Posted on 05/12/2024 7:35:11 AM PDT by DoodleBob
On May 16 the world will mark the UN International Day of Living Together in Peace. It is a rallying call for people to listen respectfully to others and promote tolerance and understanding.
Perhaps someone should tell tech entrepreneurs Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. The online platforms they head up – Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X – have become synonymous with fake news, hate speech, misinformation and other online harms.
Social media has been widely blamed for destabilising democracies and fomenting civil unrest in Europe and North America. In July 2023, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, proposed restricting access to online platforms in order to quell rioting.
This is a far cry from 2009, when Facebook proudly claimed it had created “friendships” between seemingly irredeemably rival groups: Sunni and Shia Muslims, Muslims and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Greeks and Turks, conservatives and liberals.
“Peace on Facebook” was a classic example of what social scientist Nicholas John refers to as “social media bullsh**”. Such PR blurb is designed to convince the public these tech companies are a force for good. They purposefully describe themselves as “platforms” – rather than commercial entities – to emphasise how benign they are.
In reality, these companies financially benefit from every click, like, share and comment users on their platforms make. The more inflammatory the content, the more profitable it is. My research shows that such online incivility only makes it harder to promote peaceful coexistence
There appears little chance of social media platforms taking stronger action to remove divisive content. Since tech entrepreneur Elon Musk’s acquisition of the X (formerly Twitter) microblogging platform in October 2022, the guardrails designed to protect minorities have, in fact, been dismantled.
Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council was dissolved in December 2022. This move, among many other policy changes, prompted an insider to go public with their fears that the site could no longer protect users from trolling, disinformation and sexual exploitation.
Musk has reportedly described himself as a “free speech absolutist”. This is particularly problematic for those whose real job it is to promote peace in deeply divided societies.
There is already extensive evidence that online platforms such as Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) have been used to spread hate speech. They have been used to incite sectarian violence, too, in countries including India and Myanmar.
In Sri Lanka, following anti-Muslim rioting in 2018, Facebook issued an apology for its role in the unrest. The company hired Article One, the human rights consultancy, to investigate what had happened. It concluded that the hate speech and misinformation that was amplified by Facebook users online “may have led” to violence offline.
My research shows that rumours, misinformation and disinformation have frequently been amplified by social media during contentious parades and protests in Northern Ireland. There is little evidence that such online activity inevitably leads to sectarian rioting. The indirect effects of online incivility, however, is that it makes it harder to promote reconciliation between former antagonists.
In effect, online platforms at present focus more attention on what divides rather than unites different communities.
Research shows that unsupervised intergroup contact, both on and offline, is unlikely to foster positive peace in societies that are transitioning out of conflict. Reducing prejudices against outgroups is much easier when there are rules in place to respond to content that inflames tensions between different communities. In other words, rival groups are unlikely to find common ground in unregulated online spaces where hate speech flourishes.
Clearly, frequent exposure to the online hate speech amplified by social media platforms is unlikely to aid peacebuilding. Communities who do not typically share the same physical space are unlikely to think differently about each other when they see such negative stereotypes being perpetuated online.
Social media such as Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) might not be the best place to promote peace. These platforms are designed to generate profit, not improve community relations.
For intergroup dialogue in contemporary societies to be effective minorities and vulnerable communities need stronger protections, not less. A public service internet, guardrails included, might be a better way to promote reconciliation in divided societies.
UN International Day of Living Together in Peace.
Double plus goodspeak comrade.
Government imposted “peace” is just the softer side of tyranny.
Anyone who has hosted the family Thanksgiving dinner already knows this.
“Peace” means don’t you dare disagree with what I say.
A much better path toward fighting disinformation would be to teach children critical thinking and logic from an early age. Government schools do just the opposite, the ideal student being one who swallows the indoctrination readily and completely.
We just went through a period when the government controlled what internet companies could allow on their website. It censored conservatives 98,%of the time. Biden used it to silence his critics. The power was abused by the state and they lied about it when they got caught.
Let’s consider this reality re: “censorship:” JimRob “censors” on FR.
It’s his property.
If we don’t like it, we can go to DU or Lucianne’s site etc.
I dislike some of the nonsense that flies on FR, ranging from idiocracy (usually reposted from Slay News or Gateway Pundit) to blatant racism. The upside to this non-censorship is I know who to avoid and who’s a dope (and I’m sure they feel the same way about me).
I’ve also seen lots of nonsense getting removed.
Net-net-net, it’s worth coming back.
Give the govt the keys, and there is NO alternative.
Let’s consider this reality re: “censorship:” JimRob “censors” on FR.
It’s his property.
If we don’t like it, we can go to DU or Lucianne’s site etc.
I dislike some of the nonsense that flies on FR, ranging from idiocracy (usually reposted from Slay News or Gateway Pundit) to blatant racism. The upside to this non-censorship is I know who to avoid and who’s a dope (and I’m sure they feel the same way about me).
I’ve also seen lots of nonsense getting removed.
Net-net-net, it’s worth coming back.
Give the govt the keys, and there is NO alternative.
I've noticed some of that, especially with blatant racism. On the bright side, some of the notorious posters got suspended/banned.
We are not talking here about what individual site owners do or do not allow on their own sites.
The subject at hand is the government decreeing what is allowed on ANY site.
NOT same-same.
I am not a racist.
I hate all races equally.
Zaktly.
That was the point I was trying to make - some were arguing that no oversight is ideal.
Property owners can do what they want. Twitter banning conservatives was ok since it is private property.
The govt colluding/lightly threatening with Twitter is wrong.
1. "Freedom is dangerous. You want to be safe, don't you?"
2. "Freedom is selfish. What'd good for you as an individual isn't as important as what's good for society."
And,
3. "The function of government is to decide what's good for society."
And,
4. "We're the government."
These guys have played the same song so often the record's worn out.
You will get no argument from me.
Worse is the ATF storming of airport manager’s house in Oklahoma with no warrant and fifteen agents and no calling out of Police OPEN UP!!! They smashed through his door after covering up the ring camera and they wore no body cams. When the target appeared they shot him in the head. It was- they said- because he had sold some guns at gun shows. Re elect the Democrats and we have full blown STASI/Gestapo/KGB and prominent citizens who own guns and Christian or conservative views will get raided and killed as examples all over the country. Already ATF needs no warrants, needs no notification of local law enforcement agencies, are authorized to kill whoever they deem inconvenient or who is on their list.
Worse is the ATF storming of airport manager’s house in Oklahoma with no warrant and fifteen agents and no calling out of Police OPEN UP!!! They smashed through his door after covering up the ring camera and they wore no body cams. When the target appeared they shot him in the head. It was- they said- because he had sold some guns at gun shows. Re elect the Democrats and we have full blown STASI/Gestapo/KGB and prominent citizens who own guns and Christian or conservative views will get raided and killed as examples all over the country. Already ATF needs no warrants, needs no notification of local law enforcement agencies, are authorized to kill whoever they deem inconvenient or who is on their list. Oh, and total censorship will be imposed rapidly. The Revolution has been made. We are witnessing the beginnings of the Consolidation.
Property owners -as in real estate- can do anything they can get an expensive government permit for.
I’m well aware that sites like FR are censored by their owners. I’m a moderator (by invitation) on another site and frequently must judge whether posts violate the site’s rules or not.
The government actually censors quite a bit. All of those movie, game, and TV ratings are the result of government censorship. What the government cannot legally censor is political speech, and that is a line that is difficult to define.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.