How Social Media has Backfired

Emma Stefanick

es421018@ohio.edu 

 

The dawn of the digital age... what a magnificent thing! Right? As life continues to become increasingly  more digital, we find more problems embedded in an idea that we initially thought was great. These problems manifest themselves physically, mentally and emotionally, but none are as detrimental as the side effect of hate speech, discrimination and the spread of false news. 

Hate speech is defined by the Ethical Journalism Network as any expression that vilifies an identifiable group, such as a race, religious community or sexual minority, that prompts harm to its members.  

Picture source: https://sabrangindia.in/article/hate-content-social-media-corporate-and-individual-responsibility

 

Last year, the FBI reported a record breaking number of hate crimes in the United states. According to The New York Times, there were 7,314 criminal incidents motivated by race, ethnicity or gender differences. It was the highest number since 2008. This number is grossly understated to the real number of hate crimes that occur in the United States. Most hate crimes go unreported and police departments are not required to report their hate crime data to the FBI. But what is causing these attacks?

Certainly the political climate of the country and our presidential administration play a factor in making these people feel safe to perpetrate hate without repercussion, but so does social media. Inflammatory speech online, rumors and the poor policing of these things have contributed to a slew of hate crimes as people inclined towards racist, sexist or homophobic behaviors have found social groups that fuel their viewpoints, desires and violence in a public space. 

In 2015, the Council on Foreign Relations recorded that 67% of people in the United States agree that people should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly. That is 32% more than the global median and 17% more than Latin America, the second highest country in agreement with the statement. 

The dissemination of false news across these social media platforms has also led to an increase in online hate speech. Fake news can influence everything from politics and economics to social wellbeing and the safety of U.S. citizens. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, from 2006 to 2017, about 126,000 rumors on Twitter were spread by 3 million people, with false news reaching up to 100,000 people and truth averaging around 1,000. 

False news was found to encompass topics like politics, terrorism, natural disaster, science, urban legends and financial information, inspiring fear, disgust and surprise. So how do we stop this pernicious trend? Are we, as journalists, not responsible for our audience's vulnerability to these social attacks?

As we straddle the line between unlawful censorship and protection, many companies have made statements to protest social media companies in an effort to boycott hate speech and false information. Companies like Coca Cola and Target have boycotted advertising on Facebook and other social media platforms have taken self-implicated actions to block hate and white supremacy themed-content. Alcohol company Penrod Richard developed a plan to curb their "Hate Footprint" online and countless companies are investing in artificial intelligence to flag hate-based content. 

In addition, when journalists cover these growing hate crime events, we need to ensure that we provide context to any videos or photos presented in the material, be wary of referencing politics and being precise with language to avoid stereotyping. It's better to show what is happening than to label an event as racially charged or terrorism until you can identify the full intent of the situation. These points are further detailed in an article published by Poynter.