#Psofos | Hate Speech on Social Media

Beyond their many virtues, social media platforms can also be riotous spaces. On March 14, Onassis Stegi touches upon this issue with a debate on the titled “#Psofos | Hate Speech on Social Media”, presented as part of its “Society Uncensored” online discussion series.

Which words can give rise to hate speech without anyone even concerning themselves with the content of the texts that include them? How distinct is hate speech, which is a criminal offense, from “heavy-handed” speech? This discussion, organized in collaboration with the Hellenic League for Human Rights, took place at the end of January 2021, just as the Greek #metoo movement was starting to emerge and a few weeks after the shocking events that unfolded at the Capitol in Washington, leading to the second impeachment of Donald Trump. The purpose of this discussion was to capture an honest debate about the terrifying power of hate speech: racist words intended to harm, demean, lambast, humiliate, hurt, vilify, marginalize, taunt, mock, or ridicule some individual or group on the basis of their biologically- and/or socially-determined characteristics – that is, for reasons beyond people’s control or choice – and which often act as an incitement to violence.

Even when social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram) decide to take action, deactivating pages, profiles and channels, various questions still arise. Did they wait too long to take action? Are they limiting the free exchange of ideas in ways that open a can of worms? How are decisions taken on what the right reaction might be in each instance? When? And by whom? At the end of the day, how transparent and democratic are the control mechanisms currently in use in the digital public realm?

Social media is not to blame for the rise in fascism around the world, or for the extensive voicing of divisive rhetoric by political leaders. Hate speech may not have first appeared in tandem with the booming expansion of social media in the ’00s, but such platforms have acted as an unprecedented amplification tool – hosting and spreading hate speech, and transforming it into an opportunity for the ongoing polarization of any issue, with truth and dialog being the clearest casualties. First to be targeted were members of minority groups, who suffered coordinated online bullying at incalculable cost: everything from personal stigma and psychological repercussions to coordinated incitements to violence, leading to concerted attacks and even the loss of life. Stereotypical notions of gender and the body, homophobia, xenophobia, antisemitism, the vilification of diversity – hatred in all its forms, spread across the Internet at a magnitude that is often hard to perceive, tarnishing reputations and harming society. Alongside hate speech, the online world has also provided fertile ground (i.e. an audience) for conspiracy theories, deepening our inability to understand one another, bolstering extremism, and distancing all public debate from principles of reasoned speech.

It is important to look at what is set out in law, and how legal frameworks have been updated to include online realities and experiences. It is, of course, vital to hear from the victims of hate speech, for them to explain its mechanisms to us, the price people pay for standing up to it, and the strategies they follow in doing so. And, at long last, we need to talk about algorithms: about how and whether social media platforms encourage polarization, or benefit from hate (qualifying it as “engagement”); about the need for such algorithms to be adjusted, and the ways in which this might happen. And it’s clear that we have a duty to set limits. How far does the protection of political correctness extend, and at which point does mob mentality begin? What exactly does “freedom of expression” mean, and what are the dividing lines between political correctness and (self-)censorship, both in public discourse and in the arts?

The ways in which we talk about things has changed in the digital age, but have not yet been fixed. Social networking is now a public arena that allows for mass access to the public discourse, shaping political developments; concurrently, it also constitutes a battlefield for social and ideological – and at times even interpersonal – change and debate. Will we find and vent the safety valves necessary to protect one of the greatest achievements of human civilization? That is, the right to impartial dialogue, to freedom of speech and opinion – a right which does not victimize, but rather protects the powerless.

With:

Byron Theodoropoulos, Stand-up Comedian
Xenia Kounalaki, Journalist and Author
Vasilis Bibas, Social Media Manager, Onassis Foundation
Konstantinos Tsachalos aka Tsach, Content Creator
Myrto Tsilimpounidi, Social Researcher, Photographer, member of the Feminist Autonomous Centre for Research
Dimitris Christopoulos, Professor of State and Legal Theory at the Department of Political Science and History, Panteion University, Athens
Sofia Ntonti aka Black Velour, YouTuber

Moderator: Panagiotis Menegos

Curation: Pasqua Vorgia, Dimitris Theodoropoulos, Panagiotis Menegos, Maritina Papamitrou
Heads of Production: Pasqua Vorgia, Smaragda Dogani
Filming and audiovisual materials overseen by Christos Sarris

Filming and Editing: ALASKA
Line Production: Irilena Tsami

An Onassis Stegi production
In collaboration with the Hellenic League for Human Rights

With subtitles in Greek and English