Talk:Hate speech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add information[edit]

I suggest adding a section about Holocaust distortion and denial online under the section “internet”

Holocaust denial and distortion on social media[edit]

Holocaust denial and distortion is present on all online platforms, including platforms with targeted content moderation policies to address Holocaust denial and distortion. On these platforms, Holocaust denial is less present, but Holocaust distortion is far more common and takes various forms. According to research: Nearly one in five (19%) of all Holocaust-related public Twitter content either denied or distorted the history. 17% of public TikTok content that related to the Holocaust either denies or distorts the Holocaust.[1] 8% of public Holocaust-related content on Facebook was either Holocaust denial or distortion. 3% of material posted publicly on Instagram discussing the Holocaust either denied or distorted the history. Where platforms have introduced policies, content moderation and clear user guidance, this can have an impact in limiting and removing harmful content.[2] There was a notable difference in the levels of Holocaust denial and distortion between Facebook – which has moved to address criticisms of disinformation – and Telegram, which remains highly unmoderated. Online platform community guidelines and moderation policies are often limited to addressing Holocaust denial rather than the more complex issue of Holocaust distortion. Consequently, where Holocaust denial has been limited on moderated platforms, it has migrated to other online platforms. The more mainstream sites are still used to direct users to more radical forums. Holocaust distortion trails world events and shifts in form depending on current affairs, areas of deep public concern and the evolving news agenda. As such, a high degree of Holocaust distortion was linked to anti-lockdown protests and other restrictions implemented to tackle coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Holocaust denial and distortion are often manifested in covert and coded ways, which may hinder efforts to mitigate their dissemination online. Educating about the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes is the best defence against denial and distortion.[3] Lisa Rechelle (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention of Holocaust denial and distortion online[edit]

Several governments have taken action to counter Holocaust denial and distortion on online platforms through legislative measures. For example, in Germany, the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) forces large online platforms to remove unlawful content from their services via a notice and action mechanism, including Holocaust denial which is unlawful in Germany. [4] The law has been criticized by some human rights organizations for setting a dangerous precedent for other governments looking to restrict speech online by forcing companies to censor on the government’s behalf. Some technology companies have also adopted policies on the moderation and removal of content that denies the Holocaust. On 12 October 2020, Facebook updated its hate speech policy to prohibit any content that denies or distorts the Holocaust. [5] TikTok also announced a ban on content that denies well documented and violent events that have taken place, including Holocaust denial and similar conspiracy theories. [6] Classifying Holocaust denial and distortion as hate speech The decision by some online platforms to identify Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech has reduced the amount of harmful material. However, harmful content that does not reach the threshold for removal or has evaded moderation policies through misspellings and the use of coded language and symbols, remains present on online platforms without content warnings or other measures. Antisemitism can be communicated online through an evolving code of symbols and memes that are sometimes used to signal hidden meanings and messages that aim to subtly deny or distort the history of the Holocaust. Denial and distortion also evolve in response to current events as the Holocaust is invoked to provoke an emotional reaction. This constantly shifting landscape means that it can be hard for moderation policies to stay completely up to date with changing language and modes of communication. There is therefore a need for international cooperation between online platform companies, academia, civil society and governments. Equations to recent historic events The most prevalent form of Holocaust distortion is its use as an “equivalent” to contemporary or historic events. Many examples that equated the Holocaust were driven by current events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which has the potential to produce surges in online distortion. [7] While it is ahistorical and inaccurate to equate the genocide of Europe’s Jews to most contemporary events, it is legitimate to compare the history of the Holocaust with other abuses of human rights and atrocity crimes. Informed and meaningful comparisons between the Holocaust and other events with careful contextualization allow societies to learn from the past and can contribute towards the prevention of genocide and other human rights abuses. [8]

The difficulties of content moderation[edit]

Such equations create a difficult policy area for online platforms because many of them do not reach the threshold for hate speech by international standards and fall outside the scope of contemporary content moderation guidelines. This form of distortion requires a sophisticated response that raises awareness of the harm caused and that encourages online platform users to reference the Holocaust accurately and in its historical context. Holocaust denial and distortion are an issue in all the languages studied. [9] The multi-language nature of Holocaust distortion is critical to consider when reviewing research on content moderation, as the vast majority of pressure for content moderation focuses on the English language, particularly as online platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter were founded in the United States. [10] For example, 87% of Facebook’s global budget for time spent on classifying misinformation goes towards the United States, while 13% is set aside for the rest of the world — despite the fact that North American users make up just 10% of its daily users. [11] It is also important in terms of collaboration: new platforms and less studied languages should benefit from areas where more work has been done. Users wishing to promote denial and distortion content, but who are aware that this may be constrained by rules on moderated platforms, will often gesture and signal such content and then provide links to more radical spaces on other platforms. For example, during empirical research on Facebook, some people linked to channels hosting harmful content on Telegram and Discord. Such links often signpost to other forums where Holocaust denial can be discussed more openly. Importantly, these links may be embedded in content that does not contravene platform norms and guidance. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref> Technology companies have taken steps to be more transparent. In 2021, Access Now indexed over 70 companies that issue regular transparency reports, including Facebook and Instagram, TikTok and Twitter. Telegram does not publish transparency reports.

References

  1. ^ UNESCO (2022): History under attack. Holocaust denial and distortion on social media, Paris.
  2. ^ UNESCO (2022): History under attack. Holocaust denial and distortion on social media, Paris.
  3. ^ UNESCO (2022): History under attack. Holocaust denial and distortion on social media, Paris.
  4. ^ UNESCO (2022): History under attack. Holocaust denial and distortion on social media, Paris.
  5. ^ Facebook (2020), Removing Holocaust Denial Content.
  6. ^ UNESCO (2022). TikTok joins forces with UNESCO and the WJC to combat denial and distortion of the Holocaust online.
  7. ^ See IHRA, (2021). See IHRA, (2021). Policy Recommendations on Recognizing and Countering Holocaust Distortion.
  8. ^ See materials of the IHRA: Committee on the Holocaust, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity.
  9. ^ UNESCO (2022): History under attack. Holocaust denial and distortion on social media, Paris.
  10. ^ Zakrzewski, C., De Vynck, G., Masih, N., and Mahtani, S., (24 October 2021). How Facebook neglected the rest of the world, fueling hate speech and violence in India, The Washington Post.
  11. ^ Zakrzewski, C., De Vynck, G., Masih, N., and Mahtani, S., (24 October 2021). How Facebook neglected the rest of the world, fueling hate speech and violence in India, The Washington Post.

"Theories of hate speech" section was a mess.[edit]

The entire thing read like an essay - there were no secondary sources supporting the premise that these sources represented major sources of thought on the topic; the paragraph on J. S. Mill had just a single primary citation to Mill and no citations that mentioned hate speech at all, and the final paragraph made a tenuous connection to sources that weren't really discussing hate speech and only mentioned it in passing, grouping them together as a major thread of thought on the topic without any real sources supporting that perspective. Some aspects here might be worth addressing as attributed interpretations of the subject in the commentary section (although I think much of it is already there) but I think we should lead with a history of the subject and its more general context, focusing on what we can cite to secondary sources that actually discuss its history and larger context. --Aquillion (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hate Speech 1 word or 2?[edit]

I have a problem with this term. To me it is 2 words of which each has a meaning, and it should be my right to speak about how much I hate to eat certain foods.

It doesn't even appear to be a compound word. It it is just a phrase then why overload the normal two words meanings with another? It makes it nonsense.

There should be some clarification as to what has happened to these two words which obviously mean different things to different people... yet the article seems to think there is only one meaning. 120.18.188.137 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses it as two words and I don't think that anybody at all is suggesting that it is a single word. I don't think there is anything here that requires discussion or clarification. DanielRigal (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Etymological fallacy: "an argument that a word is defined by its etymology, and that its customary usage is therefore incorrect." TFD (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Racoon dolphin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Erickgulyan, NavyBear314.

— Assignment last updated by NavyBear314 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech is not just a phrase with a legal meaning, it is also 2 English words with English meanings...[edit]

I.e. in English, a hate speech can very well be a speech about how much you hate bitter melon... and when I speak English, I often vocally produce hate speeches about how much I hate bitter melon. 101.119.171.90 (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll treat this as a serious comment about improving the article, even if a couple of your other edits seem less serious. Your argument is a kind of etymological fallacy, since the phrase "hate speech" has a more specific meaning than just "hate" and "speech" combined. Hate speech is not any hateful speech, but the meaning of the phrase "hate speech" is limited to the definition given in the article. We can see the same change in meaning in other set phrases. For instance, if some women are waiting in line, the first woman in line is not the first lady.
You might also want to read the talk page sections The scope of the definition and Is Hate Speech 1 word or 2? that discuss similar questions. Sjö (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is a serious one and for someone to think thst those 2 words cannot mean what they should is a fallacy. Likewise I believe the first lady in a line of ladies is indeed the first lady. Absolutely. Now imagine if governments were to disallow anyone to be a first lady? That would be very sexist to force the head of every line to be men... it would mean no ladies could be in line as, when a man is finished being first in line the lady would run afoul of the law. Same with hate speeches. I absolutely should have the right to make as many speeches "hate speeches" about how much I hate bitter melon without restriction. Hate speech is 2 words. So is dwarf planet and other silly "hijacked combinations of words". 120.19.139.66 (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an elaboration, first lady to someone who has nothing to do with the USA means what you would think it means, the lady that is first. Not something to do with a president. A person of colour also seems to imply there are colorless people to those who are not from the USA. Perhaps such phrases that become ambiguous with normal English should be capitalized or hyphenated... or they will forever be ambiguous. 120.19.139.66 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Encyclopedic Definition[edit]

I have restored the source in one place that cites the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It is notable not just that "hate speech" has no clear definition, but that attempted definitions are usually vague.

If you believe that this is less notable than the two dictionary definitions and a lone scholar, discuss here. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that that accurately summarizes the main thrust of that source; to the extend that it pulls one part of that definition out, it was giving it undue weight. The first sentence of that source says Hate speech is a concept that many people find intuitively easy to grasp, while at the same time many others deny it is even a coherent concept; your summary leaned more towards treating the second group there as being objectively correct and ignored the first part, but the source doesn't really take that position. In any case this is all handled in more depth and nuance further down the lead, so I don't think your addition is an improvement - There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country already covers what you're trying to add in a more neutral tone. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]