kicks-in that they'll e need to take over the transaction.
The time-worn adage 'a picture is worth a thousand words' has taken on a whole new meaning in this speed-driven e-click universe.
2
Thee genie is out of the box. No matter what Facebook or Google do, they are private American companies. What’s to stop the Chinese or some other country to offer itself as a base for Facebook-like companies outside of American jurisdiction.
2
If all the same people leave social media sites, it will take away their power. Do it.
13
Why blame social media when we have a president who does everything social media is being accused of and does it routinely and with ruthless efficiency. Social media is simply a reflection of what we are being told this country is all about - by the "leaders." Let's blame these people - and not the technology.
24
@Srini True, there is something curious about looking at social media this way -- as if we looked to the phone companies and the post office to stop people from telling lies over the phone or in letters. We should certainly pay more attention to the people originating the lies and hate. Including Trump, but also many others.
Of course, that would involve openly calling somebody a liar, which our mainstream media has traditionally shied away from, in favor of "balance", except when the party is a designated enemy. I think they are beginning to show more willingness to point out lies. As long as they keep pointing to the right people...
2
@Srini - Isn't it the other way around? Isn't the current President a creation of Twitter? Could he have been elected without it? Could he "control" the news as he does without it? Yes, social media reflects him, but he drives the hate on social media in a tornado of ignorance and lies. Yes, he and other haters are to blame, but if we cannot control the media we will call up the worst angels of our nature and destroy ourselves.
1
Is there an answer? I don't know, however, my only idea is providing a true, liberal education for the masses. I don't have statistics, but I can't believe that the majority of hate site proponents or adherents have a degree from a real, liberal arts college. I can't believe that they have studied the actual history of the world at a credible institution. I would guess that most of their "knowledge" comes from the sites that are the subject of the editorial.
7
@Disillusioned I would just say, we shouldn't have to talk about college education here: we covered enough history and social studies in our public school, k-12, so that nobody would have any excuse for believing any anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, if they were paying attention. But there is a great appeal to being told that "everything they told you in school is wrong, or incomplete, here is the real truth..."
When I think of why the major conspiracy theories seem ridiculous, it isn't because of anything I learned in school, it's because of a common-sense feel of how organizations work, and don't work. But I guess what seems commonsense to me isn't obvious to everybody.
6
Trump was educated at a good university. Obviously education is important, but a lot of highly educated people have promoted racism in the past.
Social media, like everything else must be viewed for what it is, a tool. Just as Microsoft empowered people to become programmers, most wrote useful programs, but there were those who wrote viruses and other malware. Did we blame or expect Microsoft to control every program that a person could write? God forbid. Similarly, to expect social media companies to act as a nanny censor is also wrong. Free speech means nothing if even opinions and ideas that are not popular are suppressed. It starts the slide down the slippery slope of censoring everything. If we become authoritarian in pursuing such, we are no better than those who spew an appeal to authoritarianism in the first place.
6
@Patrick There is a lot of truth to what you say, but pragmatically, there is a real difference between someone spewing hateful lies, and someone reciting anodyne niceness. The second really is better in significant ways, even if a free-speech idealist might recoil. Many real-life examples show that the "slippery slope" model isn't as valid as it might sound.
1
The understanding of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, etc about spreading venomous disinformation is impeded by two big factors: (1) the profit motive before public well being, and (2) a business model that deals with matters by machine algorithms, not human judgments; an approach taken because of the desire for speed in handling a deluge of decisions, and because using a lot of humans is not only slow and an organizational challenge, but expensive.
4
One especially appealing part of this forum right here is that comments are vetted by moderators BEFORE publishing - not combed for afterwards, as is the case with mainstream social media. The result is a range of differing perspectives on topics that matter to contributors while maintaining a semblance of respect and decorum - if not infallible factual basis.
93
I submit that anyone thinking requiring people to give their identity on social media, blogs, or comments section will stop hate and intolerance hasn’t really paid attention to these things.
These people don’t care.
12
Steve, you are correct: removing anonymity is no solution, though it might help. Trump is the most visible example of a disinformation spreader who enjoys his notoriety using his real identity. Alex Jones is another.
3
The social media companies are driven by an imperative to increase their base numbers of users. Hence they will allow anyone to post, generally anonymously, and cannot possibly police in real time all that is published. A partial solution will be to require verified identities for all users. Most people will be much less likely to spew venom if they know it can be tracked to them, by actual name and location. The criminal utility of encrypted services will also be negated.
The technology to do this exists. It’s the same that banks have to use for KYC. The only thing stopping its implementation in social media is the business models of the companies. Make it such that they lose money on every anonymous user, and that will change quick.
37
@Douglas Evans. Next problem would be hacking and stolen identities!
2
At first when I read this, it added to my sadness and pessimism. But think of all of the love and support there has been over the past 48 hours on social media. There is more good than evil.
15
@S marcus
Someone bent on doing evil is always going to do more damage than someone bent on doing good will be able to repair.
It is clear that humanity was not ready for social media. Whereas previously print and TV media risked identification, reputation, longevity and (unfortunately) profits - social media comes without any of these burdens. The weight of news was built by trust and accountability over the long-term. It supplied some context, appreciated nuance, and at least tried to divorce facts from interpretation.
In social media, this is replaced by the explosive pairing of a safe anonymity and the ethos of shock value. Facts and interpretation are both replaced by unedited fantasy. I'm surprised MIT puts fake news at only 70% more likely to go viral than actual news. I'd've put it much higher. Conspiracy theories once relegated to the fringe are now front and center of "political" discussion. The medium is indeed the message.
Now with the help of AI, one can turn images into fake video ("Deep Fakes"). This will make authenticity of video even more difficult to verify. We are entering very dangerous territory. We are in an age of a crisis of truth itself.
When you underlie this platform with age old tropes which spin globalism and finance into anti-Semitic narratives, one re-ignites centuries-old hatred. This is the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" of early 20th century Russia, writ global, in real time.
98
As a software developer it frustrates me that my fellow developers focus on the cool stuff instead of working on defensive tools that can stop the spread of hate messages. Instead they're working on tools that can amplify these false stories and hate speech.
The innovation and disruption we need from start-ups is in the spam/hate speech filtering and moderation tools areas. Help give the decent people of the world a fighting chance against the torrent of negativity that's been unleashed by social media.
271
@RA highly interesting comments and perspective. Social media has left me more hopeless than hopeful and I have always struggled to find the real gain in these platforms. FB and its progeny have merely continued to devlove human thought processes and preclude the actual effort of analysis. I see zero value-add in FB and Instagram. I once saw value in Twitter as a medium to quickly communicate important (truncated) information. It, too, is now fully contaminated in obvious venues. Is the Ad revenue really worth the dissonance ? Thank you
The comments on social media can be sad and they can indeed incite violence among the dregs of humanity. They are also the greatest source of information available to law enforcement to identify and track these miscreants. One can only assume that they are using this readily available resource.
7
@Seabrook . Nice thought, but "law enforcement" doesn't have the resources for this level of surveillance. I am not sure you'd particularly want it to have this level of surveillance.
7
@ALarabee - Valid point on the available resources. Unfortunately, Edward Snowden has already shown us that the government is probing much deeper than monitoring social media. Sadly most Americans didn't really care.
2
I think we should be grateful to Social Media for outing these individuals. They've always existed, we just didn't know who they were or where to find them.
13
Social Media is not going to go away. Besides having a lot of problems, they are extremely helpful and beneficial free resources for people to have access to as well.
Don't most people take news (especially not from a credible source) with a grain of salt? Perhaps citations and sources need to be taken more seriously...
"Don't believe everything you read online" is a new saying that I have heard numerous times in the past decade.
2
Sorry. I would rather live in a country where speech is unregulated but guns are banned than the other way around. Call me crazy.
76
Lies, distorting partial truths, and buried information emanating from Trump and the GOP enable the falsehoods on social media. There needs to be a standard that imposes a factual basis for claims and presents the alternatives solutions to real issues. It used to be journalism but that has been diminished by Trump. Pure propaganda damages democracy. How to deal with a population unwilling to evaluate facts is a sad separate issue. The GOP markets itself that demographic.
22
@poslug
Journalism was weakened when Bill Clinton teamed up with Republicans to pass the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
This bill, combined with aggressive inaction by the FCC (which by the way killed net neutrality last year) has let right wing corporations dominate media markets around the country. This bipartisan legislation let Rush Limbaugh and other hate pushers dominate radio across the country. They also let the global rich buy multiple platforms in many localities, so they control news in many markets.
All mass news is now controlled by six global conglomerates or directly by billionaires like Bezos.
It is not a coincidence that people that push and even carry out political violence are allied with those that believe that all markets should be completely deregulated.
Just because legislation is bipartisan doesn't mean it's a good idea. The War in Iraq was bipartisan, and strongly supported by corporate mass news, even though the evidence that the war was based on lies was available in the international section of the NY Times. This war killed more Americans than 9/11 and about half a billion Iraqis, and created ISIS, and destabilized Syria.
Centrism is a corporate propaganda campaign designed to get good people to compromise with hate, greed, and violence. The billionaires own the news and they own the social media, and none of this is a coincidence.
Compromise with the left and peacefully fight for justice, before it is too late.
Love thy neighbor.
12
@Ewood
Zuckerberg is not just a "naif utopian." Rather he is a greedy businessman whose mantra of connecting people is camouflage for selling more ads. Zuckerberg appeared before Congress promising to develop software which would filter those comments, taking some years. He just wanted to avoid hiring moderators who cost a lot more.
106
WORDS ARE WEAPONS For example, Trump has been adjudicated as having instigated violence at a rally by Judge David Hale for having told supporters to "get rid of" demonstrators, telling supporters that he would pay for their legal expenses. The case is on appeal. But Hale's adjudication is arguably based upon the notion of weaponized speech. Speech intended to arouse violent ideas and actions in others is NOT protected by the First Amendment. Thus, anybody publishing Weaponized Speech is also guilty of instigating violence. The nonsense about the ostrich like position is killing us. I say 'ostrich" referring to times when the bird has its head buried in the sand, so it is unable to see what will strike it. In fact, the sites that invite and support weaponized speech are arguably accessories to any and all crimes that result from the impact of such lethalized speech. The Founders, in the Second Amendment, were exclusively referring to mechanical devices that had been invented by and is use during the 18th century. That is the originalist meaning and originalist intent. Websites that publish weaponized speech that can demonstrably be stated to have the intent of instigating violent action is NOT legal and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
51
Can we PLEASE just call this what it is - domestic terrorism? For years we have read about terrorists in the Middle East using social media and online propaganda to radicalize future recruits. What is happening domestically now is no different and we should call it by name - terrorism. When will our Congress act? Regulation NOW - these companies, despite their efforts, are clearly not up to the task.
276
I agree that these are the forms actions. but what will the regulations be? These platforms we're set up with an assumption, in most cases that generally accepted public mores of behavior would be followed. Just as the Presidency was. What checks and balances are to be established?
9
Some other smart commentator here suggested an encrypted online "signature" - akin, I suppose, to a SSN. This would force people to be accountable to their words and help hold thm accountable for hate speech in the courts. I could support this. I have to practically disrobe and unpack just to get on an airplane in the name of safety. Similar measures in the online space are also justifiable sacrifices in the name of safety, IMO.
47
@SD
You ask, "When will our Congress act?"
My answer is, on the same day that they pass sensible legislation controlling the manufacture, sale and use of guns.
36
If shouting "fire" in a crowded space to create panic and its subsequent consequences is a violation of free speech, then noxious speech - opinions, falsehoods, deliberate inaccuracies - on a social platform is equally so. The sad lack in the USA Constitution is the guarantee of common sense in the public space. One might also argue that common sense is lacking in a Supreme Court that provides "originalist" interpretations in a modern era, trying to define our world from the context of the 1770's!
54
@vincentgaglione
Why ban opinions? Only ban the falsehoods and the inaccuracies, because opinions without those quickly fall flat to any outsider.
"If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success." Confucius, Analects 13.
"Social media" is a misnomer in need of rectification. The correct name is anti-social media. Facebook, Twitter et al subvert and destroy the face-to-face dialogue in which human sociality (and mentality) is rooted. They are more likely to produce alienation and oppression than anything else, as noted by such authors as Morozov (e.g. The Net Delusion) and Sherry Turckle (e.g. Alone Together). This article is further confirmation, albeit anecdotal.
It ironically ends by exhorting the reader to "follow [the authors] on Twitter." Try talking with someone instead.
150
The “social media” are without any doubt a significant tool to spread radical ideas and hate. It as easy to find users who share absurd conspiracy therories and racist ideas as it is to find some old friends you did not talk to for decades. It is the goal of the user profiling on these platforms to achieve exactly that. Now we seem to ask the companies to filter the content on those platforms for whatever appears to be appropriate to them and make the content disappear. I think it is important to realize that we are at a pivot point doing so and have to be really careful. If the content collides with actual laws and restrictions - then it would be the task of the justice system to hold the person accountable who generated it - not the storage and distribution system. There seem to be two major issues here: the laws do obviously not sufficiently cover modern communication technologies and the ability to post anonymously. Both have to be addressed by our legislative and can not be delegated to companies that are driven by business decisions and are not - and should never become - a part of the legal system.
9
The following quote from this excellent article says it all:
"But it has become glaringly apparent that the companies never quite understood the negative consequences of that influence nor what to do about it — and that they cannot put the genie back in the bottle."
I am glad to read that Facebook is hiring 10,000 people to address this problem. Last year in Albuquerque, they broke ground to build a much ballyhooed facility there, announcing they were employing up to 500 people to build the place, but unknown to most, employing only 50 people to run it when it was to be completed; what a great contribution to the local economy! Maybe some of their new hires can be sent there. It's a great place to live.
10
@Toby
"I am glad to read that Facebook is hiring 10,000 people to address this problem."
That would cost about $1billion per year, (sticking to nice-round-numbers). Best curb your gladness, Toby, because that's not going to happen. Betcha a dollar!
Is social media, which originated on the premise of good will, doing more harm than good for our society?
Should social media sites be taken down, at least until the problems can be solved?
We survived before FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube. I am sure we can again.
26
@Marie "Originated on the premise of good will"?
I believe Facebook started as a "hot or not" rating game coded by Mark Zuckerberg while he was at Harvard.
There's no doubt that social media has some benefits. But for every beneficial community it creates, it also spawns a malignant one and enables it to grow like never before.
Who had ever heard of "incels" before social media?
The people and companies who have gotten rich by mining citizens' data have a responsibility to regulate themselves, or the government will have to do it for them.
Plans by the social media behemoths to invest heavily in technology to cut down online hate speech and falsehoods: too little, too late.
35
@
LN Better than nothing !
I should be abundantly clear by now that social media acts like a lens that can and many cases magnify something into the grotesque.
Example:
Step 1: A laudable human capacity for faith and charity becomes embodied in a pseudo-human figure, Santa Claus.
Step 2: A series of unbelievable myths grow into a commercial frenzy.
Step 3: Santa Claus "becomes" white.
Even great things can be amplified into despicable ideas.
12