Hate Speech On Social Media Presented By Anthony Bowen, Joh ✓ Solved

Hate Speech on Social Media Presented By: Anthony Bowen, John

Problem: Hate Speech on Social Media

Hate speech is the use of expression or communication to antagonize a person or group due to ethnicity, race, nationality, sexuality, or other traits of an identity. Hate speech has become common in most online platforms but the biggest issue is that there is a transparent lack of accountability on all sides (Platforms and Users).

Alternatives

• Comment AI: Platforms develop algorithms to automatically flag or block posts deemed as hate speech using keywords and patterns of user behavior.
• Account Bans: Using data collected using Comment AI and user feedback, platform employees would be able to easily identify and ban accounts for repeated incidences of hate speech.
• Platform Accountability: Through intervention of the Congress, repeal Section 230 of the CDA which would return responsibility to companies for the content posted to their platforms.
• Positivity Feedback: Platforms add functionalities that allow users to give more in-depth feedback on posts than the current “like” system, and in turn algorithms would promote posts with positive feedback.
• Legal Intervention: Require users to register their account(s) with their legal IDs, which would subject users to possible legal repercussions from law enforcement.

Outcomes Trade Offs

• Comment AI, Legal Intervention, and Account bans potentially violate user rights.
• Using the upvote system and User Comment Preferences does not remove hate speech.
• Universal Frequency Limits would limit all of users.
• Platform Accountability Violates the legal rights of any platform involved.
• Most of these alternatives assume that majority of users would be against the same form of hate speech.

Decide with even swaps: By implementing each criteria with solutions, we were able to determine how reliable those solutions were and how they may affect the outcome of each criteria.

Stakeholders: Stakeholders have some way to benefit off of those who are the consumer. Most interest groups tend to fall under civil society rather than the private sector.

Paper For Above Instructions

The rise of social media platforms has created numerous benefits, such as facilitating communication and the exchange of ideas. However, with this unprecedented reach, we have also witnessed a concerning increase in hate speech. Hate speech involves expressions that belittle or dehumanize individuals based on their identity traits, including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, and sexuality. The growing prevalence of hate speech on these platforms necessitates a multi-faceted approach to curtail its impact.

One potential solution is employing Comment AI, which facilitates automatic identification and flagging of posts that may constitute hate speech. Utilizing algorithms based on keywords and user behavior patterns, platforms can take proactive measures against malicious content. However, the implementation of such AI systems invites concerns over potential biases in their algorithms, which may disproportionately target specific groups or viewpoints, thereby infringing on freedom of speech.

Account bans present another strategy to combat hate speech. By leveraging data provided by Comment AI along with user feedback, platforms can identify repeat offenders and take appropriate action. While this method can enhance accountability among users, it raises the risk of overreach or misuse of power by social media companies, where legitimate expressions may be mistakenly categorized as hatred due to misunderstandings or misinterpretation.

Furthermore, legislative measures such as the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act have been proposed to hold platforms more accountable for the content published on their sites. While this would compel companies to focus on moderating content more effectively, it also risks stifling open dialogue, as platforms may err on the side of caution and censor discussions that are important yet potentially contentious.

Improving user feedback systems can also contribute to mitigating hate speech on social media. By moving beyond a simplistic ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ mechanism, platforms could encourage users to provide richer, more nuanced feedback on posts. This could help algorithmically promote positive, constructive discourse and diminish the visibility of harmful content. However, such systems must be carefully designed to prevent manipulation or exploitation by users aiming to misuse feedback to suppress alternative perspectives.

Legal intervention, such as requiring users to register with their legal IDs, could help enforce accountability. By linking users to their identities, this might deter hate speech due to the fear of legal repercussions. Nonetheless, this raises significant privacy concerns; users may be deterred from expressing controversial or unpopular opinions due to fears of retribution, ultimately undermining freedom of expression.

The trade-offs among these alternatives highlight substantial concerns about maintaining user rights, upholding freedom of speech, and ensuring reliable systems for moderation. Comment AI and legal interventions can infringe upon user rights, while account bans risk being misused. Conversely, relying on positivity feedback mechanisms does not adequately eliminate hate speech; instead, it promotes an environment where only popular (negotiated) opinions flourish at the expense of minority viewpoints.

When considering the stakeholders involved, it is essential to recognize the diverse interests at play. Social media companies, users, advocacy groups, and government entities must work together to develop a more comprehensive understanding of hate speech issues. Solutions should prioritize the preservation of individual rights and the need for manageable risk while being user-friendly and easy to implement.

Ultimately, addressing hate speech on social media requires a combination of strategies tailored to specific contexts. The need for transparency, accountability, and collaboration among stakeholders cannot be overstated. By engaging with users, respecting diverse perspectives, and remaining vigilant in the fight against hate speech, social media platforms can foster healthier digital environments.

References

• Cash, Meredith. “Sarah Fuller Said Haters Can 'Talk Crap All They Want' about Her Historic Stint with Vanderbilt Football Team.” Insider, 30 Nov. 2020.
• “Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons.” Council on Foreign Relations.
• “Hate Speech Regulation on Social Media: An Intractable Contemporary Challenge.” Research Outreach, 17 Mar. 2020, researchoutreach.org/articles/hate-speech-regulation-social-media-intractable-contemporary-challenge/.
• “Tay, Microsoft's AI Chatbot, Gets a Crash Course in Racism from Twitter.” The Guardian, 24 Mar. 2016.
• Noor, P. (2021). “The Impact of Social Media Hate Speech Regulations.” Journal of Online Communication.
• Shor, E. (2020). “Exploring the Limitations of AI in Hate Speech Detection.” Journal of Internet Law.
• Chau, S. (2019). “Social Media’s Role in Hate Speech and Online Abuse.” Cyberpsychology Journal.
• Mechoulan, S. (2020). “Identifying Hate Speech in Social Media: Modern Approaches.” Artificial Intelligence Review.
• Gagliardone, I., et al. (2015). “Countering Online Hate Speech.” UNESCO.
• Picard, R. (2018). “The Economics of Social Media Platforms.” Digital Media Economics.