Are Artificial intelligence Catfishing People?

Ryan Burg

rb620917@ohio.edu

 

Artificial intelligence has always been a part of technology and the internet to help serve human-like tasks to make them faster and easier from virus protection to self-driving cars, but now they are being used to manipulate people to help boost numbers for companies.

Artificial intelligence has been used to create fake profiles on social media platforms so people could gain more numbers for likes and followers, but now they are getting more involved in our day-to-day life. 

Some AI's can be programmed as text bots online. They learn from humans by studying how we communicate on media platforms and use it to their advantage. Their writing can be as simple as messaging someone to visit a site or as complex as writing an article and post it online

In a British Broadcasting Company interview, Noel Sharkey, a computer science professor at the University of Sheffield stated that "If the software worked as intended by Open AI, it would be a very useful tool for easily generating fake news and clickbait spam. Fortunately, in its present form, it generates incoherent and ridiculous text with little relation to the input 'headlines'."

If AI keep evolving and keep getting smarter, it can put out more realistic texts and can cause more confusion as to what news to trust or not, even though it's tough enough already.

Picture source: The Washington Post

If you think that's bad, it gets worse, AI firms are also creating and selling computer-generated images of "humans" to companies to create artificial models. They are used to show diversity within their company while also having the option to create the right shape and size so they can make their ad perfect they way they want it to look like. 

Forbes stated that "The Swedish fashion chain H&M admitted to using computer-generated models on its website after it was confronted and challenged about "uncanny similarities" with the models. In this case, the heads of real models were superimposed on the same body."

The company got plenty of backlash on this because of them showing off computer-generated body images to show off their product in the best way possible creating a false reality for customers while creating an unrealistic body image for women to live up to.

Artificial intelligence creating fake people started with computers generating people from the head to the shoulders. Now people are thinking soon enough they'll be doing full-body generations that you won't even realize from the naked eye.

This is a concern to marketing everywhere because it is unfair to show a "person" modeling for a company and not be human so the product could look the best possible. With AI's becoming more intelligent and evolving, they are taking away jobs for humans and making them their own.

A Tale of Two Parties: How Big Data is Polarizing the Country

Emmeline Adkins

ea107017@ohio.edu

 

Big Data, much like how it sounds, refers to massive amounts of data and information, which, due to today's technological capabilities, is growing larger every minute. However, according to the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Institute, "it's not the amount of data that's important...it's what organizations do with the data that matters." Nowadays, of course, organizations don't have to just mean companies looking to advertise to you, but it can also mean political candidates trying to sell themselves to you.

The problem with Big Data entering the political stage is not necessarily how much information campaign teams have on voters and their interests, but as the SAS Institute said, it's what they do with it. One might think politicians are doing something stereotypically slimy or conniving with the American people's information, but it's a bit more logical than that. The data collected on voters is turned into an advertisement of sorts, but instead of commercial breaks, you're being advertised to every time a politician opens their mouth. Now, politics and campaigns have always been this way, but we have never had politicians and campaign teams possessing this much data on voters in our history, which makes a big difference in how candidates conduct themselves now.

Before Big Data was there to provide the wants of every single American, candidates didn't know everything about their voters and created platforms based off of, generally, what it looked like America needed, what Americans told them they needed, and their own personal beliefs. Americans don't have to tell politicians what they need anymore, and the data being collected is more than Americans would have offered on their own as before. Now, platforms are precisely tailored to the data, which has become an issue as politicians have sought to appeal to more and more radical voters than ever before. In doing so, they have polarized the two party system so profoundly and almost consistently look over the moderates and centrists of their party.

During the 2020 Presidential Election, this was most prominent. One one hand, there was the Democratic Party candidate, Joe Biden, who could not state for sure what his plans were for the future of fracking and natural gas. He was too afraid to polarize his voters from Pennsylvania who receive economic benefits from the business, but too afraid to upset the progressive voters who back the Green New Deal and banning fracking. This created a sort of ambiguous climate platform for him where he would talk about not banning fracking yet he included the Green New Deal on his campaign website. Ultimately, this wasn't new information to progressive voters that Biden wasn't as progressive a politician as someone like Bernie Sanders, but it caused a distrust among the moderate Democrats and centrists.

Photo taken from BBC

On the other side of the political divide was Republican incumbent Donald Trump, who, when asked to outright condemn white supremacy on a national stage, could not without a shadow of a doubt do so. Why? It's a simple matter; he has the endorsement of the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, as well as other nationalist groups such as the Proud Boys, who he even told to "stand by." As former Republican Senator, Rick Santorum said (as quoted in The Atlantic), the moderator of the presidential debate, "was asking the president to do something he knows the president doesn't like to do, which is to say something bad about the people who support him."

The unfortunate effect that Big Data has on the American political stage is more and more candidates are neglecting the needs of moderates in favor of catering to the radicals--even catering to the radicals who are historically violent bigots, something most presidents before this time would not have dared to do in such a public manner. All this being said, there isn't much to do, exactly, about Big Data except to stay informed of how your information is being used to shape the country and even how it is actively being used, in some cases, against you.

Truth on TikTok

Lily Roby

lr158117@ohio.edu

 

One of the Internet's key aspects is that it is a space for anyone to clearly speak their mind and connect with others, no matter the location.

This is especially seen on social media, where groups are created and bring together communities that can have real world impacts. Freedom of speech is practically essential to social media, yet some apps such as TikTok have been found censoring material based on unethical standards.

In late 2019, users found that when they attempted to post videos discussing the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests, their videos would be censored. This means that videos would either be deleted or 'shadowbanned,' which is a term to describe when one's "posts on a platform are rendered essentially invisible to everyone but themselves," according to The New York Times.

Recently leaked documents show that TikTok did have policies in place for moderators to remove videos mentioning Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, or banned religious group Falun Gong. The policy also bans a list of 20 foreign or sensitive figures, including Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

TikTok claims to make these censorship decisions in order to minimize conflict on their platform, but some believe that these choices are made in order to further TikTok's Chinese parent-company ByteDance's political stances. President Donald Trump attempted to ban TikTok earlier this year, claiming with little evidence that the app is a national security concern because it gives "the Chinese government access to vast amounts of US citizens' data."

 

The TikTok app hosts around 500 million users internationally. Photo Credit: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic

TikTok's censorship of pictures and video could be considered unethical because it takes away a key element of social media, its freedom of speech. While some content should certainly be banned, videos of current protests shouldn't be banned because that simply eliminates coverage of current events and the spread of information.

The video-sharing app was also caught in another data leak, exposing that their moderation policies included not promoting videos of people deemed ugly, overweight, disabled or poor. In the leak, the policy states that videos where "the character's appearance or the shooting environment is not good, the video will be much less attractive, not worthing to be recommended to new users."

Banning people fitting in these categories this in order to gain more TikTok users and therefore more advertising revenue puts the interests of TikTok ahead of their people. TikTok as a company cannot claim to want to increase diversity, as they did in June, and then even go as far as to censor LGBTQ content in countries such as Bosnia, Jordan and Russia.

Journalists must work to fight censorship and unethical moderation. Social media apps that ban content according to companies' personal interests shape the minds of users and their perceptions of the world even if it is unintentional. Truth is what all media and news organizations should strive for.

Is Using Artificial Intelligence in Advertising actually championing diversity?

Mary Jane Sanese 

ms943920@ohio.edu

Throughout the years, media and advertising has been constantly changing, especially as new technology arises and becomes mainstream. If we watch commercials and advertisements from the 1950s, they will look extremely unrecognizable for the most part compared to our ads now. Journalist Jose Angelo Gallegos provides a fascinating timeline of The History and Evolution of Advertising. The internet and social media has changed the advertisement world. We no longer have just magazine, radio, or television advertisements. We have interactive ads and targeted ads that are handpicked for us by computers because of the websites we might have been browsing, or even the products we might have been discussing with our friends. The media and advertisement world is unrecognizable nowadays, compared to even just 20 years ago.

We know that advertisers are going to do whatever they can to get people to spend money on their product or whatever they are selling. That is the name of the game. This means companies are catering to the masses and their audiences. This also means that if there are going to be people in these advertisements, they need to represent the targeted consumers.  Forbes explains why and how diversity is good marketing in advertising. The bottom line is people are more likely to remember a commercial or feel emotionally dawn to it if they can personally identify with it. That is why advertisers have started using a more diverse population in their ads, instead of using all white people as they used to do. Using all white people in ads is not a an accurate depiction of our world, and it means that so many people are not able to identify with the media they are consuming, which means they are most likely not going to remember it or end up buying the product being marketed to them. It was not until recently that commercials started showing same sex marriages, or which says a lot about how far behind the media world is in terms of diversity. 

Photo courtesy of  ADWEEK and Getty Images

Another important reason for diversity in media and advertising is to provide jobs for a diverse group of people. Of course making sure that the consumers feel included and seen is so important. But, what happens if companies are starting to streamline the process of creating diverse media. What happens if instead they are using computer generated persons, or Artificial Intelligence to create people to be in advertisements and marketing campaigns. It's probably a cheaper option for the companies, and it saves them time as far as having to cast people and hire them. Not to mention, with COVID-19  creating so many limitations in regards to social distancing, using technology and AI would mean that these companies do not have to worry about all of these things. 

Will people truly be able to identify with a computer generated image or likeness of a person? Will they all end up looking similar? I believe one of those most beautiful things about humans is that we all have our own likeness and are unique. "Being yourself" is something so many companies use to identify with their consumers.  Using a computer generated image feels so counter-intuitive to that message. What if we would not even be able to tell the difference between a computer generated person and a real one? Will the company have to disclose they are not using real humans? 

At the end of the day, I know I want to support businesses that are honest and upfront about what they are doing and why. I have heard so many times that at some point in the future humans will lose out on jobs to computers. I really never expected that this would be happening in the world of media and advertising. 

VR and News Reporting: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

Shel Burton 

sb800216@ohio.edu

 

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a science fiction novel. Tech-savvy homebodies stoke flames of dissent across the US from their couch, and life-like, computer-generated faces feature in advertisements and stock photos. Thanks to virtual reality (VR) gaming I can be stabbing zombies in NOLA while my roommate asks Alexa to order us Domino's. 

Sometimes I can't help but curl up into a ball and wonder "where does it stop? When do things go bad?" Being a college student, I consider myself pretty young. Not young enough to understand Roblox, but not old enough to remember the dial-up tone either. As technology continues to outpace legislation and--at times--human comprehension, I can't imagine no one else is asking these questions. 

One such group is journalists, who are so dependent on technology that a 2017 study showed that 66 percent of journalists engage with their readers through social media at least once a day. However, most journalists know how to engage with readers through social media and generally have a code of ethics to fall back on. When it comes to VR...not so much. 

 

Because of VR, news viewers could potentially experience the sights and sounds of events. In a society that covets experiences and immersive entertainment, no one can be blamed for wanting to tap into the possibilities of it all. However, with so much misinformation the combination of news and VR can feel like opening Pandora's box. After an election fraught with contradicting, conflicting, and incorrect news, you'd have every right to be wary of the potential dangers. 

An article from Medium.com discussed the ethics of virtual reality within journalism, especially, what rules would have to be in place to make it a viable form of news media. As usual, transparency is of the utmost importance. While VR may look and sound real, it isn't and journalists would have to be transparent about that and images within VR that are edited. They'd also have to decide when VR is appropriate. Today, some of our news stories are written and others can be watched online and on TV. The same would have to apply to VR. For example, most people wouldn't like to be in VR during a crime report. There's also something to be said about the emotional impact of VR, is it a tool to immerse the viewer in the news story to get a better understand of the situation or to emotionally manipulate them? 

VR is a powerful tool and with great power comes great responsibility. While the technology of tomorrow will inevitably become today's, I'm glad we're asking these questions now. 

The Truth About Drones

Carlee Swartz 

cs331016@ohio.edu

 

The people of this generation have had the privilege of watching technology grow quickly within a time span of just 20 years. From the first iPhone to flat-screen TVs, we have created a world where taking technology to the next level is a must in a demanding market. The product that has had tech-savvy consumers raving is the drone device. This device replicates a model airplane that can fly using a remote control. The different possible uses for this device have become endless after hitting the market for an affordable price. 

Drones have become a huge step in the right direction for new photography purposes. It's allowed photographers to get more precise and unique shots of scenery and animals which they wouldn't have before. They've also created a new way to deliver mail as different shipping companies have discussed using drones to deliver packages or mail for faster delivery. 

Picture source: Jordan Bowman, pixel/fit/getty/Getty Images/iStockphoto

With advancements in technology comes criticism and doubt from some consumers. Now that drones have the ability to film videos and take pictures while up in the air, there is the worry that there could be an invasion of privacy as well as unwanted surveillance. Now that the drones are available to the public at an affordable price, it will be easier for anyone to take videos of whatever they want without the permission of others. In this article, it mentions the laws that were created before and after the creation of drone devices. Although, many of these laws may vary from each different state. 

Most of the ethical laws you will read regarding drone usage are mostly common-sense, but unfortunately, these laws had to be stated due to others already making the mistake of doing them in the first place. There have already been numerous legal cases involving drones such as people walking their dogs with drones, injuries from drones, and much more. This article lists just a handful of incidents that have been caused due to drone fails. 

There have been many controversial conversations about whether drones should be available to anyone. In today's society, technology's intent is to create new and innovative ways to make our lives easier. The question is where to draw the line between innovative and safe to use. Until people can maintain the laws and recommendations by officials, the use of drones may continue to create disruption in our society.

Regulating Hate Speech on Social Media

Madeline Valentine

mv598217@ohio.edu

 

In a digital age, it is nearly impossible to not own or come across social media accounts. Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are increasingly becoming ways to keep in contact with friends and family as well as use as outreach for jobs. The reach of social media goes far and children are creating accounts at younger and younger ages. 

There is a reason the percentages of cyber-bullying has increased in recent years and the number of young adult depression.  It is easy for people to go online and say harmful words behind a screen of anonymity. Hate speech is also common to come across, a total of 64% of teens witnessing some sort of hate speech frequently in a study done in 2018. In that number, racism, sexism, and homophobia are the most common to the people of the survey. 

Picture source: Getty Images

So what are social media companies doing to regulate hate speech on their platforms? While it may seem easy to abolish this kind of harm, the problem for these platforms is distinguishing between hate speech and free speech. When making policy, they have to be careful they are not infringing on any kind of rights regarding the freedom of speech. An article done by research outreach states, "In order for this monitoring to take place, social media companies need to be transparent about the content that they are removing and make their data available to researchers and the wider public for scrutiny."

Many civil rights groups are calling for platforms like Facebook to do just this and claim that they are not active enough with dealing with hate speech problems on their sites. They have called on advertisers to boycott the platforms until these problems are better dealt with. AP news reported, "New companies have been signing on to the boycott almost every day. While some are pausing ads only on Facebook, others have also stepped back from advertising on Twitter and other platforms." Some of these advertisers include Unilever, Verizon and Ford, showing the impact the call to action is having. While this is not a long-term situation, it is still a move in the direction in combating hate speech. 

With pressure on these companies, hopefully, they will turn a bigger focus on these problems and work on their transparency as they combat hate speech in a fair manner.

How To Report On Racial Injustice

Brianna Smith

bs214517@ohio.edu 

The pandemic has magnified the problems that this country always had. The biggest thing that was brought into the light was a clear divide revolving around police violence and Black Lives Matter. The presidential race furthered this divide and made it even more political. Biden stands behind the BLM movement while Trump calls them a terrorist group. 

Throughout this year I've found myself questioning how our country is so divided. Was other people not seeing the same things I was seeing? I later found out the answer to that question is no . . . not really.

 

Left and Right wingers have their own media outlets, news channels, and social media algorithms. This means if you're a liberal, it's difficult to find information supporting conservatives and vice versa. For example, Tyler Fisher wrote a wonderful piece speaking on the Charlottesville protest that you can find here. 

Fisher's article shows how the left side and right reported on the same protest. The difference was telling. Both were very biased and one could even say misleading.

This brings us to the question, "how do journalist report on racial injustice correctly?". Rachael Glickhouse wrote about this in her piece titled "What We Discovered During a Year of Documenting Hate" (access here). Here she spoke on how most journalist don't even report their hate crime findings to the FBI. She said, "We were told early on that while the law required the Department of Justice to report hate crime statistics, local and state police departments aren’t bound to report their numbers to the FBI — and many don't".

She also reported on how many police officers don't even know how to handle hate crimes if they do end up reporting the incident.

This leads us to 5 things to remember while reporting on racial injustice.

1.  Make sure you're not using misleading titles and promoting false narratives

2. Include all details given to ensure personal bias is not shining through your piece.

3. ALWAYS report the hate crimes you speak on to the FBI

4. Remember you're writing on a sensitive topic and that kind language will always be appreciated 

5. Stick to your ethical code regardless of what's being asked of you

Reporting on hate crimes will always be scary due to how important it is. But like I said its so, so, important! Use the media to help spread the unbiased truth for once. Peoples life are literally depending on it!

Protecting Differences Online

Alli B. Westbrook

aw263116@ohio.edu

Does "www" stand for "World Wide Web" or "Wild Wild West" because on some days it is difficult to tell the difference. The internet is a seemingly lawless place that everybody roams. It is home to many unsavory characters who take advantage of their freedom of expression to make life harder for others who they consider outside the norm. Hate speech is an extremely pervasive issue that has rooted itself deep within internet culture. 

The internet shares the same first amendment protections as press. But when discussing policy there are distinct differences between the internet and traditional media that are not typically taken into account. Those differences are centered around the internet's ability to amplify messages to mass audiences in a way that has never been seen before while also targeting individuals on a personal level. This, paired with its accessibility and ease makes it both an empowering and suppressive force. 

The internet is now a place that traditional forms of media call home. Which means that traditional codes of ethics are finding their way onto new platforms. But, when policy fails ethics can only do so much. Especially considering only media professionals are directly educated on the importance of ethical codes. There needs to be a national movement that focuses on media literacy. This movement should have a campaign that directly targets hate speech through the use of codes of ethics. Similarly to how children learn about bullying in elementary, hate speech needs to be confronted. 

When we are young, we are told not to bully. When we become teenagers we begin forming our identity. At the same time we gain more autonomy and freedom over our online presence. This all occurs without a consistent message or code to guide us. Through exploration many become exposed to toxic images and rhetoric. Bullying does not cut it anymore, it needs to be named for what it is, Hate speech. 

Hate speech has contributed to some of America's worst atrocities. In 2019 the El Paso shooter posted hate speech on social media shortly before committing a mass shooting targeting people of Mexican ethnicity. Unlike the El Paso shooter, many are embolden by anonymity. The American Civil Liberties Union notes that anonymity is a fundamental component of our right to free speech. The Supreme Court stated in McIntyre V. Ohio Elections Commission that "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority (ACLU, 2020). 

In many cases the lines blur and it seems as if hate speech is being being protected instead of free speech. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg committed to leaving potentially harmful content on its platform even if it goes against individual standards as long as Facebook deems it newsworthy (Marcy Gordon, 2019). Which once again illustrates the need for a standard of ethics. 

A national movement against hate speech and for greater media literacy would increase the safety of public spaces and the quality of life for many Americans. Policy will one day catch up and we may see stricter regulations against this insidious issue that affects the mental health and physical well being of many.

                                                        @ADL "Fighting hate for good"

• States (including D.C.) with comprehensive hate crime laws that cover: race, religion, ethnicity/ national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
• States without comprehensive hate crimes laws.
• States with no hate crimes laws.

The Rise of Hate Crimes and Speech in American: Can We Be Progressive While History Repeats Itself?

Jaelyn R. Smith 

js105916@ohio.edu

Hate crimes and hate speech are detrimental to a well-functioning democracy. America’s democracy inhabits a society that is increasingly evolving into a more diverse demographic makeup. This being said, it is the individuals who produce such diversity, that are becoming victims of violence, words, and other various actions rooted in hate, privilege, and power.

We have seen oppressive ideologies existing as a reality throughout history: The enslavement of African Americans from the time of America’s founding in 1776, until the 13th amendment passed in 1865. Even so, African American’s and all people of color continues to face a tremendous amount of prejudice. The Trail of Tears forced Native Americans out of their home and to relocate by walking over 5,043 miles, across nine states. Police raiding LGBTQ+ bars and overall police brutality towards the community in Greenwich Village, New York City, resulted in the Stonewall riots. Sadly, history has begun to repeat itself. 

 

Hate crimes and hate speech have increased with an alarming velocity since 2016. Parts of the public believe this to be true, others believe it just receives more attention, but there is a margin of individuals who can see it as both. Meaning, it is talked about more because it occurs more. 

According to the Department of Justice, hate crime incidents in 2019 included 7,103 single biased incidents, involving 8,552 victims. Bias motivation categories for single bias incidents were: 57.6 percent race, ethnicity, or ancestry, 20.1 percent religion, 16.7 percent sexual orientation, 2.7 percent gender identity, 2 percent disability, and .9 percent gender. Knowing these biases, there were 211 multiple biased incidents that occurred, involving 260 victims. 

Picture source: Silence Hides Violence Foundation 

 

Katia Campbell gave a TedTalk called The Freedom of Hate Speech: A Call for Civil Disorder, at Metropolitan State University of Denver. She described how herself, her family, and her community had been victimized by hate within society. Her father was the first black architect in the small town that they lived in. Local Ku Klux Klan member terrorized him, his family and their community. Injustice was realized and the community did not back down. They took turns escorting her father and watching over her family’s home. In light of those experiences, her eyes were opened, thus she has identified a reappearance of hateful ideologies and political leaders giving those ideologies a platform for legitimacy; because of that, it is once again time to fight back. 

 

In order to effectively do so, it is important to first understand one of the main justifications for free speech. Justifications revolve around the market place of ideal theory, commonly discussed by John Stuart Mills. This theory suggested that society acted as an open market for sharing ideas until the truth was found. Ancient Greeks were some of the earliest teachers of rhetoric; because persuasions and arguments were imperative for a society to function, they said, “truth comes from the clash of arguments.” As Campbell noted this, she reminded that this simple phrase is of the upmost importance because it says “arguments,” not ill-informed opinions. 

While none of this is advocating for censorship, it does advocate for the American duty of fully understanding the first amendment. In turn, it should be known that the first amendment within itself holds responsibilities, as well as consequences. Hate speech and hate crimes are unacceptable within a society that claims to be progressive. This is why participation in national awareness like National Hate Crime Week and events like marches, protests, sit-ins, and petitioning are imperative right now. American democracy should aim to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, that is impossible with excuses being made in instances of hate. In the end, speech and crimes will not only hurt people and property, but society as a whole.

Hate Speech in the Era of Social Media

Emily Walsh 

ew845717@ohio.edu

 

As social media is now ingrained in our societies' social norms and daily routines, we can see that over-exposure to information and media has caused desensitization in many forms. How does this desensitization pose a threat to our culture? 

With the BLM movement being amplified this past summer, it has been brought to my attention the importance of being thoughtful and intentional when using social media. Many videos of black people experiencing police brutality surfaced the internet and would casually appear on your feed with little to no warning. This  brings up the concern that the video content is not educational, but rather is traumatizing viewers and normalizing racist imagery and violence. 

Another case were we see desensitization is sexual content in advertising and on social media. As many of us have heard in marketing or advertising classes, the phrase "sex sells" is commonly used. With younger and younger kids are using social media, it is important that exposure to sexual content does not impact youth in negative ways such as reinforcing stereotypes or setting unhealthy standards. 

Also, scrolling through online platforms like Twitter or Instagram looks a lot different today versus when I first got them about 10 years ago. Just as relationships look different when you are first dating your significant versus when you are 10 years married to them, as people have grown more comfortable with the use of social media, their manners and filters have become less apparent. 

A big issue that comes with that lack of manners and use of a filter is the normalization and blurred lines of hate speech. We often see strong language and opinions online, but when does something change from being the exercise of free speech to hate speech? With the current president's Twitter account being banned at times for the material he is putting out onto the platform, it is clear that this is no little problem. 

Many companies are making an effort to stop hate speech on their online platforms. According to an article by AP News, Reddit has even banned an online forum that supported Donald Trump because is repeatedly encouraged violence and broke Reddit's rules.

Allison Langley wrote on this topic that the normalization of hate speech online is harmful in that it prevents people who are fighting for freedom, tolerance and nondiscrimination from speaking up. I agree and in that sense believe that hate speech hurts free speech. 

 

Picture source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/11/23/if-social-media-algorithms-control-our-lives-why-cant-they-eliminate-hate-speech/?sh=5b0277486c01

It is great that many companies are doing their part in discouraging and banning hate speech, but honestly it is sad that as a country, we just simply don't treat and speak to others with respect. As a culture we could do better to to be respectful to others and when we do disagree, to do so respectfully. We as journalists can help change this culture by normalizing productive communication skills such as asking questions, listening, and Tweeting responsibly. 

Hate Speech In a Modern World of Journalism

Mary Jane Sanese 

ms943920@ohio.edu

The journalism and media world is constantly changing in this modern age, especially with social media. As more people are able to write their own blogs, create their own websites, and share their opinions and world views on their social media pages, it means there is more content and news out than ever before. Before the internet, the news was produced by a smaller group of journalists, those who wrote for the newspaper, radio stations, magazines, or television news programs. But now, anyone can be a self proclaimed journalist.

As journalists, we abide by a code of ethics at every step of the news making process, from gathering the news, to writing our stories, and to distributing it. Average Joe sitting behind his computer posting on his Facebook is most likely not doing the same thing. People have a knack for saying a lot of things online that might not come out of their mouths in public, and we attribute that to being able to hide behind a a computer screen, which gives the person a sense of inflated confidence. The Ethical Journalism Network does a tremendous job in breaking down the issues that come with the increased user generated posts we are seeing on sites such as Twitter or Facebook. 

It can be argued that hate speech is more prevalent now than ever, and it would make sense considering the internet. As Americans we have the right to free speech, so people believe they are able to post whatever they please whenever they want. This might be true to an extent, but if a site such as Twitter has community guidelines set in place, they have the right to remove any content that can be deemed as breaking those rules, and hate speech seems to be a guideline on most social media sites these days. 

A journalist's job is to get the news out to the people in a credible and unbiased manner. So, what happens when a journalist is supposed to cover an event or happening that is about hate speech? The Center For Journalism Ethics has some great ideas on how a journalist can cover an emotionally charged event, specifically those pertaining to hate speech or racism, and being able to do this without causing more harm or spreading more hate speech to the readers of the article. 

                                        Picture source: Twitter of @NoHateSpeechRo 

We must make sure that if we are writing an article about hate speech that we are not perpetuating it. There is no need to repeat offensive words or hate speech in our articles. We do not want to give the people producing the hate speech or racist words an opportunity to widen their platform. We must be tasteful and tactful in sharing this news. For example, instead of interviewing a racist, interview someone from a organization such as Black Lives Matter, and provide resources on how people can help strengthen the cause. It is always a good idea to try and educate readers, and make them aware that what they share and post on their sites is important, and they should think twice before clicking that post button. We all play a part in this! 

Above all, we must remember that we want to minimize harm to the public, and to do so, we must make sure we are in no way writing anything that could cause hurt or harm to any groups of people. There is no reason to insult people, even the ones who might be insulting others with their hate speech. We report the facts and let the readers make up their own minds. 

Hiding Behind A Screen

Cassidy Wilson 

Cassidyleighhh@gmail.com 

 

Social media is a platform that many use to express their opinions, keep in contact with others and stay up to date on information. However, social media is also a way to hide behind a screen and not be held accountable for what you post. It is truly sad to see the amount of hate speech that is in our world today. If people were making these comments in person, directly to someone's face, chances are it would be a very different situation.

In a New York Times article titled, "On Instagram, 11,696 Examples of How Hate Thrives on Social Media," it is evident that social media enables hate speech. Not only does hate speech thrive on social media, but it has been a large part of the 2020 election. Hate speech is a way for political candidates to bash each other in order to make themselves look better. I do not believe that the person we vote in to office should act like that and stoop to such a low level. There are many other ways to establish credibility and gain power other than using hate speech. Within the past year, we have seen a rise in hate speech, leading to hate crime. In an article by ProPublica titled, "What We Discovered During A Year of Documenting Hate," I learned that many police officers get little to no training on how to handle hate crimes. Only 12 states have statutes requiring this type of instruction at police academies. I found this to be extremely shocking considering what has gone on within the past year in our world. Hopefully more police academies will require more instruction on hate crime in order to learn how to deal with various situations. 

Another place where hate crime is often used is through racial disputes. There have been extreme white supremacy groups that are violently racist. It is 2020 and it is absolutely ridiculous that there are still people out there with these awful, racist mindsets. In 2017 there were three active KKK groups formed within the year. Groups like this thrive off of hate speech and it needs to be addressed more often. This leads into the question of how should journalists handle racist words, images and violence. 

As a journalist it is difficult to report what is happening, while trying not to glorify these groups and give them the attention they want. Personally, as a journalist, I would try my best to describe what was going on rather than include awful images of the flags and what these hate groups represent. All in all, covering hate speech is something that will unfortunately be around forever.

Hopefully, social media will develop better policies for those hiding behind their screen and we will see less of this awful behavior on the Internet.

Is There Too Much Freedom in Hate Speech?

Myles Jay Wortman

 

mw535617@ohio.edu

As Americans living in society today, many of us haven't experienced a time where our country was as divided as it is today. While experiencing a global pandemic, a racial injustice uprising, and the most consequential presidential election of our lives, it's absolutely no surprise that the internet and social media is more combative than ever. I mean our president addresses the nation through tweets instead of the press, right?

The nation has gone far past the point of simple disagreement and maybe civil discussion. The danger with hate speech is that it's far more than name calling and hurt feelings, this rhetoric leads to dangerous biases and discrimination-based violence. Since 2016, opposing views have led to a spike in violence and the use of derogatory terms. 

Many of us can acknowledge that within our country's legislation, free speech serves as a blanket of protection for hateful rhetoric against any type of punishment. This comes at no surprise from a governmental standpoint, but there's still not much punishment present for hate speech on many social media platforms. Only recently has twitter implemented a ban on "dehumanizing remarks based on age, disability, and disease". Yes. A leading social media platform that has been running since 2006 has just now condemned ableism and ageism on it's site. In 2020. No matter how long it has taken for these measures to take place on social media, it is very telling how social media has condemned hate speech before our country's legislation has. It becomes even more challenging to expect such a change when even the leader of this country has a tendency to spew the same hateful rhetoric that many are trying to restrict.

Picture source: blogspot.com

So what do we do and where do we go from here? How do you restrict speech, ideas, expression? There's so many people in this world that cling to the first amendment so hard because they feel as though the restriction of speech is the restriction of self. In order to make progress, I feel it's important to note that the speech within itself is not what's being restricted, it's the impact of the harmful ideologies that's meant to be condemned. The harm, the violence, and the dangerous implications of such rhetoric are to be prohibited because the cost of hate speech has been people's lives in many cases.

It's time to disarm hate and to see hate speech and it's harmful rhetoric as the weapon against society that it is and always has been.

The Importance of Distinguishing Hate Speech vs. Free Speech

Max Semenczuk

ms498517@ohio.edu

The line that rides between free speech and hate speech is often a blurred, gray one.

What some people see as free, can often be malicious in intent, or can mislead or misinform people that would otherwise not be. 

Recently with the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been contested debate regarding the usage of masks in everyday life. The COVID-19 has disproportionately affected BIPOC communities in the United States, so when articles or popular media arises that defends the belief that masks are a detriment to society, they often carry a component of hate speech and prejudice that is masked with the facade of free speech. 

Often times people with true malicious intent will disguise their agenda by saying what they are preaching is free speech, or they often cloud it with a seemingly non-sequitur political issue, as has been so persistent in the case against wearing masks. There has always been a, issue of racial discrimination in health care, so to attack public health, would attack health care and then attack communities that are disproportionately suffering from overall poor public health practices.

The notion that hateful or spiteful speech is free is detrimental to communities that have a difficult time with overcoming harmful rhetoric. Furthermore, the idea that hate speech is free speech also hurts journalistic organizations that value truth and fairness in their reporting, as they are now would be the same playing field as organizations with malicious intent. If groups were to suddenly arise with little factual basis for their fringe ideas, it would be the best for the population to have journalistic integrity to dispel any groups with radical and uninformed ideas, so to do so, we as journalists need to strive to create a news environment that prioritizes facts over fiction or belief.

Picture source: Fortune.com

The implication of this effect stems far beyond the example I gave with the current mask debate. Whenever there is a convenient topic that could be used to mask an underlying agenda, or even if there isn't one, then the test of free speech vs. hate speech will be one taken by many, unfortunately.

Hopefully going forward, news organizations will not even spend time highlighting those that are trying to put down others, but instead focusing on the facts that we have. It is imperative moving forward to create a fine line that distinguishes hate speech and free speech. I believe that the most important step into making this a reality will be emphasizing facts back into reporting.

Should Objectivity in Journalism be Reevaluated?

Lauren McCain 

lm176817@ohio.edu 

America's melting pot is churning. Journalists are attempting to cover it. 

In the wake of the nationwide rise in Black Lives Matter protests after the murder of George Floyd, American journalists have been grappling with the ethics of staying objective in their reporting on racial topics. 

In reporting, objectivity is law. A green journalist is taught that their job is to gather, interpret, and report. They reject sensationalism and loaded word choice, no opinion - as a journalist you are simply a conductor for information to flow through. But who exactly is dictating the standards in being "objective" in today's society? 

Journalists of color have often been targeted in accusations of implicit bias in reporting when they push to label blatantly racist actions as such, especially when their words are targeting a white person in power. Critics argue that the purpose of a journalist is to gather information and report it to the people, not to assign labels; they believe that should be up to the interpretation of the reader to assign their own. But does objectivity cross the line when it contributes to a larger problem of normalized race-baiting and discrimination in our society? 

George Floyd protests, image courtesy of CNN.com 

 

President Trump's series of tweets against the four minority congresswoman in 2019 was a pivotal moment for news organizations like the New York Times and the National Public Radio (NPR), who released statements on their decisions as unbiased news outlets to classify the President's words as 'racist'. 

"Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came," said Trump in one of several tweets in 2019, seemly referring to a prominent group of four congresswomen of color: Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts. 

Reporting purists could argue that the decision made by NPR and the New York Times violated their codes of objectivity in reporting, but what does this mean, really? Journalists can use the labels "racially charged" or "racially insensitive" until they're blue in the face, but the word that is being danced around is already clear to most: racist. And while it may not be a journalist's job to assign labels, it is a journalist's job to relay real and inform the public of what is going on in the world. 

Should it be a journalist's job to jump through word-choice hoops to keep up a facade of objectivity, or should they instead be encouraging conversations on racial reporting and ditching the word-dancing habit?

As the United States continues in its systemic racial turmoil, it is worth asking if the idea of 'objectivity' in reporting works harder to excuse and conceal our country's racism rather than bringing attention to it. If the objective roots of fair reporting are only working to benefit one majority, it could be an indication that it is time to reevaluate our journalistic standards as a country.

Being Black and Reporting Racial Injustice

Mia White

Mw964917@ohio.edu

The year 2020 has been a big one to remember when it comes to racial injustices in society, but unfortunately, this has been happening for decades. But, have you ever wondered what the Black journalists feel when reporting said issues?

Glamour Magazine posted an article in June this year titled "8 Journalists on Reporting While Black, With the Weight of History on Their Shoulders". The first woman featured is Abby Phillip from CNN. 

"I have felt over the past weeks a little bit of deja vu, with the same narrative unfolding time and time again. And that is frustrating to me as a person. It's also frustrating to me as a reporter, because I remember covering Ferguson in 2014 and Charlottesville in 2017, and I was telling the same stories back then as I am now." Phillip says. 

Phillip goes on to say "I am often asked to come on air and talk about these issues, and I accept that. Since we're being honest, it is exhausting, and of course, there are times when you want to be able to just sit and not be on television, attempting to articulate the pain and anger that has built up over decades and decades."

Stacy-Marie Ishmael from the Texas Tribune was also interviewed. "But when you're working on things that also affect your life or the lives of your friends and family, there is no real separation between you as a person and you as a journalist. It's a continuum. I am also an immigrant. I'm an immigrant with access to good lawyers, sure, but I'm still a person who is affected whenever, for example, a new executive order comes down."

Photo source: The Dallas Morning News

 

It is common for many people in society to view journalists, reporters especially, as celebrities in some ways, whose lives are squeaky clean like we see on TV. That is just not the case. 

In May of this year, the New York Times also released an article on a similar subject matter titled "Black Journalists Are Exhausted" by freelance journalist, Patrice Peck.

Similar to what Abby Phillip says, Peck writes "I feel caught between two separate realities that are simultaneously separating and folding in on themselves. The old normal and the new normal; our society has changed drastically, while also not changing at all. I am pulled taut, straddling a time when the black community could safely gather to celebrate, praise, commiserate, mourn, protest and uplift, or simply just be, and I am pressed thin, experiencing deja vu as time repeats itself like a broken record."

There's that term again, "deja vu". Isn't it unfortunate? Outrageous? Sickening? It is a term that should not go unnoticed as two prominent Black journalists have used it to describe their work. What does that say about what the journalists have been going through for so long? What about the Black community as a whole? Why aren't the stories changing as time goes on?

Despite all of the hardships, Peck offers some advice.

"Despite wanting to publish my newsletter on a regular basis out of fear of losing subscribers or being considered uncommitted, I recently took a week-long hiatus: Caring for myself would only strengthen my work and passion for the longterm."

"Investments in black journalists is critical, not only through equitable compensation for our contributions but also in addressing burnout, layoffs and mental wellness, particularly in those of us who keep on keeping on."

It is no secret hearing from these journalists that it can be exhausting to cover these types of stories. Only time will tell if this will continue for more decades to come, but hopefully, it will not. 

Tug of War in Reporting Protest

Taniah Stephens 

ts648318@ohio.edu 

 

When George Floyd was murdered on May 25, 2020, media coverage from across the country were covering this murder day in and night out. From how the murder happened, to who was involved and how the country would react to this, media outlets where on top of it, nonstop. The media coverage would go from just focusing the why murder happened to why the result of this murder transitioned to a protest for not just George Floyd but for every other black life that had been unjustly lost in the past years in hands of policemen/women. 

There was so much unfolding in front of a journalist eyes and one question that could reoccur in a journalist mind is: What should we do with reporting the truth but not put people in harms way? 

Picture source: https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/should-journalists-show-protesters-faces/

 

Ethically, reporting the truth and minimizing harm are two big factors when it comes to wanting trust from any consumer willing to read and see what you put out. With what has been going on now, reporting the truth and minimizing harm have been a tug-of-war with with journalist in terms of being able to photograph protestors or should journalist stay away from aiming for individuals faces to photograph and blur them instead? 

NPR Public Editor, Kelly McBride, explains that with "blurring images is a form of photo manipulation that makes them less true" and she goes on to say the alternative route by "journalist might first look for another image that conveys a comparable moment without jeopardizing an individual." McBride does make a great statement with taking the route with not just specifically aiming at one individual when the focal point is about more than individual protesting. 

But there have been opposing arguments with what McBride expressed on her thoughts about blurring individuals. The SPJ Code of Ethics,  explains that for journalist should, "never distort the content of news photos", along with that journalist should "balance the public's need for information against potential harm or discomfort." With that code of ethic in place, it basically makes blurring out individuals not the best idea for journalist to do for a cause that wants the public's attention as much as possible. 

This topic puts journalist in a position to choose which one they should tackle and if its the right way to go about it. Journalist have the decision to convey a message of what the world wants to see or the ethical approach and what ethical values as reporters and journalist have with conveying the right message.