Twitter in uncharted waters with hate-speech clampdown

Hateful or violent messages posted on the social media pose a serious challenge for the business operators, not least because of the thin line between freedom of expression and the abuse of that right, which often strays into outright illegality. Now Twitter, one of the world’s most popular social networks, has taken a controversial step. In a policy shift announced with the arrival of the new year, it has declared its intention to ban users who post harmful tweets and register multiple accounts for that purpose. 

CNN reports that, although Twitter’s announcement did not specifically mention the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, the policy adjustment stems from growing public outrage over the use of the social media to instigate acts of terrorism, as 

happened in those places, and to find new recruits to political causes that entail causing injury to the innocent.

The social networks have been dogged from the start by debate over where the line is crossed between freedom of expression and unacceptable hate speech. 

It is invariably argued that practitioners of violence might be terrorists or they might be “freedom fighters”, depending on one’s point of view. 

Adding complexity to the issue is the comparative guilt or innocence of those who express support for specific violent acts, however passively.  

The Hollywood movie “The Accused” comes to mind, with its condemnation not just of the barroom rapists depicted but also the bystanders who cheered them on.

In these sharing times, users of the social media routinely fume over events, and some do so with a concealed agenda, which in turn generates further argument as to their agenda’s rightfulness and, again, leaves open the question of who is qualified to act as judge.

Well aware of such sensitivities, Twitter has couched its new policy in careful language. It says it is attempting to stop people from sending abusive and violent messages, that it “will not tolerate behaviour intended to harass or intimidate or use fear to silence another user’s voice”, and also that it will continue to “embrace diverse opinions and beliefs”.

Twitter’s determination to “take action on accounts that cross the line into abuse” leaves it wide open to ethical and possibly legal challenges. 

How exactly does it plan to assess whether the line has been crossed?

 Hate speech comes in varying shades. It can be disarmingly subtle and at the same time highly effective if the presentation and timing are right. It’s doubtful an algorhythm has yet been conceived that could zero in on what Twitter wants to block. It would need a large team of dedicated (human) adjudicators monitoring tweets around the clock, and they would surely be deluged by outraged but otherwise harmless posts.

We wish Twitter all the best in this unprecedented effort. What it aims to accomplish needs to be done. However, the readiness of ill-intentioned users to incite hatred will not easily be contained, whether in a diatribe from a rally stage or through a compelling 140-word tweet.

The social networks – megaphones for the masses – have made it easier than even before to motivate people to love, buy, celebrate and hate. However “virtual” they remain, the online sharing networks have established a world of their own, a parallel universe where the powerless can feel powerful and cowards might act bravely. 

Such empowerment has been welcome for the most part, but, in attempting to limit expression through tighter controls, Twitter threatens to undermine the opportunities for free-wheeling assertiveness that are among the social media’s most cherished characteristic. 

Twitter and the rest must feel like the parents of rebellious teenagers, teetering between discipline and dictatorship.